This (by and large fair-skinned) foreign hand is waved around—illustratively, of course—by all political parties. If the BJP, TMC and Left oppose FDI in multi-brand retail, UPA Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blames foreign-funded civil society organisations (NGOs) for the opposition to the Koodankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu. The foreigner fixation knows no end: assuming the form of the backlash against the influx of the Bangladeshi illegal migrant in Assam or as an anti-Sri Lanka wave in Tamil Nadu. Then there is the perennial fear that the Chinese will overrun us with cheap goods and Nordic countries will destabilise us with all their NGOs. Even foreign scholars and filmmakers are not immune to the charge, a growing number now face stricter visa restrictions.
FDI In Retail
Rahul Gandhi ‘Rape’ Charge
Team Anna protests
Attack On Israeli Diplomat
Trouble In Bodoland
Going by all the headlines, and the posturing—look no further than our map of the Indian worldview—it would appear that the proverbial foreigner is at the root of most of our problems. Is xenophobia a fair depiction of what our people think, and the times we live in? Are these fears justified for a nation that seeks to become (and rightfully should) a global powerhouse in its own right? Are we really ‘like this only’, still trapped in a colonial mindset and distrust of the outsider, the mlechha (the impure foreigner)? “India is now a much more open, globalised, cosmopolitan and modern society,” says Indophile author William Dalrymple. “It feels like a return to the Dark Ages to hear a Congress government invoking the foreign hand again to cover up its paralysis.”
On the face of it, the Opposition—from the Right to the Left—agrees with this view. They argue that there is no xenophobia, and that this is but a tactic employed by the UPA to deflect charges of corruption and poor governance. “Instead of the foreign hand,” says author and BJP member Arun Shourie, “we need to talk about the poor man’s pain. Look at the unrest and cries of the people; it’s not only against the foreign hand. Their own people are cheating.” Left-leaning economists mirror the view, arguing that money has no colour or nationality, and that their issue is with big capital. “This selectivity about xenophobia is absurd,” says economist Prabhat Patnaik. “Our own prime minister is backed by Washington DC. Does that mean he’s anti-national?”
So is this anti-foreigner pitch mere political posturing then, a handy tool to be wielded when it suits one domestically? There are, of course, historical and tendentious engagements with Pakistan and other neighbours on the terrorism front (Saudi Arabia being a new entrant). But the foreign hand has become such a part of the discourse that fact often gets mixed with rhetoric. There’s a bit of historical trauma too, given India’s negative experiences with large multinational corporations like Enron and Union Carbide. Of course, this generalised opposition to foreign capital negates the role played by “patriotic thieves”, Indian firms (and there have been many in recent times) being caught up in scam after scam.
“The anti-foreign feeling was a characteristic of BJP before (Atal Behari) Vajpayee brought in liberal policies,” says economist Ashok V. Desai. “There would be many in the BJP who would be opposed to the idea of a bigger play by foreigners. It is more basic than commercial.” This seems to be borne out by the BJP’s (hardly-veiled) threat to roll back FDI in multi-brand retail if voted back to power in 2014.
There is, in fact, nothing better than the feverish debate around FDI in multi-brand retail to understand the foreigner bogey better. The irony cannot be more evident. The major debate over foreigners and foreign investments entering India took place more than two decades ago. There has been much heat and dust (and rightly so) since about the extent and reach of India’s opening up in 1991, whether big corporations have benefited more than the poor, and whether our institutions have served the greater public interest. At the same time, there’s no denying that millions of Indian consumers have welcomed foreign investment and goods, viewing pre-reforms 1980s as the era of “daddy knows best”, when status quo was everything.
Foreign companies and brands have been a part and parcel of this economic growth story. The fears of foreign goods swamping Indian ones have, in many cases, turned out to be untrue. As the BJP’s Jaswant Singh eloquently put it (in 2000), “Many said that Kentucky Fried Chicken will drive the dhabas out of the market. But the dhabas have driven out Kentucky.” Not entirely perhaps, but KFC came to coexist happily alongside Saravana Bhavan. We even survived the onslaught of MTV or Bold and the Beautiful, whose disruptive influence provoked equal consternation through the 1990s. Or Coke and Pepsi, viewed initially with suspicion. Foreign food and culture apart, foreign insurance and banking firms have spurred Indian counterparts to do better and thrive.
