Anand Sharma slams AAP

Anand Sharma, one of the prime movers of the policy that had become a test case of the central government’s willingness to undertake tough reforms, said allowing FDI into the sector was a decision taken after widespread consultations with multiple stakeholders. These include farmers’ groups, consumer federations, small and medium enterprises and community organisations, besides political parties and state governments.
“Thirteen states had, through cabinet decisions and assembly resolutions, adopted it. But the question which arises is whether Kejriwal had a comprehension what FDI in multibrand retail actually meant?” Sharma said.
The Delhi government’s decision is a repudiation of one of the trophy decisions of UPA-II, which it implemented in September 2012 in the face of stiff opposition and after putting its very survival at stake. There is unease about the kind of message it will send out to potential investors, especially at a time the government is trying to reassure overseas concerns about India as an investment destination with policy stability. After 15 months of receiving no investment proposal under the policy, the country got its first investment last month as British retailer Tesco announced a $110-million foray with the Tata Group.
Sharma sought to reassure Tesco that it had no cause for worry, noting that in any case the company planned to set up stores in Maharashtra and Karnataka, which have Congress governments.
“We have two stable governments in Maharashtra and Karnataka. The law is very clear. Once you have come in, and have taken FIPB approval, you cannot be disturbed at all, under law,” he said. “Both under our law, international laws and WTO treaties. There is something called as pre-establishment and post-establishment,” he said.
However, Sharma asked AAP to come clear on its stance on organised retail in the country and demanded to know whether farmers and ordinary consumers did not qualify in its definition of aam aadmi.
“The fact is that there is an express demand of major farmer unions and consumer federations. You are actually giving a better deal to your farmers and MSME sector… Whether farmers and consumers, who have been fleeced, are part of the lexicon of aam aadmi or excluded from the Aam Aadmi Party’s definition. This is the moot question,” he said, adding that his ministry was examining the next course of action.
“We are a responsible constitutional democracy. You cannot see abrupt knee-jerk decisions and reversals. The previous Delhi government had embraced it… It was a government commanding strong majority in legislature and had a backing of the resolution of the assembly… I can understand those states which have not taken a view. We will have it examined,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Delhi unit of Congress said it would seek a discussion in the assembly.
“I don’t think there is legal backing for what (the Delhi) government has done. We will call for a discussion on the matter in the Delhi assembly,” said Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee chief Arvinder Singh Lovely. He, however, refused to say whether Congress would withdraw support to the AAP government.
BJP leader and former finance minister Yashwant Sinha concurred with the view. “This was an inherent hazard in the policy. It was left to states. We had pointed out that ‘what will happen when there is a regime change?’ Any foreign investor would be left wondering what was the guarantee of the policy,” he said.