A Very Incorrect Projection of India by Australian Officials and in the Australian Media

The Australian media and the Australian politicians are creating a wrong impression in the minds of ordinary Australian citizens that the Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers are Indians and, hence, by implication are suggesting that they are the responsibility of India. Unhappily, Indian officials have become implicitly involved in this duplicity, as they offered to hear the asylum seekers out to find a solution to the impasse, which was created by Australian customs keeping these people at sea, on a Australian, customs boat for nearly a month.

The ordinary Australian citizen, after reading the following news reports, is getting an impression that Indians have started arriving to Australia illegally by boats. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The media should be writing clearly that “Sri Lankan Tamils have taken a boat from India to come to Australia.” This has been correctly reported by Indian media. (Please see Times of India news headline below.)

How can India be responsible for non-Indians taking a boat from India and going to anywhere in the world? India has been taking care of the Sri Lankan refugees, out of humanitarian considerations. India cannot be represented as a country whose residents seek refuge in another country because of persecution. While none of the news reports say this specifically, a normal reader will come to this conclusion, after reading these reports and hearing similar news on the TV.

This will seriously damage the image of Indian principles of democratic values and social equality for all, in Australian minds.

When a similar situation arose about people of other nationalities taking boats from Indonesia and coming to Australia illegally, the Indonesian authorities categorically said that they have no control on people of other countries. They refused to intervene and the media could never report or imply that Indonesia was failing its responsibility towards its residents.

The Indian government should stop any discussions with Australian authorities regarding Sri Lankan Tamils, unless Australian media corrects the wrong picture being presented by it. Further, India should only discuss the matter in a tri-partite meeting with representatives of Sri Lanka and Australia. It is Sri Lanka which is not treating its citizens well, because of which these refugees, some with babies, have taken the perilous journey across seas, to Australia. By calling these people “economic migrants”, and implying that they are the responsibility of India, Australia is failing its responsibility of bringing Sri Lanka under international pressure for a fair treatment of all its citizens.

It is requested that the Australian media should immediately stop the wrong reportage and place facts correctly to its readers. Such a wrong picture will place India in the category of countries like Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Indians and their Associations have started feeling very hurt. Indians are peace loving, hardworking and law-abiding Australians, and come from a country which has a long tradition of democratic functioning.

ABC News: August 2, 2014, The 157 asylum seekers at the centre of a High Court battle have been sent to Nauru after they declined to return to India.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-02/tamil-asylum-seekers-sent-to-nauru/5642972

ABC News: JASON OM, August 2, 2014, writes, “The 157 Tamil asylum seekers were held on a Customs ship for almost a month before being transferred to the Curtin Detention Centre in Western Australia. Court documents have revealed the Government came very close to offloading the group in India, but was halted by an urgent interim injunction last month. According to the Government's defence, filed on Thursday, the Customs ship carrying the group arrived near India and was resupplied while the High Court case played out.”

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/24611108/federal-government-says-157-tamil-asylum-seekers-could-have-been-security-threat-if-told-of-destination/

ABC NEWS: August 2, 2014 says, “The Tamils were initially held at sea by Australian Customs and Border Protection officials for several weeks when their boat was intercepted after leaving an Indian port. After protracted negotiations with India and a High Court challenge, they were taken to the Curtin detention centre in Western Australia.”

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24614669/tamil-asylum-seekers-sent-to-nauru/

THE GUARDIAN: Saturday 2 August 2014 Scott Morrison says group of 157 asylum seekers were transferred after they ‘chose not to meet with Indian officials’

SKYNEWS: Saturday 2 August 2014  A group of Tamil asylum seekers including some 50 children has been sent to detention at Nauru after the government says they passed up an opportunity to return to their safe former home……… An agreement between Australia and India would have seen the group interviewed by Indian representatives at Curtin, with the view to returning eligible members to India.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/08/02/tamil-asylum-seekers--refused-india-offer-.html#sthash.QA8Nequ9.dpuf

NEWS.COM.AU : AUGUST 02, 2014 THE first asylum seekers to set foot on Australian soil in seven months, including 50 children, have been transferred to Nauru after “squandering’’ an offer to return to India.

THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD: AUGUST 02, 2014 Mr Newhouse produced letters he had written to the Indian High Commission and the federal government seeking to consult with the Indian government's lawyers on July 27. Mr Morrison said in a statement: "It is very disappointing that after having had access to their legal representatives on July 29, all 157 IMAs coincidentally chose not to talk to Indian consular officials." The Australian government had created a "rare opportunity" for the asylum seekers to return to India to be with their family and friends rather than go to Nauru, he said.

 http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/lawyer-george-newhouse-in-dark-over-asylum-seeker-move-20140802-zzpp0.html#ixzz39HkXrdbM

THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 03, 2014 SCOTT Morrison has defended transferring 157 asylum-seekers to Nauru without the knowledge of their lawyers, saying they turned down “a very good” offer to be returned to India.

DAILY TELEGRAPH: AUGUST 02, 2014 The 157 Tamil asylum seekers brought to the Australian mainland last week after a month at sea have been flown to Nauru in a secret overnight operation, after all refused offers to return to India.

THE TIMES OF INDIA: AP | Aug 2, 2014, 07.08 PM IST Lankan Tamil asylum seekers, who sailed from India, sent to Nauru by Australia

क्या भाजपा इस लूट को रोकेगी? http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/deathandtaxes.pdf ( SEZ = Special Economic Zone = विशेष आर्थिक क्षेत्र इसमे 2 प्रकार के क्षेत्र आते हैं... processing and non-processing zones. Processing Zone of Special Economic Zone ….इन शब्दों का अर्थ है कि बडी कम्पनियों को 
देश की ज़मीन दे दी जाए, जहां वे जो मर्ज़ी करें. किसानो और आदिवासियों को बिना उचित मुआवज़ा 
दिये मार भगाएं. खनन करें. परयावरण को नष्ट करें, फैक्टरियां लगाएं, किसानो को मज़दूर बनाएं 
और दोनो हाथों से मुनाफा कमाएं. Non-processing Zone of SEZ…..इसमे शापिंग माल, मनोरंजन पार्क, और रहने के लिये 
घर और फ्लैट इत्यादि आते हैं.)
कम्पनियां जो SEZ में अन्धा मुनाफा कमा रहीं हैं 1950 से लेकर 2008 तक 60 करोड लोग विकास के नाम पर अनुचित कार्यों के कारण अपने घर और ज़मीन से बेदखल किये जा चुके थे. बहुत सारे लोगों को राज्य से किसी भी प्रकार की कोई भी सहायता नहीं मिली. दूसरी ओर हैं कम्पनियां जो SEZ में अन्धा मुनाफा कमा रहीं हैं. टाटा का 2006/07 का मुनाफा 14 खरब डालर था. देश की कुल आय का 3.2% अकेले टाटा के हाथ आया.
( सोचिये ज़रा, टाटा के हाथ 3.2%... जब्कि सारे देश की कुल आय का सिर्फ 4% सारे देश की शिक्षा पर खर्च होता है. सारे देश की शिक्षा का खर्च और एक कम्पनी के मुनाफा बराबर? ) रिलायंस, जिन्दल स्टील, इंफोसिस, नोकिया, इत्यादि हर साल खरबों डालर का मुनाफा कमा रहे हैं. इन विशेष आर्थिक क्षेत्र मे कम्पनियों को जानते हैं और क्या दिया जा रहा है? कर से मुक्ति.... क्स्टम, आमदनी, आयात-निर्यात, खरीद-बेच, सर्विस ... सारे करों से छूट. जी हां. पहले पांच साल इन कम्पनियों को एक पैसे का भी कर नहीं देना होता. फिर अगले दो साल 50% छूट मिलती है. और उसके अगले तीन साल तक मुनाफे को अगर कम्पनी फिर से निवेश कर दे तो फिर से 50% छूट. न सिर्फ कार्यकर्ताओं का, बल्कि इंगलैंड के DFID (Department For International Development) का भी मानना है कि कम्पनियों को कर मे मिलने वाली ये छूट भारत के गरीब के मुन्ह पर सबसे बडा तमाचा है. भारत मे 4 अरब लोग एक डालर रोज़ से भी कम मे जी रहे हैं. 9 अरब लोग 2 डालर रोज़ से कम मे जी रहे हैं. ( दूसरे शब्दों में, 13 अरब लोग भूखों मरने की कगार पर हैं.) इनके ऊपर के दूसरे 55 अरब लोग एक वक्त का खाना ही खा पाते हैं. दुनिया के सबसे ज़्यादा गरीब लोगों का एक तिहाई भाग भारत मे है. कुपोषण के शिकार बच्चों की संख्या भारत मे अफ्रीका से दुगुनी है. दुनिया के भूख और बीमारी से मरने वाले बच्चों में से एक चौथाई भारत मे मरते हैं. दुनिया की 1/5 माताएं हमारे देश मे मरती हैं. और दुनिया के 1/5 तपेदिक के मरीज़ हमारे देश मे जी रहे हैं. ऐसे गरीब, मजबूर देश मे अमीरों को कर की छूट? इससे भद्दा, अश्लील मज़ाक और क्या हो सकता है? हमारा वित्त मंत्रालय खुद मानता है कि 2010 तक विशेष आर्थिक क्षेत्र मे कर की छूट के कारण देश को 2 खरब डालर ( 1 नील 60 खरब रुपए) की हानि हो चुकी होगी. इतना ही नहीं, SEZ बनाने ज़मीन की कीमत, पूंजी निवेश और मज़दूर सब पर गलत प्रभाव पडता है. ज़्यादातर SEZ बडे शहरों के इर्द गिर्द बनने लगते हैं, जहां ज़मीन की कीमत आसमान छूने लगती है और गरीब को काम की तलाश मे गांव छोडना पडता है. सभी कमपनियां सिर्फ SEZ मे ही काम करना चाहती हैं. इसलिये ज़्यादा से ज़्यादा क्षेत्र को SEZ करार दिलवाने की होड मच जाती है. इस तरह SEZ मे होने वाला निवेश दरअसल कोई नया निवेश नहीं होता , बल्कि देश के अन्य हिस्सों मे होने वाला निवेश ही इस तरफ खिंचा चला आता है. तो SEZ एक बहुत बडा धोखा है. धोखे से अधिक कुछ नहीं. गुजरात मे अम्बानी के लिये तो पहले से चल रहे उद्द्योगों को ही SEZ घोषित कर दिया गया. सरकार का ये तर्क की SEZ से विदेशी निवेश बढेगा इस्लिये बेबुनियाद है क्योंकि भारत की अर्थ्व्यवस्था को , जो बडे ही स्वस्थ ढंग से बढती हुई अर्थ-व्यवस्था है, इस तरीके से घाटा उठा कर विदेशी पूंजी को आकर्षित करने की ज़रूरत नहीं है. SEZ मे बना, कर की छूट मिला, सस्ता माल तस्करी हो कर देश के दूसरे हिस्सों मे पहुंचता है और बाकी के उद्द्योग धन्धो की छुट्टी कर देता है. इतने नुकसान उठा कर SEZ से सिर्फ 40 लाख लोगो को नौकरी मिलेगी. और ये भी सही नम्बर नही है क्योंकि कितने उद्द्योग चौपट होंगे, ये कोई नहीं जानता. 2005 तक भारत मे लगभग 550 SEZ आ चुके थे. इसके विपरीत चीन मे सिर्फ 6 बडे निर्यात समब्न्धित औद्द्योगिक क्षेत्र बनाये गये. और वहां पर करों मे छूट नहीं है. बहुत सी कम्पनियों को पुरानी तारीखों से SEZ का अधिकार दिया गया. आप ही सोचिये, ये उदारता नौकरियां बढाने के लिये तो हो नही सकती. तो क्यों दे रहे हैं कम्पनी को कर में छूट? 7 मई 2005 को जब SEZ कानून पास हुआ तो सिर्फ 7 सांसदों ने बहस मे भाग लिया. बहुत से लोगों के अनुसार ये कानून दरअसल असंवैधानिक है. संविधान की धारा 49 को चालाकी से प्रयोग कर के बाकी सारे संविधान को नकार दिया गया है. इस बात को ले कर कुछ किसान SEZ कानून को अदालत मे चुनौति भी दे रहे हैं. करो मे छूट बडी कम्पनियों को सब्सिडी या मदद देने के बराबर है.
एक गरीब देश की सरकार के लिये ऐसा करना शर्मनाक हरकत है.