The last is illustrative of how we react to change as a nation, as Dr Jayaprakash Narayan of the Loksatta Party reminds us. “Twenty years ago, when bank computerisation was mooted, there was large-scale protest by all political parties and trade unions who said jobs will go. At the time, these shenanigans were unchallenged. Today, what will they say? Any bank that has not computerised will be rejected by the customers themselves. We are going through a similar situation in retail.” Politically too, governments like those in Gujarat, Bihar and Delhi that reform (or seen to do so) get rewarded by the electorate.
The flip side is that such governments—both at the Centre and states—are increasingly driven by the need to get approval, or the right ratings, by foreigners. The colour of money begins to matter more, especially if it’s green. Pratap Bhanu Mehta of the Centre for Policy Research laments the lack of a “nuanced debate on economic issues”. He concedes that “FDI in multi-brand retail will revolutionise the sector”, but counters the claim of its votaries that it will not impact the kirana stores.
“Across the world, the feeling of xenophobia comes up when growth rates are low,” says economy-watcher and PR person Dilip Cherian. “We may be seeing that phenomenon.” Political xenophobia aside, Cherian points to the middle-level firm, which is scared of foreign capital coming into India, afraid that the entry of bigger foreign companies will render them insignificant. Big business, on the other hand, fears its supremacy in various sectors of the economy would come under threat in the face of new contenders in their space.
As things stand, the majority of the players in retail—including multinational ones—are uncertain of the way forward. Only 10 states and union territories have given their support in writing to allow FDI in retail. It will be a muted beginning. “Walmart coming to India is neither going to damage our domestic market nor are the big hopes going to pour in. Those who are speculating big profit or loss are wrong,” says Shourie, pointing to the experience of domestic corporate retailers.
Indeed, given the opposition by most states, Dr Mathew Joseph of the Fore School Management (whose study of the retail sector gave boost to the government plans of opening it up for foreign investment), feels it’s difficult to say whether multi-brand retail outlets will find it attractive to operate and be profitable in what will be a “fragmented market”. Retail consultant Arvind K. Singhal expects around $10 billion to flow into multi-brand retail in the next five years, double commerce minister Anand Sharma’s $3-5 bn expectation (see interview).
Yet, the fear persists. “Leather, textile, rubber, plastic—you name it, and the small industry segment has been poached into by imports from China,” says Anil Bhardwaj, secretary general, Federation of Indian Micro and Small & Medium Enterprises, which represents one million small firms. China is still the vicious dragon, never mind if it has flooded only a few consumer segments, like toys. India, however, sees more sinister intent in Chinese companies supplying telecom equipment, on grounds that these products may be used for spying. Chinese telecom equipment companies like Huawei and zte have been particularly singled out on security issues, primarily because these companies also operate in India-unfriendly countries like Pakistan. Expect more punitive action on this front.
Talking of punishment, foreign NGOs have been at the receiving end lately. In an interview to American journal Science early this year, Manmohan Singh blamed US and Scandinavian-funded NGOs for not being “fully appreciative of the developmental challenges that our country faces”. The foreign hand was also brandished during the Anna Hazare campaign, which led to recent CBI and police action against four NGOs for alleged violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). Similarly, several Indian NGOs with funding from Denmark came under the scanner in 2011 after reports that the donor country planned to fund groups opposing government policies and corruption. NGOs “linked to the Church” have, of course, been under investigation for some time now.
Foreign filmmakers too are viewed with suspicion, fuelled by the paranoia of a depiction of India deemed unfavourable by those in power. In February this year, the government denied a visa to Danish filmmaker Tom Heinemann and his wife Lotte La Cour, who had planned a private visit. Heinemann had in 2005, while on a tourist visit to India, made a documentary titled A Killer Bargain, which showed that European-manufactured pesticides banned in Europe were still being sold in India. His wife too had made a documentary on the dismal condition of Indian textile workers. Earlier, in 2010, US academic Richard Shapiro was deported from India, perhaps for his political activism in Kashmir while on a tourist visa.
