By MOSES MANOHARAN
In the lexicon of Indian politics, words, defying logic, take flight over a cuckoo’s nest of schizophrenic confusion that would make Jack Nicholson envious. In true Bollywood style of bluff, bluster and colour, the self-styled arbitrators of probity in the asylum that encompasses much of the news media and public life have found a fresh voice over US supermarket chain Walmart’s entry into India, following an approving vote in Parliament to allow foreign investment in what is termed ‘multi-brand retail business’ in India.
Walmart is being accused by Indian detractors of having lobbied or bribed its way into the country, a charge the chain strenuously denies. The controversy erupted following reports that Walmart spent US $25 million over four years to lobby American legislators on gaining access to Indian and other marketsabroad. Walmart, and indeed US officials, assert that the lobbying was done within the bounds of US laws. Their assertions failed, however, to calm Indian opposition in Parliament, which had bitterly opposed legislation allowing foreign direct investment (FDI) in the supermarket sector. The Congress party-led UPA Alliance ruling India, to refute charges of improperly favour business interests, has appointed a retired judge to conduct an inquiry into the matter. At the heart of the accusations is an esoteric debate over what constitutes lobbying and when it amounts to bribery.
The origin of this debate may well be traced to the labelling of the chains as multi brand retailers, a quant description for entities that are known as supermarkets in the rest of the civilized world. From there, it was a short stroll in the park to reach the abyss of common sense, into which the controversy over lobbying and bribing has been in free fall ever since. For the uninitiated and those of us who are not bell boys at hotels, lobbying is a form of persuasion to get others to come around to your point of view.
On this description, lobbying is done on a daily basis in the editorial pages of newspapers and in the cacophony of opinions expressed by news anchors. This very media would do well to reflect on the lament of the Chairman of the Press Council of India, retired Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju, that it was indulging in “paid news”, presumably in the guise of objective reporting, at election time. Perhaps the moral of the story is that people who live in glass cabins and studios should not throw stones at others. The question of whether Walmart lobbied or bribed its way into India is relevant only if it can be shown to have broken Indian laws. Or, to put it crudely, bribed Indian officialdom.
In the United States, where they conduct affairs of state and commerce more transparently and less hypocritically, lobbying is a legitimate tool of persuasion on Capitol Hill, used to influence government policy-making and in creating public opinion.
On Raisina Hill and its vicinity, the approach to decision-making on matters that critically affect the life of millions of people is often shrouded in secrecy, arbitrariness and immediate convenience.
Hence, public figures in government, the media and civil society, as private activists style themselves, have come together to condemn Walmart, unmindful of India’s own engagement of an American lobbyist to influence the US Congress. Their opposition to Walmart is predicated on an untenable platform of premises, namely that lobbying is synonymous with bribing, that it undermines the entire vote on allowing FDI into India’s supermarket sector and that the parliamentary vote itself has become irrevocably tainted.
Given the lobbying that is carried out in India both stealthily and publicly by those in government and outside, privately and officially, the charges levelled against Walmart reflect a schizophrenia that would have serious consequences for the nation in a globalized world that seeks to bring order and structure to the way businesses are transacted nationally and internationally.
To equate lobbying with bribing will once again revive apprehensions in the global marketplace to the risks of doing business with India, after its cancellation of Government-backed and guaranteed contracts of several international telecom operators over a domestic corruption scandal.
In any case, to bridge the gap between lobbying and bribing would require a leap of faith that the existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard believed was necessary to reconcile the empirical and the intangible. It is a leap of faith that vested interests in India appear quite willing to undertake, even if it will not be into the arms of loving God.
(The author, formerly of Reuters, is CEO, TV 99)