लेख अनुवादक: मीना मैलार्ट-गर्ग

खुदरा क्षेत्र मे विदेशी निवेश की कुछ और सच्चाई

सरकार खुदरा क्षेत्र में ५१ % विदेशी  निवेश की मंज़ूरी देने वाली है।
यह भारतीय मध्यम-वर्गीय उत्पादकों, व्यापारियों और किसानों को
किस तरह बर्बाद कर देगा, इसका आपको अंदेशा भी नहीं है।
आपको हम वहाँ के  उत्पादकों, व्यापारियों और किसानों की  सही तस्वीर दिखाते हैं, जो कल आपकी होगी।

खुदरा क्षेत्र मे विदेशी निवेश लाने वालों का कहना है कि इससे बिचौलिये खत्म हो जाएंगे. माल सीधा उत्पादक से उपभोक्ता तक पहुंचेगा. इसलिये कीमते कम हो जाएंगी. 

शुरुआत मे सुपरमार्केट कीमते कम कर के अपने सारे प्रतिद्वन्दियों से छुटकारा पा लेते हैं. लेकिन बाद मे अपने हिसाब से जो चाहे वो कीमत मांगते हैं. क्या कम कीमत का नुकसान वे स्वयम उठाते हैं? आस्ट्रेलिया मे दूध की कीमत 50% घटा दी गई. किसने उठाया ये नुकसान? उत्पादक को कम कीमत पर दूध बेचना पडा वरना दूध उसके बरतनो मे ही सडता रहता. 

दूध की कीमत कम करने पर दो बडे सुपर बाज़ारों का मुनाफा 24 से 40 % बढ गया.  सुपर बाज़ारों की 70  नई दुकाने बाज़ार मे आ गईं. जिस बाज़ार मे बाकी अर्थ्व्यवस्था धीमी हो, वहां इन दुकानो का मुनाफा इतना ज़्यादा कैसे हो गया. सिर्फ दो सुपर चेन स्टोर्स कम्पनियोंने कुल 70 खरब डालर का मुनाफा एक साल मे कमाया. सोचने की बात ये है कि उपभोक्ता ने कम पैसे दिये और सुपर स्टोर ने ज़्यादा मुनाफा कमाया. तो नुकसान किसने उठाया? सीधा अर्थ है कि किसान ने उठाया नुकसान. बहुत से किसान और दूध उत्पादक अपना पुश्तैनी धन्धा बन्द कर चुके हैं. अगर ऐसी स्थिति भारत मे आई तो क्या होगा?
क्या और अधिक किसान आत्महत्या करने को मजबूर नहीं हो जाएंगे ?

                                          एक आस्ट्रेलिया का  दिवालिया डेरी-मालिक 

सिर्फ दूध नहीं, हर क्षेत्र मे ही छोटे उत्पादको का ये हाल है. वे अपना माल सिर्फ उसी कीमत पर बेच सकते हैं जिस पर सुपर मार्केट खरीदेगा.  सुपर बाज़ार इतने शक्तिशाली हैं कि राजनीतिज्ञ भी कुछ् कहने से डरते हैं. या फिर रिश्वत खा कर चुप रहते हैं. सोचिये भारत मे क्या हाल होगा? 

क्या विदेशी निवेश से हमें चीज़ें ताज़ा मिलने लगेंगी? 
आज भारत मे हमे ताज़ा दूध उपलब्ध है. लेकिन आस्ट्रेलिया मे कम से कम 6 दिन पुराना दूध मिलता है दुकान पर. उसे खराब होने से बचाने के लिये उसके सारे जीवाणु मार दिये जाते हैं. इस दूध से आप दही नहीं जमा सकते. आपको दुकान से ही तीन गुणा महंगा दही खरीदना पडेगा. 

और मलाई निकला हुआ दूध महंगा होता है 
ये समझ नहीं आया? मलाई उतारने पर जो कीमत लगानी पडती है, वो क्या मक्खन और मलाई बेचने से पूरी नहीं हो जाती ? इसका एक मात्र कारण है कि ज़्यादा लोग मलाई उतरा हुआ दूध पीते हैं, ताकि दिल की बीमारियों से बचा जा सके. तो इसकी कीमत थोडी सी ज़्यादा रखी है, क्योंकि बिक तो ये जाएगा ही. 

दूध ताज़ा नहीं और मांस? 
उसके बारे मे जानेगे तो आप के होश उड जाएंगे. एक स्टिंग औपेरेशन मे एक वीडियो बनाई गई जिसमे दिखाया गया कि मांस के छोटे छोटे टुकडो को बडा बना कर मुनाफा कमाने के लिये एक Enzyme (उत्प्रेरक) इस्तेमाल किया जाता है. इस पदार्थ को मांस के छोटे, बचे खुचे छोटे टुकडो पर, जो गाय, सुअर, बकरी, मछली आदि सभी जानवरो के हो सकते हैं, छिडक दिया जाता है. फिर 6 घंटे फ्रिज मे रखने के बाद ये टुकडे जुड कर मांस का एक बडा टुकडा बन जाते हैं, जिसे ऊंची कीमत पर बाज़ार मे बेच दिया जाता है. इस उत्प्रेरक को खा कर दिल की बीमारी और अन्य समस्याएं हो सकती हैं. सबसे बडी बात, मुनाफा कमाने के लिये उपभोक्ताओं को धोखा दिया जा रहा है और किसी को पता तक नहीं. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXXrB3rz-xU


विदेशी निवेश से न तो हमे ताज़ा और अच्छी चीज़े मिलने वाली हैं और न ही हमारे किसानो का भला होने वाला है. विदेशी निवेश से हम सिर्फ उन अमीरों को और अमीर बना रहे हैं, जिनकी अमीरी से सारी दुनिया परेशान है. बजाय इसके कि हम अपनी अर्थव्यवस्था अपने हाथ मे लेकर स्वदेशी को बढावा दे, हम इन सुपर स्टोर्ज़ के जाल मे फंसने जा रहे हैं.

Original Post: Pravin Gupta
Hindi Translation: Meena Maillart-garg

FDI IN RETAIL: PART 3 - FDI in Retail Will Gradually Make Our Farmers Bankrupt

FDI IN RETAIL IS A BIG HOAX PROMOTED BY US MNCs AND INDIAN MEDIA

The Government is planning to bring in FDI In Retail, in On-Line Retail and In Defence. 

We all have a keen interest in knowing the effects of FDI in these sectors.
We start with the effects of FDI on the Indian retail sector. 
We are presenting you a series of articles, to help you come to an informed conclusion.

PART 3: FDI in Retail to Make Farmers Bankrupt

 (Summary: The supermarket chain stores keep squeezing the prices of the farmers and the small producers to a bare sustenance level. Some of them go bankrupt in this process. The supermarket chains also play with product freshness and quality to reduce costs. The profits of the supermarket chains, as a result, keep increasing along with their market share.)

PART 3: FDI in Retail will give better margins to Producers and Farmers - Is it the truth or wool in our eyes?

A very major promise held out by supporters of organized GDI in Retail is that it will result in the removal of the middle-men, in the delivery chain from the producer to the ultimate consumer. Due to this direct delivery system, there will be significant savings. These savings will be passed on to the producers, as better prices for their products. This will mean better profitability of farmers and lower prices to the consumer. Let us examine the truthfulness or otherwise of this crucial argument offered in favour of FDI in Retail, based on the international experience.

1. What has the media to say about the profits of the farmer and small producer?

Supermarkets indulge in regular price wars and “Loss-leader pricing” (Please refer Part 2), in order to increase their market share. As a result of these, the consumer may benefit in the shorter term through lower prices. But do the supermarkets absorb the losses due to the lower prices?

Let us take the example of the recent milk wars in Australia. The milk prices were reduced by the supermarkets to $ 1 per litre, a drop of over 50%. Who paid for this reduction? Not the supermarket! These lower prices were pushed down the throat of the producer, who had to either comply with accepting lower prices for his milk or let it rot in his milk-containers.

This is what the Herald Sun, a leading newspaper wrote in its business section,” Somebody has had to pay for those lower prices, and it has been the suppliers. Coles and Woolworth (the big two superstore chains, who control over 80% of the retail food market) have been ruthless with them. Forcing them to cut their prices…….. Milk is the standout example. Small suppliers, or those without major branded products, just have to cop whatever the big two demand……it's simply undeniable that overall, they've been ruthlessly squeezing their suppliers.”

And did the supermarkets lose money due to the price wars? Just the opposite. Herald Sun continues, “they have had to supply even bigger increases in volumes, because of their price cuts, their profits have increased at an even faster pace…. by 24 per cent for Woolworth, by 40 per cent for Coles.” So, the huge price reduction actually increased the profits of the Supermarkets. Herald Sun has this to say, ” Woolworth maintained a very aggressive program of new stores…..it added 74 new ones in three years, and increased it total food and liquor floor space by 13.5 per cent.” This 13.5% growth is in a market which is hardly growing by 1-2%! Is it not evident that the additional 12% sales came from driving the smaller players to the ground?

The supermarket chain stores are so powerful that even politicians do not want to take any action. Herald Sun continues,” It would be a courageous politician or regulator who tried to aggressively reduce the dominance or the price-cutting practices of the big two.” Are the Indian politicians any different?

So, if the supermarkets increased their profits and the consumer paid lower prices, who paid for the milk price reduction?

2. What is the version of the farmer and small producer, and what are the authorities doing?

Georgina Mitchell and Sally Willoughby, writing in Business Day section of Sydney Morning Herald, (the largest daily newspaper), say,” Brian Wilson, a fourth-generation cattle farmer with a property near Tamworth, says the Coles and Woolworth duopoly cut his income by about $80,000 last financial year… Mr Wilson said producers in the New England went through a competitive tender process to win the Coles and Woolworths milk contract, but many farmers were forced to sell their product at a loss”.

So, what was the consequence of such unremunerative prices to the farmers? Mitchell and Willoughby write, “The chief executive of the NSW Farmers Association, Matt Brand, said 30 farming families in the state had left the dairy industry in the past year because of price cutting by supermarket chains.”

A dairy farmer of Australia, who has been made bankrupt, because of price squeeze by the Supermarket chain stores

And what was the regulator doing? …”The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) announced last week it would investigate the supermarkets over claims they bullied suppliers, misused market powers and potentially breached the law. Fifty producers anonymously stepped forward with evidence against the supermarket giants, who last year earned combined revenue of $70 billion.”

As you can see the producers were so scared of the big superstores that only a few of them gave evidence anonymously. These dairy farmers are giants in comparison to Indian milk producers, with hundreds of cattle and automatic milking stations. Till the time of writing this article, no action has been taken against the supermarket giants by ACCC.

Can you imagine what would happen in a similar situation in India? The farmers will have nowhere to go, but up. There will be mass suicides.

3. FDI in Retail supporters say that it will provide better storage and transportation and thus fresher food – how true or false?

What about the modern infrastructure facilities, tom-tommed by the FDI in Retail supporters?  What about quick transportation of produce from the farms to the consumers, to keep the natural freshness, and reduce wastage?

While in India we are used to getting our milk nearly fresh (less than 6 hours after milking), milk in Australia takes anywhere up to 6 days after milking, to reach the supermarket shelves. This is because of the system called batching, to minimize collection and transportation costs. To keep the milk from going bad in this period, it is chemically treated to kill all organisms. I have never been able to make curd at home with the supermarket milk. I am forced to buy curd, from the same supermarkets, at three times the milk price.

There is something more, which I have not been able to understand in years. The toned milk in Australia costs 15-20% more than full-cream milk! The superstores have given the story to the public that as they have to process full-cream milk in order to take out the butter, to make toned milk, the extra processing costs more. What about the sales and profits from the sales of butter? When I ask this question, people are puzzled, as no one has ever asked that question to the supermarkets.

So, how would you like to drink 6 days old milk, supplied at twice or thrice the present prices, and not being able to make your own curd, from these FDI superstores?

4. How supermarkets use meat scraps and animal glue to produce fresh meat

To meet the ever increasing pressure by supermarket chains to reduce prices, the commercial meat packing industry around the U.S. have found a new way to increase profits by using meat scraps to make filet mignons as well as hot dogs, sausages and stew meat. Powdered meat glue binds scraps of beef, lamb, chicken or fish that would normally be thrown out, into solid pieces of meat. According to its manufacturer, meat glue can be used to produce new kinds of mixed meats (for example combining mutton and fish seamlessly).

Meat glue permits restaurants and butchers to sell their meat scraps as premium meat. Once you cook the glued meat, even a professional butcher or chef can’t tell the difference.

Daily Mail, Australia, writes,” It's packaged in supermarkets and delis as 'formed', or 'reformed', meat. But in restaurants across the U.S., there are no laws requiring chefs to disclose the use of 'meat glue', a kitchen trick that has left consumers curdling at the thought of ordering a filet. The little-known secret - a powdery substance made from an animal blood clotting agent that connects small pieces of meat - allows stores to sell the final product as a prime cut, making fast food out of fine dining, experts say.”

The same is now being used in Australia and was shown on national television, in a sting operation. The video can be seen on the YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXXrB3rz-xU

Meat glue consumption can lead to illnesses such as Celiac Disease, Heart Disease, Stroke, Crohn’s, Ibd and Ibs.

Conclusion: Will the superstores help our farmers, improve their returns and supply fresher products?

Based on the example of the developed countries, we have to be prepared for regular farmer suicides, higher customer prices and non-fresh farm products, which are made to look fresh by artificial methods. Are these portends of good days for the customers and farmers?

PART 4: In this part we shall analyse if FDI in retail will bring in huge investments in infrastructure for storage and transportation, as being promised.

Sincerest Regards,

AAP - THE ROAD AHEAD

Please give your comments and share To Maximize awareness about the evil truth of FDI in Retail.

FDI IN RETAIL: PART 2 Unfair Competitive Practices resulting in joblessness

FDI IN RETAIL IS A BIG HOAX PROMOTED BY US MNCs AND INDIAN MEDIA

The Government is planning to bring in FDI In Retail, in On-Line Retail and In Defence. 

We all have a keen interest in knowing the effects of FDI in these sectors.
We start with the effects of FDI on the Indian retail sector. 
We are presenting you a series of articles, to help you come to an informed conclusion.

PART 2: Unfair Competitive Practices

(Summary: As we saw in Part 1, the supermarket chains, all over the world, create market dominance by cornering a market share of 50-88%, divided up among less than 5 players. In this Part 2 we see how with this mammoth market dominance, they squeeze the suppliers to the point of ruining them financially, source products from foreign suppliers in the name of benefit to customers, limit customer choice by offering only selected brands and packs, kill small players by unfair pricing policies and force customers to buy unwanted products. Proofs of these practices, both from consumer and professional organizations, are presented.)

