And You Are Wrong Again, Mr. Mehta
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Even for this blogger, who has grown used to Vinod Mehta’s ideological biases and leaps in logic, his latest Delhi Diary column is surprising to say the least. Reading it, one gets the distinct impression that Mr. Mehta has given up all pretensions of being neutral and has anointed himself as the spokesperson of the Congress party, more specifically of Sonia Gandhi.
Recently, Sonia Gandhi wrote a letter to the Prime Minister cautioning him against allowing foreign direct investment in the retail sector. As it usually happens, the said letter was promptly leaked to the press as a sign of Mrs. Gandhi’s concern for the poor. Mr. Mehta defends this grand gesture thusly,
I do not wish to second-guess Mrs Gandhi’s mind, but it seems to me there is a pretty straightforward and valid explanation for the leak of the letter. Having conveyed to Dr Manmohan Singh her position (which is not about why fdi in retail but how), she also needed to convey to her party that she was seized of the problem and engaged in course correction. All with a view to reassure the Congress that there would be no reckless and instant opening up of the retail trade. Her exertions were at once morally sound and politically shrewd.
Never mind leaking such letters undermines the office of the Prime Minister. Never mind if Mrs. Gandhi’s action tantamounts to back seat driving-power without responsibility. Never mind that Mrs. Gandhi’s concern is not founded on sound economic principles but is based solely on populism. Never mind that this is hardly the first time such letters have been leaked.
If all Mrs. Gandhi wanted to do was to convey her concern, she could have released an open letter! But such transparency is beyond our political class and certainly beneath the dignity of the Gandhi-Nehru family which has thrived on kitchen cabinets and such like. But such details escape the notice of Mr. Mehta. Certainly, such subterfuge would have pride of place in nations from where Mr. Mehta draws his inspiration, but it should have no place in an open and democratic India. That much of our political class thrives on such opaque behavior is bad enough, what is worse is that people like Mr. Mehta are ready to defend them, provided the ‘correct” people are behind it.
Mr. Mehta also labels those who advocate FDI in retail as ‘FDI Ayatollahs’ who have no concern for the ‘other India’
After all, 97 per cent of all purchases in India are made in small or medium-sized shops. The people currently employed cannot be left at the mercy of Wal-Mart and Starbucks; …and if populist means looking after those who don’t shop in posh Khan Market, I say three cheers![link]
Mr. Mehta’s logic is spurious, self-serving and contradictory. First, just because a certain % of sales occur in mom-n-pop stores doesn’t mean that it is the ideal solution-it simply signifies a lack of alternatives. By Mr. Mehta’s logic, no sector of Indian economy should have been opened since the economy has always been dominated by monopolies, which by their very nature hate competition. Second, Mr. Mehta and his ilk have failed to explain why is it prudent to allow Indian corporate houses to invest in retail but not Walmarts. and Starbucks? Won’t the large Indian corporate houses cut into sales of the mom-n-pop stores?
How incorrect is Mr. Mehta’s argument is clear from his reference to ‘those who shop at Khan Market’. By all means, public policy should not be driven by the rich, but if only the rich will shift to Walmart, then what is Mr. Mehta’s worry? Rest of India can continue to shop from mom-n-pop stores and this will keep them in business. The crucial argument which has been consistently and deliberately omitted from the whole FDI debate is that Walmart will offer huge savings and hence will attract customers from every section of the society. The argument against allowing FDI in retail is not pro-poor but the it’s eaxct opposite-anti-poor. They are being deprived of choice and potential savings in the name of saving jobs when such sacrifices will only perpetuate poverty.
Vinod Mehta is very fond of telling Outlook’s story-how in a short duration of ten years, it has risen from a small publication to one of India’s most popular news magazines. But what if Outlook had been denied a chance to start a new magazine?
One wonders, if Mr. Mehta would have argued that it makes sense because 97% of India reads India Today!