Back in 2007, there were reports of American Fulbright scholars being denied visas to research in India, prompting 33 of them to sign a petition asking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to intervene. “India has so much to offer the world, and when foreign scholars are denied visas, it shuts off the rest of the world from benefiting from India’s natural, cultural and material wealth,” says Forrest Fleischman, one of the scholars denied a visa then but granted a research visa in 2011.
Closer home, there was the violence in Assam, which many saw as a manifestation of xenophobic ire against the Bangladeshi immigrant. Even though Nilim Dutta, operational head of Strategic Research and Analysis Organisation, maintains that “the issue of ‘illegal immigration’ is a red herring because no such influx in a scale that would alarm any native community has taken place.” Down south, both the DMK and AIADMK in Tamil Nadu have been whipping up anti-Sri Lankan sentiment in an attempt to be more Tamilian than thou.
“The fear of the foreigner,” argues academic Jyotirmaya Sharma, “is phoney. It’s a bogey created to justify your capitulation to the outsider.” Politicians continue to serve it up regularly, but the aam Indian knows better. He no longer leads a frog-in-the-well existence, is more aware of the immense possibilities globally and can access different sources of information. It is not that easy to sell him old chestnuts anymore.
By Sunit Arora with Lola Nayar, Panini Anand, Arindam Mukherjee, Debarshi Dasgupta and Pragya Singh
The foreign hand is very much a presence in the affairs of the state (A Swamp of Alien Nesses, Oct 8). The only difference is, it’s now more subtle and also has collaborators in the top echelons of the state. Why is it that Montek Singh Ahluwalia, who was formerly with the World Bank, is Planning Commission deputy chairman? Or Raghuram Rajan, former chief economist at the imf, now India’s chief economic advisor? How do you think people get lateral entries to top positions in the government? I urge you all to read Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine for enlightenment.
V.N. Venugopal, New Delhi
In typical Outlook style, a simplistic, polarised idea of the fdi in retail debate, an if-he-likes-chocolate-he-must-hate-vanilla line of thinking. A nuance or two wouldn’t hurt.
Jasjeet Shergill, New York
When you constantly blame others for all your woes, it is perhaps an attempt to cover your own cowardice or incompetence. The only problem is, because of the impotence at the top, an entire nation gets branded thus. And we certainly deserve better.
Rajan C. Mathew, Bhilai
It is unfortunate that both the ruling and the opposition coalition parties lean conveniently on xenophobia to gain political mileage and cover up their internal weaknesses. Rather than turn a blind eye to unscrupulous local politicians and corrupt officials exploiting our lax systems to their advantage, what we need is serious introspection and determinations to stem the rot.
Mathew Adipuzha, Kochi
Can this alleged foreign hand really be destabilising the country from Assam to Kashmir without a local conduit? If so, we need to question the monitoring by our intelligence agencies. Or are they mandated by the ruling party only to keep a check on opposition parties’ and leaders’ activities only?
Pramod Srivastava, New Delhi
“Before blaming the foreign hand, serious investigations have to be conducted. Such accusations have to be backed by hard evidence,” says William Dalrymple. Hmm...thus speaks a foreign hand!
Manish Banerjee, Calcutta
It is politically wise these days to create an enemy where there’s none to re-channelise internal discontent, a time-tested Chankayan ploy!
R.V. Subramanian, Gurgaon
The charge of the ‘foreign hand’ is nothing new (A Swamp of Alien Nesses, Oct 8) is nothing new. I was an MP at the time of the Moradabad police atrocities (1980). Indira Gandhi had blamed that too on the foreign hand. The recent Bodo-Muslim conflict in Assam is only the latest instance of this. In fact, in our country a foreign hand has been seen in every unusual event since independence, particularly when violence was added to the mix.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
There is a space between Xenophobia & Xenophilia!!
It's called common sense!!
The concept of a nation-state,makes sense to me.And if you believe in it,obviously you will agree OR OFTEN, DISAGREE with other nation's laws & customs.
We are not Pakistan & we are not Somalia ALSO because of how our laws are framed.
Canada & U.S.A are a good example of countries not loving or hating each other but being happy to co-exist.Over there, people often mock each other's political or economic ideology,but don't feel the need to demonise each other.
It is a good thing that we are getting more and more aware of different nations & their views wrt us.
Maybe it is because indians are so emotional & that we can't really handle a confrontation of any kind,with anyone.Even confronting ourselves.
So we hyperventilate like pregnant cows and either deify or demonise people,countries or ideas,instead of just listing out the pros and cons, like- sensible people who can control themselves and not get their knickers in a twist at the drop of a hat would do.
Firstly,these are not reforms & certainly not big bang reforms.This is just incrementalism
& it's not going to make a big difference.We already had FDI in retail,just that the % has been increased.Our socialist govt created this economic mess that we have now,in the first place.They created this with their endless subsidies & throwing money out of the window.
Like most times,finally our great govt did something when the proverbial shit hit the fan.
They(the govt) get no points for this.
Our supply chain problems are at the back-end & not really in retail.There are too many laws and framed in weird,vague ways ie. there is too much red tape.They're difficult to understand and there are too many specifications.This is why indian industrial chains have not managed to improve the 'health' of farmers & set this right.
Panacea for all farmer's ills not=51% FDI in retail.
Now,the diesel price hike though,will help.
It's been a long time coming though & I sincerely hope the govt doesn't in 2013 take populist decisions for votes.
That's a pipe-dream,but I live on hope.In any case the 2014 elections will be a close race by all accounts,which means MORE POPULISM from whoever is in power.
In typical Outlook India style,you come up with a simplistic,polarised idea of the FDI in retail debate.
It is this -If he likes chocolate,he must hate vanilla-line of thinking that I am terming simplistic.
Please find a nuance or two
BJP/Left is talking of foreign hand in FDI in retail, which is overt and called “Pressure”; is not same as PM is seeing foreign hand in Koodankulam, which is covert and called “fishing in troubled water”;
BJP/Left is talking of foreign hand in FDI in retail, which is overt and called “Pressure”; is not same as PM is seeing foreign hand in Koodankulam, which is covert and called “fishing in troubled water”;
agreed, you need to break down the argument. The first is business lobbying and the second is Environmental NGOs in Western countries see India as an easy target. They have their own fantasies of what an agrarian life should look like and many jholawallahs here tend to climb on board. But the fact is the West consumes 20-40x as much energy per capita as an Indian, and a substantial percentage of this includes nuclear power. If they burn coal, their coal is of higher quality than Indian coal. Its these sorts of frustrations and dilemmas that the PM was alluding to, in my opinion.
The "foreign hand" of the 1980s, (what Rajiv Gandhi was ranting about and threatened a befitting reply) when the Bofors crisis broke is something different.
I don't think FDI in retail is a game changer anyway, the practical realities are against it. It will turn out like the nuclear deal. Its just a tool for political parties to use against each other. Modern retail requires modern supply chain. That is timed delivery which needs good roads and infrastructure. If you want to freeze goods, that requires power supply and so on . If these were in place, modern Indian retail would take off , FDI or no FDI.
India is already flooded with cheap Chinese imports becasue Indian manufacturing is crippled by high costs and poor economies of scale. So what difference does it make if Walmart brings them in, instead of Indian importers?. BJP is not being honest, neither is Congress
Dealing with the "enemy within" is very hard because they look and smell just like us - only might be packaged differently. Therefore the enemy outside is the easy punching bag.
Our fundamental issue remains that our Governing Class behaves as royalty/colonialists of yore and more so we actually allow them to behave that way, given that they hold all the cakes, too many of us keep looking at them to throw crumbs at us while they and their cronies keep the moist juicy parts. Our elite of course are in a rush to join the 1st world (or they think they have actually already joined the 1st world) but for a eyesores and rude reminders once one steps out of ones castles onto the road even if in a bentley, jaguar, merc, bmw, audi and what nots. Our Governing Class also work hard at making sure their islands - Lutyens and the various Civil Lines remain somewhat first world in looks.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT