The Indian parliament seems to be in a state of gridlock again. Every time there seems to be an important policy issue on the table, the political players choose rancor over sanity and extortion over unanimity. The Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) bill in the retail sector is similar in magnitude to the disinvestment policy of the late 90's by all means, in that it hopes to open up the largely unregulated Indian retail sector to foreign chains like Walmart and Ikea, with benefit going to the government coffers and the consumer. Inevitably, the producer would be stuck in the middle, and while the Indian farmers are already burdened with middlemen and procurement failures, the entry of a global behemoth that has the cash and muscle to outrace the competition would indeed complicate the already tangled web of field-to-store delivery.
It is therefore a subject that requires serious deliberation on part of every citizen and politician alike. The concerns of mom-and-pop shop owners are legitimate. Considering how much of the American retail market is dominated by chains like Walmart and Fry's, it is not impossible to imagine serious consequences for small shop owners, especially in the big cities and metros where these retail chains are expected to being operations first. However, one cannot deny the job creation and infrastructural benefits that will accrue once these stores start running their functions. And there can be enough check and balances built into the system so that no one feels cheated, and small business owners can thrive side-by-side with the behemoths. That would require raising issues and finding their solutions one at a time, which doesn't seem to be happening right now.
The discussion on the FDI bill, expectedly, tuned into a free-for-all. There were moments of substance though, as the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha rightly addressed the current state of the Indian democracy as 'one of numbers' rather than 'one of trust'. Similarly, the Minister for Commerce tried to lob the ball back into the BJP's court and demanded why the once pre-reform party was reneging on its promise to invite foreign investment in the retail sector. The most annoying incident however was reserved for the climax. As the parliamentarians got down to vote, the two principal faux-opposition parties, the SP & the BSP, both trotting their socialist and secular credentials, decided to walk out altogether. The motion against the bill's passage was dead there and then. The government secured a 'victory', while the opposition was left staring at their fractured unity.
This is not the first instance of a walkout affecting the passage of a bill or a discussion in the parliament. Typically, it is a face-saving notion, where the failure to amass numbers by the opposition is drowned out by its PR managers outside the house. However, considering the significance of the FDI bill, the events surrounding this walkout demand some questions. Both of these parties are staunch enemies, and even at a personal level, yet support the same central government whose policies they detest at times. Leaders of both parties cried hoarse over the perceived loss business to the small shop owners. Co-incidentally, they also support the central coalition from the 'outside', which in simple words means that they can ask for favors without getting their hands dirty with the government's laundry. Could they have gotten a better occasion to make their displeasure at the government's proposal more clear? Could they have gotten a better occasion to state which side of the aisle they stand on policy decisions? This walkout didn't help anybody, not least the Indian public. When people say that politics is a dirty business, behavior of this kind is what they often refer to. Walking out of the parliament before a vote is akin to walking out of an exam without even attempting it- it helps nobody involved.
Should the legislators look at this problem more seriously, and make it compulsory for every elected member to vote on crucial policy decisions? Why not? We elect them to participate in polity, not be an absentee and sit outside the house. Indian parliamentarians are notorious for the marginal number of working days they put in (check out the statistics). They draw a hefty paycheck, yet participate close to negligible in the day-to-day affairs of the parliament. It is about time we bring in some systemic change in the way business is handled in the capital, so that democracy can go back to 'one of trust' from 'one of numbers'. That is the least we can demand!
PS: Always a good time to revisit Yes, Prime Minister.
