As Congress trumps BJP.... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/December 09, 2012

As Congress trumps BJP in Parliament, nation gets a taste of sordid politics to come

The parliamentary debate on FDI in retail was expected to be a trend-setting duel between mighty minds. Leaders from 40-odd parties were meant to assert their ideological support or opposition to the government’s move to open Indian retail to marketers from abroad. But at the end of over 20 hours of debate in both houses of Parliament, none of the 56 speakers made any new point or revelation which a primary student of Indian politics and economics does not already know—it was like reissuing an old book with a new jacket, while retaining its old title. Even the main protagonists, who had made similar arguments during the last discussion on FDI few months ago, were the same.

Yet, both the BJP and the Congress were able to deliver their political messages loud and clear. It was almost after two years that the UPA could assert its authority to legislate. Meanwhile, the BJP established the minority character of the government as one holding on to power only by manipulating contradictions in Opposition ranks. It was also evident that instead of a visible dogma driving the political spectrum, some invisible and undefined ideological power was playing an important role in the FDI debate. How  else can one explain the conduct of over a dozen MPs who were elected on the tickets of parties opposed to FDI? They either abstained or voted with the ruling party. For example, all those with corporate connections were ideologically convinced that FDI was beneficial for the nation. Both Rajeev Chandrasekhar, former telecom tycoon and now a media mogul, and Vijay Mallya voted with the Congress, although they won their Rajya Sabha seats from Karnataka with the help of the BJP and the Janata Dal (S). Rajkumar Dhoot, Shiv Sena member from Maharashtra and a promoter of the Videocon group, abstained. Six of the seven independent MPs also voted against the motion. Three members of the TDP, including its leader, deputy leader and chief whip—with direct or indirect corporate interests—abstained from voting in the Rajya Sabha while two of its five Lok Sabha MPs voted with the Opposition. 

Except for the exceptional floor management by Manmohan Singh, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath, Commerce Minister Anand Sharma and backroom operators, the government and the Opposition wasted Parliament’s time, making vicious mutual attacks. Normally a loner, the Prime Minister himself contacted some non-Congress MPs to convince them about the merits and importance of FDI.

Otherwise, it was a flop show. At the end of the confrontationist and offensive discussion, neither the nation nor the middle-level workers in various sectors were better informed on the issue. The speakers indulged in hype and swipe rather than on the gains and pains of the sudden transition from a fully protected mom and pop store retail system in small towns to megamalls. The outcome of the whole exercise was never in doubt. The moment the government chose to call the BJP’s bluff by accepting the discussion, which required voting in both the Houses, it was clear that it had managed a comfortable majority. Only a political novice would have thought that caste- and community-based parties like the Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party or Rashtriya Lok Dal would vote against the ruling alliance. All of them are fully aware of the ground reality that they win elections thanks to caste loyalties and not on economic issues like the entry of the much-demonised Wal-Mart into India. Ironically, Maya, Mulayam and Lalu spoke against the unrestricted entry of FDI.

While Lalu has been consistently supporting the government’s every legislative move, both Mulayam and Maya have saved the UPA in the past only after striking significant political deals and getting financial packages for their states. If the debate was meant to influence the outcome of the future elections, none of the parties stood to gain from their posturing in Parliament. Those who have convinced themselves that it is the stance of a political party on issues such as nuclear energy, economic reforms or FDI that gets it votes, have forgotten the massive electoral mauling the Congress received in 1989 and in 1996; the father of economic reforms, P V Narasimha Rao, was at the helm of the government and Manmohan Singh was its most visible reformer. The Congress could win in 2004 because of the sheer arrogance of a few BJP leaders who treated NDA allies like political plague. It won both the 2004 and 2009 elections because its leadership had mastered the art of coalition and could accommodate even its fiercest rivals. The Congress pulled down the Deve Gowda government in 1997 because the DMK—one of his coalition partners—was suspect in the eyes of the Jain Commission in the Rajiv assassination. In 2004, however, it welcomed the Dravidian party into its fold. Even the sins of Sharad Pawar, who had quit the Congress on the issue of Sonia’s foreign origins were forgiven; he was given a place of pride in the government, and that too on his own terms.

On the other hand, whenever all the anti-Congress forces, including the Left and BJP, have joined hands, the Congress has suffered a crushing defeat. This time, it won the battle in Parliament because the entire non-Congress opposition was united in heart, but divided physically. Unfortunately, the next government would be formed not through ideological alliances but by striking attractive deals with potential coalition partners.

Prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me  on Twitter @PrabwhuChawla

Do you want a wall around India? Anand Sharma on Teekhi Baat / IBN7/ September 29, 2012

“Do you want a wall around India? 

There is no question of  going back on FDI in multi-brand retail, Union Commerce and Industries minister Anand Sharma  says on  Teekhi Baat on IBN7.

Till now, economic reforms were in cold storage. Suddenly, there is a rush of energy. Earlier you launched the manufacturing policy, now this. Didn’t you worry that that the government could fall?

The people, especially the young, have expectations from the government. We created the national manufacturing policy keeping the future in mind. India will be transformed in the coming decades; 20 crore youth will join the work force before 2025 and fresh employment opportunities will come from manufacturing.

Why didn’t you do this a year ago? 

There was opposition to the manufacturing policy too. When VAT was implemented in the country, it started from one state. Then three more states came on board and later more got added. Here too, we have left the implementation of the FDI decision to the states. In any case, which decision in India, or for that matter in the world, gets taken with all in agreement with it?

If that’s the principle, why don’t you give states a deciding authority in forest policy and environment too?

The states already have a right, as per Schedule B and C.

But no new unit can be set up in any state till the Central ministry gives it forest clearance?

It is dependent on size, but the recommendation is of the state.

There is already 100 per cent FDI in cold storage?

Yes. But if you don’t open the front end, why will anybody come? They will not set up shop till they get a share in the front end.

So you will not reverse your policy?

The question doesn’t arise. The decision has been taken and it is a final decision.

Good economics is bad politics many times.

The government should understand the need and expectations of the country. Today, you are the world number two in the production of pulses, fruits and vegetables. But the farmer does not get the price of his efforts, 35-40 per cent of fruits and vegetables perish before reaching the mandi, bazaar or kitchen. The farmer gets Rs 3 for a vegetable, you buy it in Delhi for Rs 25. Tell me, don’t you want foreign exchange, don’t you want foreign investment? Will India build a wall on all sides and say we will not allow any outsider in?

So you are confident?

Regarding the dying of small shops and kirana due to FDI, I’d like to say it’s false propaganda. We have kept provisions from the wholesale and cash and carry point. The global retailers will not open in the gullies where there are mom-and-pop stores. But they will sell to the small shop-owner. So he will benefit too.

But how will this affect your political  image? Can good policies co-exist with politics?

If anybody does politics by ruining the country’s economy, then it would be really unfortunate. We do politics in the interest of the nation.

No-we-Can't ... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/September 23, 2012

No-we-can’t (grow money on trees) Manmohan tune won't work

Crisis creates leaders. But there are few leaders who create crises and land themselves in it. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has acquired the unique distinction of creating many a crisis. When all was going well for the ruling party, his government was caught first in the Coalgate mess, and later in the wrongly timed tornado of economic reforms. Last week, he spoke from the heart about his agonising responsibility as the Prime Minister for about 20 minutes. Since it was his first address to the nation since 2009 (barring the routine Independence Day speech), the whole country was glued to TV screens. Manmohan’s admirers and global promoters were hoping he would reassert and rediscover himself. They expected him to say: “Yes, we can, we have and we shall deliver.” But when he finished his speech, more questions were raised about his political authority and future vision for change. His resolve to go down fighting was conspicuous by its absence. His tendency to take risks, however, was quite visible. Quite predictably, he won bouquets from Corporate India—his natural constituency—but brickbats from the alienated political constituency of middle and lower middle class India. He was expected to lead with prime ministerial elan. Instead, he ended up parroting the same palliatives and prescriptions which were earlier being trotted out by his erudite and articulate ministerial colleagues.

Manmohan’s economics was right but his equations were wrong. Since he spoke in Hindi, his speech was meant to score a political point. He justified the massive rise in diesel prices because “money doesn’t grow on trees”—a phrase normally used by mediocre politicians. Eyebrows were raised because public expenditure has grown due to the expansion of the government, massive concessions to India Inc, the allotment of natural resources to the private sector, runaway prices and the government’s reluctance to tax the rich and mighty. Manmohan’s political rivals have challenged his contention that diesel prices were raised to prevent users of luxury vehicles from taking advantage of the subsidy. They assert that the Prime Minister conveniently forgot that diesel is the major fuel for farmers to run water pumps, tractors and even power. Over 90 per cent of it is consumed by rural India, the public transport system and power generators so that smaller towns and villages can survive. In spite of the UPA regime adding a record 50,000 MW power generation capacity, more than three-fourths of India gets power for less than eight hours per day. Most of these moribund power plants are sick testimonies to the failure of the leadership to ensure proper coal and gas linkages for generation of electricity. As a result, banks have accumulated huge, dubious loans and the nation has been deprived of power, which could have been a source of massive income and employment for the country.

But the beauty of statistical narration is that it can tell two contradictory stories at the same time. Being an economist, the Prime Minister used numbers to numb his opponents. But they recovered to throw another set of figures back to prove his economics irrelevant. It was clear from the confrontationist political discourse that the Prime Minister and his advisers haven’t learnt the art of creating a consensus even on good economics. The government hasn’t treated its allies with the respect they deserve. The Trinamool Congress made it clear that it wasn’t consulted on any of the latest policy issues. The Coordination Committee was revived under pressure from Sharad Pawar to resolve contentious matters. Being a loner, the Prime Minister hardly meets political leaders—from other parties or his own—to discuss and get feedback on various subjects. The usual convention of meeting MPs in groups during Parliament sessions has become a rarity. Some senior Congress leaders feel that Manmohan could have taken the initiative to open a dialogue with all the stakeholders and convince them of his roadmap for economic recovery. He could have called meetings of all the chief ministers, leaders of all political parties and even prominent policy-makers to explain his compulsions. Such an exercise would have given powerful ammunition to be used against his opponents.

Unfortunately, even after more than eight years in office, the Prime Minister hasn’t evolved into a consensus builder, which is an essential condition to successfully lead a coalition government. With his hard stand on questionable reforms, not only has he lost an ally, it has also led to another round of deal-makings and concessions to “win over new friends”. The Congress can’t retain power until 2014 by following Manmohan’s economic agenda and retaining its allies at the same time. To ensure a semblance of stability, the party will have to compromise on policies or face the elections earlier. It is no longer in a position to have its cake and eat it, and that too alone.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow him on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

A Good Report... /Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/September 16, 2012

A good report in New York won’t necessarily ensure victory in New Delhi

Excess is bad. Excessive romance with reforms is turning out be worse. During the past two decades, money-minded market movers have not only defined the politics of economics, but also dictated the narrative of governance. For them, it is conspicuous consumption and visible economic power, and not eradication of poverty, that are real growth symbols. They feel that our elected representatives always abhor good economics because it is bad politics. It is only in India that bookworms-turned-economists decide the definition of good politics and pompously prescribe prescriptions for economic revival. They are determined to destroy the concept of a welfare state which strikes a balance between liberalisation and the equitable distribution of prosperity.

Last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh finally woke up from his deep slumber to prove his Cassandras wrong. Within 48 hours, he approved FDI in retail, foreign investment in aviation and disinvestment in profitable PSUs. This came immediately after a massive rise in diesel prices and the rationing of subsidised LPGs. All these proposals had been pending with him for the past two years. But he had refused to move. When he finally did, it was mainly to counter the foreign media’s acerbic attacks and to influence rating agencies. His brave words of wisdom were meant less to dispel the impression of an underperformer or a leader of a paralysed government and more to do with keeping his foreign, and not domestic, constituency in good humour. Unfortunately, unlike his many predecessors, including Indira Gandhi who treated motivated foreign opinion-makers with the contempt they deserved, Manmohan and his team start shivering when confronted with any scathing attack from the non-voting classes based in India and abroad. According to senior Congress leaders, many ministers believe that Team Manmohan is convinced that a successful flirtation with New York will ensure victory in New Delhi for him and the Congress.

