India’s plan to allow Wal-Mart, Tesco, other foreign supermarkets wins Parliament backing


Indian Minister of Urban Development Kamal Nath (center) talks to media after coming out of the Indian parliament in New Delhi on Dec. 7, 2012. (STR/EPA)

The Indian government won an important symbolic victory Friday, securing Parliament’s backing for its decision to allow in foreign supermarkets such as Wal-Mart and Britain’s Tesco.

The vote will boost morale within the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as it strives to push through reforms to reinvigorate India’s flagging economy and reduce a bloated fiscal deficit. It also makes it more likely the fragile coalition will survive its full term, until 2014.

It was a two-stage victory for the government, winning votes in the lower house Wednesday and in the upper house Friday, after four days of acrimonious debate and considerable behind-the-scenes horse-trading.

“This is a victory for more reforms,” Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath told reporters shortly after the vote, adding that it clears the way for bills to allow more foreign investment in financial services to be introduced in Parliament.

Although the votes were nonbinding, defeat would have raised pressure on the government to roll back its decision to allow foreign direct investment in department stores and supermarkets, a move that has attracted significant opposition from small shopkeepers, who dominate retailing here.

The government’s hand is strengthened as it seeks to allow more foreign investment in pensions and insurance sectors, but it will need to do more cajoling of reluctant coalition partners and other fence sitters to get either bill passed.

Time is also running out in this session of Parliament; only nine business days remain, and not a single bill has passed. The retail debate ate up a large chunk of the proceedings.

During the debate, opposition parties said the entry of Wal-Mart and other big retailers would put India’s vast network of neighborhood stores out of business, raise unemployment and lead to a flood of cheap imports from China.

Some speakers asked whether the reforms instituted in India since 1991 had benefited the nation, while others asked whether the entry of companies such as McDonald’s and Pepsi had helped or harmed farmers in India. Parallels were drawn with the British East India Co. and the exploitation of Indian workers under colonial rule.

“You would eventually have stores owned by the Americans, the French and the British selling Chinese products,” said Arun Jaitley, leader of the Hindu nationalist opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the upper house. “Our children would be employed as sales boys and sales girls.”

The government contended that foreign investment in supermarkets and cold-storage warehouses would raise prices paid to farmers and increase choice for consumers, as well as cut down on the huge proportion of produce that is wasted on its journey from the field to the table.

But victory had as much to do with political management of the coalition as it did with ideological differences, political analysts said.

Some parties said they disagreed with the decision to expand foreign investment in the retail sector but walked out of Parliament before the vote rather than side with the BJP.

Even the two main parties, Congress and the BJP, have swapped sides over the issue in the past decade, depending on whether they were in government or in the opposition.

“It reflects the state of much of Indian politics,” said Vinod Mehta, editorial chairman of Outlook magazine. “The way the parties changed their mind . . . it’s all a lot of theater.”

The BJP alleged that the government had threatened to pursue corruption charges against leaders of small parties if they voted against foreign investment. Analysts said some parties with significant levels of Muslim support also appeared reluctant to side with the Hindu nationalist opposition.

The outcome is good news for the government as it tries to keep its unruly coalition together during the remainder of its term.

Mehta said any additional moves to liberalize India’s economy under this government would probably be balanced by further, more “populist” efforts to expand social welfare plans in the countdown to the 2014 elections.

Opening the door to Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers is unlikely to make as much of a difference to India’s economy as either side claimed in the debate, economists said. Much more important would be administrative reforms to clear away the bottlenecks to domestic investment, including a maze of environmental clearances required for many projects, the slow pace of government decision making, and huge problems in displacing people to acquire land.

“There is a bit of unwarranted euphoria being conveyed over the reforms push,” said Bibek Debroy, a professor at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, adding that he saw nothing on the horizon to push economic growth significantly higher.

The decision to allow in foreign retailers will be left to individual states, and many have said they will not give permission. Foreign investment will be limited to 51 percent, and stores will be allowed only in larger cities.

Suhasini Raj contributed to this report.

Simon Denyer is The Post’s bureau chief in China. He served previously as bureau chief in India and as a Reuters bureau chief in Washington, India and Pakistan.

world

asia_pacific

Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Comments
Show Comments

Sign up for email updates from the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

You have signed up for the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

Thank you for signing up
You'll receive e-mail when new stories are published in this series.
Most Read World

world

asia_pacific

Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters