Media fighting shy over FDI in retail

The Indian media seems to have made it a habit to promote cacophony and frenzy in emerging political situations with little attempt to independently analyse the scenario. The FDI in retail decision is no different. While one heard positive things about it last week, this week has begun on a negative note with political parties doing an about turn and retail entities voicing “concerns” over the decision.  Amidst this yo-yo-ing, does the common man have scope to discover the real dangers (and potential benefits) of FDI in retail? Not if the manner of reporting on this issue continues.

 

There are three fundamental gaps in the media’s coverage of the issue. For starters, there is no independent analysis of the various opinions shared by politicians, industry bodies, and private parties. Almost every story is carefully crafted to include an opinion followed by three key reasons substantiating that opinion. The journalists seem to have been so busy collecting and appending these opinions that they did not have the time to question some of these points to elicit a reaction. If they did, those portions seem to have been too insignificant to include in the report. As a result, most stories now read like school essays containing a “pros” and “cons” section followed by a conclusion which is so generic that it could have been avoided. Some of the smarter reports have stopped with just propagating one opinion.

 

Is FDI in retail a new topic? No. Is there dearth of international material on what have been the consequences of such a move in other countries? No. A google search on ‘FDI in retail China’ showed that there has been a positive impact of opening up retail in China. There are several other documents such as this presentation that indicates how FDI in retail in India can be introduced in phases and how it will benefit all stakeholders. When there is such a wealth of information available, why are journalists sticking to clichés and not exploring all possibilities?

 

Is FDI in retail  a black- and- white issue? Do we have only two options – to accept it or reject it? Is there no third perspective that can suggest if this Bill can be modified to suit the interests of all stakeholders? While the political parties may foist their straight-jacketed views on journalists, don’t the latter get curious and seek a third alternative?

 

This is the second gap in reportage: The absence of a third view that seeks to consider all interests. If the government or any other entity has such a view, it has not been sought by the media. In a democracy there are multiple solutions to every issue as was evident by the Supreme Court’s decision on the Ayodhya case, which left just about everyone stumped. I am sure finding alternative solutions to FDI in retail (considering that this is hitherto untainted by religious colour) would be simpler. Talking to some retailers on how they want to tackle these fears of monopoly could have generated good ideas. Some suggestions on how the policy can be amended can include retailers tying up with Indian/ foreign infrastructure players to build the back end supply chain infrastructure; setting development benchmarks for the regions from where procurement happens (this will ensure that farmers are not cheated out of their produce); limiting retail outlets to those parts of cities and towns with relatively inadequate development (so as to improve that region); retailers hiring and training local people; and incentives for retailers supporting green practices.

 

The third gap noticed in coverage was the absence of people’s voice. Reports have hardly sought people’s opinions to develop an independent perspective on the issue. While I read about Anju from Jammu and how she is comfortable with the existing retail system, I did not read about how the current decision will impact (if at all) her retail experience. Her opinion on the decision is cursorily sought and tied to a common sentiment: “If something is working, why tear it apart?” What about talking to the urban Indian who has experienced malls and hypermarkets? Or those who have shopped abroad at Wal-Mart? That will perhaps bring out three perspectives: The urban Indians want FDI; those in towns perhaps don’t care; and villagers fear job and loss of income if FDI  is passed. Each of these perspectives can be explored to holistically build the pros and cons of FDI in retail and suggest amendments to the Bill.

 

A classic example of sensitising people to the woes (and benefits) of a situation is by following P. Sainath’s work on farmer suicides. Similar stories across the retail supply chain can sensitise people to the pros and cons of the FDI in retail policy. India is known as a country of shopkeepers. An issue that has an impact on their livelihoods needs more definitive coverage.