But his emphasis was once again on good economics which was perceived as bad politics, not only by a large section of his own party but even by his powerful allies. Unlike in the past, the Congress party is totally isolated on an issue which should have been seen as a step in the right direction. It is another story that the Prime Minister was pushed by aggressive New Age reformers like Commerce Minister Anand Sharma to bite the bullet. But the packaging of the revived reforms also reignited the ongoing war between good economics and good politics. Big Bang Friday was yet another example of the Prime Minister taking the right decisions at the wrong time. Plagued with a rising fiscal deficit, the government is left with no other option but to tighten its belt and rationalise subsidies. Since the past few years, UPA II has been forced to announce various welfare schemes that take away over 20 per cent of its revenue. It has also been forced to be liberal with the corporate sector, which has hugely benefitted from massive tax concessions. The government has forgone revenue of over `5 lakh crore as dole to India Inc. This growing profligacy is eroding the government’s credibility. During the past eight years, the government hasn’t shown any serious concerns about the rising cost of governance. The nation is being governed by the largest-ever Cabinet since Independence. In addition, the Prime Minister has accommodated two dozen fellow travellers from the corporate sector and retired civil servants by giving them Cabinet status. In the name of protecting consumer interests, a large number of regulatory institutions have been established which have added more to the woes of the same people they are expected to protect. New departments, commissions, panels and expert groups have been created to advise the government on various issues which haven’t been resolved.

Unfortunately, huge monetary concessions to the corporate sector have been termed as good economics. Here lies the total disconnect between good politics and good economics. Our reform-minded politicians have failed to conceive a framework of good politics which leads to correct economic decisions. Since the only objective of our politicians is to retain power at any cost, they would also like to make their electoral constituency rich and educated. Investment in education, health, rural connectivity, drainage systems and agro-industry can turn good politics into better economics. It will spur demand, and also help the local political leader to encourage crony capitalism at the village level. Chief ministers like Narendra Modi, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Sheila Dikshit, Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Oommen Chandy have resorted to the good politics of inclusive growth by encouraging domestic investment in core sectors to generate employment. They have invented schemes that make good economic sense and rewarding politics. They have won repeated mandates not because they were fighting for FIIs and endorsement from the Pink papers. They had devised an agenda, which included little for the rich and more for the poor and the middle class. All these states have registered high GDP growth in which the social and infrastructure sector has made huge contributions. Even the Congress leadership has realised that it can’t allow good economics to replace good politics. The Congress dilemma would be to find a Vishnugupta who can play both Chanakya and Kautilya to prove a good politician can also be a good economist and not vice-versa.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

A Coalition Dharma .... /The Sunday Standard/ December 11, 2011

POWER & POLITICS

A Coalition dharma that Undercuts Cabinet is Bad News Indeed for PM

Once upon a time, India’s destiny was decided in Calcutta when it became the capital of British-controlled India in 1772. Calcutta, as Kolkata was called then, was the seat of the Governor General of India whose writ ran large over all Indian princely states, small and big. In 1911, better sense prevailed and King George V decided to move the capital to Delhi, as it was not merely surrounded by faithful royalty but was also conveniently connected with the rest of the country. Like all of British India, Kolkata too started receiving instructions and directions from Delhi. Almost 100 years later, Kolkata’s present ruler is now talking like the Governor General of India. And after 66 years of Independence, Kolkata is once again deciding the future of the country. History has come full circle.

It was West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee who first announced the Union government’s decision to suspend FDI in retail trade. Her emphatic revelation came after a telephonic conversation with Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee. He refused to go public on his private conversation. In Parliament three days later, he lamely repeated the decision Banerjee had announced earlier to the thumping majority of both treasury and Opposition benches. A couple of days earlier, the same finance minister had scolded Dinesh Trivedi, Union Railway Minister and Trinamool Congress leader, for opposing the Government’s decision on FDI. Mukherjee even gave him a few lessons on the functioning and sanctity of the Cabinet, after which the TMC minister made a hurried exit from the Cabinet meeting.

The Mamata Mantra of dictating the discourse of coalition politics reflects the growing erosion of the institutions of both the Union Cabinet and the Prime Minister. Rarely is a Cabinet decision reversed or kept in abeyance by a government faced with an ally issuing public threats. Last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh found it humiliating to explain his about-turn on FDI to the same Cabinet in which he and Mukherjee had bulldozed and silenced every dissenting voice. It was Manmohan’s Faustus moment. His own party and Cabinet did not fully stand behind him. His allies were defiant instead of being deferential. Prananbda, the permanent prime minister-in-waiting, dropped a bombshell at the Congress Parliamentary Party meeting when he admitted that if the FDI decision wasn’t reversed, a mid-term poll would be inevitable—implying the Government had lost its majority in the House. Both Sonia and Manmohan remained silent listeners to Pranabda’s lament. Rahul Gandhi was invisible by his silence on an issue that threatened the very survival of the Government. The Congress could no longer take for granted its artificial and opportunistic majority in the Lok Sabha.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has faced strong opposition to his policies from UPA allies. During UPA I, the CPI(M) prevented Manmohan from taking many crucial decisions, but it rarely forced the Government to reverse or hold any Cabinet decision. The Left parties never spoke on behalf of the Government either. However, it is not just the Prime Minister’s authority and acceptability that has been eroded. During the past few months, iconic ministers like Home Minister P Chidambaram, Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal, forgetful External Affairs Minister S M Krishna, over-enthusiastic reformer Anand Sharma and an experienced Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar have either been sidelined or are facing Opposition ire on one issue or the other. If the home minister is boycotted in Parliament; if the foreign minister, against whom an FIR has been lodged, forgets to read the correct speech; if a senior minister resigns from the Cabinet panel because of opposition from a social activist, the entire Cabinet loses relevance and purpose. No wonder, the attendance in the 34-member Union Cabinet is down by 60 to 70 per cent, with many ministers staying away even from crucial meetings. The Congress swears by coalition dharma but it hardly takes any of the ministers into confidence before taking crucial economic or political decisions. Even within the party, ever since its President Sonia Gandhi fell sick, complete absence of participative democracy prevails. Its five-member core committee does meet often to resolve one crisis after another, but the UPA itself has hardly met in the past two years to take stock of its plummeting popularity and ailing government. It is no more possible for New Delhi to tell others to fall in line or fall aside. Now it is Kolkata or Chennai who writes on the wall. If the Prime Minister and the Congress president refuse to read it, they always land up in big trouble.
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Manmohan Needs to Get his Economics Right/The Sunday Standard/Dec. 04, 2011

POWER & POLITICS
Manmohan Needs to Get His Economics Right, Pranab His Politics

While politicians make promises, economists make predictions. For the former, promises are meant to be forgotten. Economists change their predictions and blame others for getting it wrong. For the past few months, our economist-turned-politician Prime Minister has been changing his economic forecasts too often and getting it wrong most of the time. On the other hand, our politician-turned-economist Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee is conveniently forgetting his promises to reverse the inflationary trend and tame the rising fiscal deficit. Both have little in common. But they never give up and continue to build castles in sand.

After sticking to their rosy India growth story for the past few months, reality seems to have dawned suddenly. Last week, Pranabda admitted there is something rotten in the state of Indian economy. His most painful confession was that India’s GDP wouldn’t grow beyond 7.5 per cent, as against his earlier prediction of 9 per cent. Only a few months ago, both the Prime Minister and the finance minister have been telling the nation that the country is poised for massive growth, in spite of global recession. During the last Budget Session of the Lok Sabha, the Prime Minister announced to the thumping of the tables by the treasury benches, that India would achieve at least 9 per cent growth. Later on, during his recent visit to Kolkata, he stuck to his prediction. “Since we have already achieved about 8.2 per cent in the 11th plan period, it may seem that a transition to 9 per cent growth is not difficult,” Manmohan said during his speech at the golden jubilee of the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta. Now we are hearing a different tune. Addressing a meeting last week in New Delhi, Mukherjee said, “We can not expect we can reach a high growth rate of 9 per cent overnight. We will to live with relatively moderate growth rate this year, and next year we may try to improve it higher.” He went on to caution that “in the short and the medium-term, we will have to emphasise on the strategy of domestic demand-driven growth”.

For the first time, the fact that Indian economy was being driven by external demand became official. As the rest of the world heads towards economic disaster, the weak foundations of our domestic economic policies stand exposed. In a country like India, where public borrowing accounts for over 70 per cent of the GDP—the highest among BRIC countries—expecting domestic demand to ignite economic recovery is highly unwise. Pranab has conveniently forgotten that his Government’s reform menu has proved conventional economic theory wrong. Contrary to accepted models of development, a developing and predominantly rural economy like India is highly dependent on services for generating every second rupee of its income. Over 55 per cent of India’s GDP comes from the services sector, which provides only 34 per cent employment. On the other hand, every second job is still provided by the traditional agriculture sector that accounts for only 14 per cent of the GDP.

Frankly, all the economic reforms so far are meant to give income, power and glamour to those who know how to use a mouse, drive high-end automobiles or fly in chartered aircraft. For the past two decades, mouse-driven growth has created tiny islands of prosperity surrounded by a massive sea of poverty and unemployment. The Government’s fiscal and the monetary policies are aimed at making the rich richer and the poor, poorer. With ostentatious upper middle class demand peaking, it is only the rise of the poor and the middle class that can save the sinking manufacturing sector. No amount of social funding like MGNREGA or writing off farmers’ loans can generate a permanent demand for goods and services. Government schemes should lead to creating permanent, productive assets and not convert a healthy workforce into beggars heavily dependent on Government doles. An ideal combination of good economics and better politics would mean pruning the size of a bloated bureaucracy and political establishment, dismantling the pro-corporate official mindset and launching massive labour-intensive development projects. If the Government’s only mandate is to facilitate highly lucrative nuclear energy commerce and FDI in retail trade in India, the economy is bound to take a plunge in the long run. If only the leadership had spent half the time in resolving intra-state issues on infrastructure development than what it has spent on managing the agitating poor in Koondakulam, the economy would have grown by that mythical number of 9 per cent. The time has come for the economist Prime Minister to revert to practical economics, and a political Finance Minister to prudent politics. Forgotten promises and wrong predictions only spell disaster in the long run.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Teekhi Baat with Anand Sharma/December 03, 2011/IBN7

"NOT AFRAID OF VOTE IN PARLIAMENT ON FDI ISSUE"

Commerce Minister Anand Sharma says that the decision to allow FDI in retail was well-thought out and that the UPA is not afraid of a division in Parliament. Excerpts from Teekhi Baat on IBN7:

Q: It seems you have become the Abhimanyu of the Congress, stuck in the retail FDI chakravyuh.

A: I have come out of chakravyuh. The chakravyuh is laid by people who don’t understand what is in the interest of the country’s farmers and consumers. This decision has been taken after a great deal of thought, not overnight.

Q: All political parties, including your allies except NCP and National Congress, gave a statement that this should not happen. Don’t they understand the benefits?

A: This is an enabling policy, it is the state governments’ decision to allow or disallow.

Q: Don’t you think you should have held consultations?

A: We have had discussions with every state in finalising the draft. I explained the whole background (to Trinamool chief Mamata Banerjee) that we are second in the world in food, fruits and vegetable production. And 40 per cent of produce is wasted because we don’t have the required infrastructure, cold storage, warehouses and very few cold storages. The farmer does not get the right price for his produce.

Q: Even then she did not agree?

A: She said that the conditions in West Bengal are different. We respected her thoughts. She said this will be at the discretion of the states, and you make this amply clear, because I will not allow this in West Bengal. This is in the enabling policy framework.

Q: What’s the policy worth if 25 of 30 states don’t implement it?

A: I don’t want to go into how the states will react.

Q: But the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee president, who was with you in Youth Congress has come out against it.

A: It is fine if they do not want it in Kerala. Even he is a part of our party. But I have a question: should the states who want this be left deprived? The BJP says they don’t want this in the states they rule. The same BJP was in in the NDA government which prepared a Cabinet note seeking 100 per cent (in retail) without any restriction or condition.

Q: They said that was in single brand.

A: No, it was multi-brand.

Q: It was made by Maran.

A: But Maran, a minister in the government, alone did not make it. In their 2004 manifesto, they had talked about 26 per cent. And there is an April 2004 interview of then finance minister Jaswant Singh, when he spoke about a strong decision and commitment.

Q: He said that he was speaking about single brand.

A: I don’t want to taunt anybody, but it is true that the BJP had a different line of thinking when they were in power.

Q: When Kamal Nath wanted to bring FDI in retail, the Congress president wrote to him to not hurry on the issue.

A: Discussions have been on for a long time. A consensus of all cannot be reached.

Q: But Parliament is the apex body of the country.

A: This is within the purview of the executive. There can be discussion in Parliament.

Q: Then what will happen if Parliament disapproves?

A: There will be no disapproval. Is there any precedent of policy being disapproved in Parliament? In 1985, there was tremendous opposition to Rajiv Gandhi when he talked of computerisation. In 1991, Dr Manmohan Singh was finance minister when the economy was opened up. It was then said that the whole country will become a slave, East India Company will be back again. Now Indian companies are buying companies abroad.

Q: Parliament has not functioned for 10 days.

A: The BJP has been stalling Parliament on some or the other issue. Advaniji went on a 38-day yatra over black money, and now he has forgotten the whole issue.

Q: It could be said that Anand Sharma played such a game that the issues of black money and Lokpal got forgotten.

A: I am happy that we have taken a step that has changed the political discourse in the country. Other people were setting agenda, but now the government has set the agenda by way of policy.

Q: Why do you fear to go to Parliament with this issue? Don’t you have a majority?

A: When there is a Cabinet decision and Parliament is on, it is the minister and government’s responsibility to keep the House informed, which we did. It is the MPs’ right to discuss the same, but the Opposition did not let the discussion happen.

Q: But what is wrong if adjournment has been demanded? Are you ready for a vote?

A: This is within the purview of the Speaker. I will not comment.

Q: But why do you fear an adjournment motion?

A: We are not afraid.

Q: But BJP and other opposition saying that it is ulta pulta alliance, and nobody knows who is with whom.

A: When the issue is placed before Parliament, it will be clear.

Q: The DMK and TMC are not with you?

A: This is what you think.

Q: They have said so.

A: They have some reservations but they will not go with the BJP and Left front, and against us.

Q: So you don’t think they will vote against you.

A: I don’t think any political instability will be created.

Q: Is the Congress with you? Sonia doesn’t say much; she leaves issues to the government.

A: It is our duty to give her information. Soniaji does not interfere in government’s functioning. She has said the interests of the small farmer and small businesses should be kept in mind. I will say that the provision of 30 per cent local sourcing was on her suggestion.

Q: You said that BJP said that there should be 100 per cent FDI in retail. You are the commerce minister; this should be on file. Maran did say it, but Cabinet rejected it.

A: But they put it in their 2004 manifesto.

Q: What about after 2004?

A: Their thinking has changed after they lost power.

Q: It is being said that the US depression means pressure has come on India to open up. It is being said the policy was announced after the Asean Summit at Bali, where Manmohan Singh met Obama.

A: The Cabinet note on the FDI issue had been initiated for completing inter-ministerial consultation in August, well before the Bali summit.

Q: So this charge is wrong.

A: Totally baseless, mischievous.

Q: Did you think you could lose the Uttar Pradesh elections on this issue.

A: There is no co-relation; we will not lose.

Q: Nobody objected to the manufacturing policy formulated on your watch, but allowing FDI in retail may mean people from outside will come and control our markets.

A: When single brand retail was allowed, it was said local supermarkets would be hit hard.

Q: But some Indian brands were affected.

A: That is business. Some businesses grow strong, and some go weak. It will be wrong to link policy with the same.

Q: Will you revise the proportion of locally sourced goods to 45 per cent?

A 30 per cent is the minimum.

Q: So will you revise it?.

A: Let us see how the policy is implemented and the benefits that follow.

Q: Will you roll this decision back under any circumstance?

A: I don’t like the word rollback.

Q: Will you make some changes then?

A: There are safeguards built into the policy.

Q: So it is written on stone.

A: It is not a matter of being written on stone, it has been done in consultation with all.

Q: So there is no scope of any changes in this.

A: Like I said, this has been thought over and framed. This has not been framed with eyes closed.