At least 10 million jobs will be created in the next three years in the retail sector.

* FDI in retail will help farmers secure remunerative prices by eliminating exploitative middlemen. * Foreign retail majors will ensure supply chain efficiencies. * Policy mandates a minimum investment of $100 million with at least half the amount to be invested in back-end infrastructure, including cold chains, refrigeration, transportation, packing, sorting and processing. This is expected to considerably reduce post-harvest losses. *This will have a salutary impact on food inflation from efficiencies in supply chain. This is also because food, which perishes due to inadequate infrastructure, will not be wasted. * Sourcing of a minimum of 30% from Indian micro and small industry is mandatory. This will provide the scales to encourage domestic value addition and manufacturing, thereby creating a multiplier effect for employment, technology upgradation and income generation. * A strong legal framework in the form of the Competition Commission is available to deal with any anti-competitive practices, including predatory pricing. * There has been impressive growth in retail and wholesale trade after China approved 100% FDI in retail. Thailand has experienced tremendous growth in the agro-processing industry. * In Indonesia, even after several years of emergence of supermarkets, 90% of fresh food and 70% of all food is still controlled by traditional retailers. * In any case, organized retail through Indian corporates is permissible. Experience of the last decade shows small retailers have flourished in harmony with large outlets. Opposition's argument * Move will lead to large-scale job losses. International experience shows supermarkets invariably displace small retailers. Small retail has virtually been wiped out in developed countries like the US and in Europe. South East Asian countries had to impose stringent zoning and licensing regulations to restrict growth of supermarkets after small retailers were getting displaced. India has the highest shopping density in the world with 11 shops per 1,000 people. It has 1.2 crore shops employing over 4 crore people; 95% of these are small shops run by self-employed people * Global retail giants will resort to predatory pricing to create monopoly/oligopoly. This can result in essentials, including food supplies, being controlled by foreign organizations. Fragmented markets give larger options to consumers. Consolidated markets make the consumer captive. Allowing foreign players with deep pockets leads to consolidation. International retail does not create additional markets, it merely displaces existing markets. * Jobs in the manufacturing sector will be lost because structured international retail makes purchases internationally and not from domestic sources. This has been the experience of most countries which have allowed FDI in retail.

* Argument that only foreign players can create the supply chain for farm produce is bogus. International retail players have no role in building roads or generating power. They are only required to create storage facilities and cold chains. This could be done by governments in India. * Comparison between India and China is misplaced. China is predominantly a manufacturing economy. It's the largest supplier to Wal-Mart and other international majors. It obviously cannot say no to these chains opening stores in China when it is a global supplier to them. India in contrast will lose both manufacturing and services jobs. Times View In principle, governments should not prevent anybody, Indian or foreign, from setting up any business unless there are very good reasons to do so. Hence, unless it can be shown that FDI in retail will do more harm than good for the economy, it should be allowed. A major argument given by opponents of FDI in retail is that there will be major job losses. Frankly, the jury is out on whether this is the case or not, with different studies claiming different findings. Big retail chains are actually going to hire a lot of people. So, in the short run, there will be a spurt in jobs. Eventually, there's likely to be a redistribution of jobs with some drying up (like that of middlemen) and some new ones sprouting up. Fears of small shopkeepers getting displaced are vastly exaggerated. When domestic majors were allowed to invest in retail, both supermarket chains and neighbourhood pop-and-mom stores coexisted. It's not going to be any different when FDI in retail is allowed. Who, after all, will give home delivery? The local kirana. Why would anyone shun them? If anything, the entry of retail big boys is likely to hot up competition, giving consumers a better deal, both in prices and choices. Mega retail chains need to keep price points low and attractive - that's the USP of their business. This is done by smart procurement and inventory management: Good practices from which Indian retail can also learn. The argument that farmers will suffer once global retail has developed a virtual monopoly is also weak. To begin with, it's very unlikely that global retail will ever become monopolies. Stores like Wal-Mart or Tesco are by definition few, on the outskirts of cities (to keep real estate costs low), and can't intrude into the territory of local kiranas. So, how will they gobble up the local guy? Secondly, it can't be anyone's case that farmers are getting a good deal right now. The fact is that farmers barely subsist while middlemen take the cream. Let's not get dreamy about this unequal relationship. The UPA government is keen to open up the Indian market for foreign investments despite opposition from other parties in Parliament. According to the government,the 51% foreign direct investment will benefit consumers and farmers, and will also aim at bringing down inflation, along with protecting the interests of small traders. DNA Speak Up explores 51% FDI will accelerate retail market growth, providing more employment opportunities It is a basic principle that creating competition in general is good for the market. But I have a doubt that since proper procurement and distribution system is not yet fixed, how will the rest

fall in place when the giant retailers enter our market. Back-end procurement will still remain a big problem. The 51% foreign direct investment (FDI) will obviously have a negative impact on small retailers, but it will benefit the consumers as they will have wider choices at competitive prices. It will accelerate the retail market growth and provide more employment opportunities. The debate that by introducing 51% FDI, a lot of money will flow out of the country is an old school of thought. Lot of our Indian companies are operating abroad and have successfully contributed to our economy. The bigger issue is that with benefits we might end up paying a price hence we must work on a reasonable solution. Sumita Kale, economist Farmers will benefit from FDI as they will be able to get better prices for their produce The FDI Bill will definitely have a positive impact on the retail industry and the country by attracting more foreign investments. With big retail giants coming to India, it will surely improve our back-end storage and procurement process. Once these multi-chain retailers establish themselves, they will create infrastructure facilities, which will also propel the existing infrastructure. The farmers will benefit from FDI as they will be able to get better prices for their produce. The elimination of the intermediate channels in the procurement process will lead to reduction of prices for consumers. The regulation in the FDI Bill that 30% of the total procurement has to come from small and medium enterprises will benefit the domestic businesses. Off course a policy is needed to protect the small and medium market channels from Chinese invasion. The fear that FDI will have a negative impact on the small retailers is completely wrong. It is not that everyone will run to these giant retail stores. Anant Sardeshmukh, executive director general, MCCIA Foreign brands will promote healthy competition in market Every time the government brings up the subject of FDI, the domestic retailers with the support of some politicians jump to lobby against the bill. As we are initiating the FDI, there is bound to be some problems, which can definitely be resolved. The government in near future can appoint a regulating body to monitor the retail sector just like other sectors. By allowing 51% foreign investments in the Indian market, it will teach the local retailers about real competition and help in insuring that they give better service to Indian consumers. It is obviously good for local competition and I dont see as a consequence, our local kirana shops disappearing. The kirana stores operate in a different environment catering to a certain set of customers and they will continue to find new ways to retain them. I dont see a problem with FDI as it will boost our economy. Zubin Kabraji, regional director, Indo-German Chamber of Commerce Customers feel that retail stores offer better deals, but they dont realise that they end up buying more If 51% FDI is allowed in retail market, it will be a big trouble for the small shopkeepers. The

big giants entering the market will surely impact the small store owners. The government says that the farmers will benefit, but I feel it will just be a temporary benefit. Once these giant foreign retailers have monopoly, they will start exploiting the market. I feel in the long run, it will not benefit the Indian economy. For example in a country like France, Walmart was not permitted to set up its stores whereas in Germany, FDI is not allowed. If the US is not allowing Indian goods to be sold in their market, why should then we give them a chance to set up base here. The discounts that these big retail stores offer in order to lure customers are also now being offered by our kirana stores. I feel that people should not fall prey to big retail stores because it is a trap wherein consumers end up buying more than what is required. Customers feel that they are getting better deals, but they are at the same time enticed to buy more. Suryakant Pathak, MD, Grahakpeth & Secretary, Grahak Panchayat The govt must discuss properly about 51% FDI and have a law in place to control unfair competition We strongly oppose the government allowing 51% FDI as it will surely have a negative impact on the small retailers in the market. These big companies with huge investment capacity will buy goods at lesser rates and pass on big discounts to consumers, wherein small local retailers will not be able to stand against the competition. By attracting consumers and manufacturers, they will create their own monopoly in the market, which will not be good for the retail market in the long run. We already have big malls then why do we want foreign retail chains? Today, the governments intention is to remove middlemen and give better price to farmers but why doesnt it help in bringing down transport cost, which is increasing due to rising fuel prices. The government must properly discuss the pros and cons of allowing 51% FDI and have a law in place to control unfair competition. When foreign countries dont allow import of food products from India, then why should we allow them in our country. Ajit Setiya, president, Poona Merchants Chamber Once monopoly sets in market, small-time retailers, consumers and farmers get exploited I think that by allowing 51% FDI, it will have a negative impact on our retail market and farmers in the long-term. It will lead to creation of market monopoly, which is not good for economic growth. Bringing in big foreign players will, no doubt, give direct competition to big domestic retail chains but small retailers will eventually get eliminated. Though farmers will get good rates for their produce and storage facilities will improve, these are only temporary benefits. In the history of capitalisation, the beginning is always good but once monopoly sets in, small-time retailers, consumers and farmers get exploited. Subhas Vare, secretary, SM Joshi Socialist Foundation