The FDI in Retail claims to benefit the customer by lower prices and the farmer by better margins. How true are these claims?

A fair and healthy competition benefits the customer. Customers get the best product at the cheapest price. FDI in Retail supporters have been singing from media roof-tops that FDI in Retail will help in improving variety, quality and price for the Indian housewife, and give better terms to the farmer. To know the truth, let us analyse how these same corporate are operating in the countries of the developed world, how fair is the competition there and how much is the benefit to the housewife and the suppliers. The story in India will be a repetition of the same.

Price manipulation to kill competition from the smaller stores: 

Superstores are long term players, with deep pockets. They are prepared to lose money in the short-term to gain market dominance. They are well aware that the small-store owner has limited financial capability. So they use the strategy called “Loss-leader pricing” for selling a few products at cost or even below cost.

In a report produced in September 2012 by Consumers International, for the European Union states,” Supermarkets routinely practise selective deep discounting, often referred to as below-cost selling. This was identified by the UK Competition Commission in its 2008 study as a practice with the potential to have an adverse effect on consumers. Although the Commission expected consumers to benefit from lower prices, they recognised that the practice could “mislead consumers into thinking that the prices of all products sold  by a grocery retailer are lower than is really the case”. Supermarkets know very well that, in a one-stop shopping expedition, consumers are unlikely to buy deeply-discounted baked beans at one supermarket and deeply-discounted dog food at another.”

The small store cannot afford to match the prices of the superstore “Loss-Leaders” nor their promotion in mass-media. Over a period of time, the small store starts losing its regular customers and starts losing money. In the finale, either the small store closes down, or the superstore buys it off at a throw-away price, making the owners and their employees job-less. With competition gone, the superstores can now start charging higher prices and also start offering lower quality goods, thus increasing their profit margins. This is how in every developed country 3-5 supermarket chain stores have cornered up to 88% of the market share.

In a report commissioned in 2012, International management consultants Deloitte state,” ‘Down-Down’ is Coles pricing and marketing campaign. This has been a high profile campaign from its commencement in early 2010. Other supermarkets have their own pricing strategies to compete, including IGA’s with “Locked Down Low Prices” from July 2012 and Woolworths’s “everyday low prices”. The chart shows data from Coles, having 37% of the Australian grocery market share. By using “down-down” price strategy, over the last three years, Coles has managed to increase sales of selected products by 50-333%.” The total market growth is barely 5%. This implies that Coles has gobbled up the sales of the smaller retailers, driving them to ruin.

Picture shows a dairy farmer from Queensland, Australia, who was driven to bankruptcy by Coles’ “Down-down” milk pricing strategy.

EVIDENCE FROM CUSTOMERS:

The truth of the above statements is well-known in the developed countries, but is well-hidden by the Indian media from the domestic customers. Many of you may be buying from the same small kirana store for decades. Possibly your mother also purchased at the same store, and the owner knows all of you. Here are some personal experiences of Australians, writing on a famous Australian blog, called “Whirlpool” (actual quotes of people, names removed for compliance with privacy laws): 

i. "It seems retailers in Australia are copping flak left, right and centre for all sorts of reasons. I'm sure lots of Whirlpool members have fond memories of retailers that have either been taken over or closed down over the years".
ii. "Brashes (an electronic small store) was good for most music and good for TV's …. until JB (an electronic superstore) started popping up everywhere…, then JB turned to crap when they realised they could sell more things for higher prices, and all they needed was a box and sales people, with very limited product knowledge".
iii. "Have fond memories of Waltons in Bankstown (Sydney) and of McEwans in Northland. I live near Northland now and when I go I try to remember where it used to be".
iv. "I miss Brashs, still have a shopping bag from them around the house somewhere".
v. "Now I miss just independently owned stores; walking through Melbourne CBD, it's all just big brand franchises. These corporations knocked out our small businesses".
vi. "I am 45. I was very young and remember the store and knew it used to be Foy's but it was also taken over by Woolworth's and became a Woolworth's variety".
vii. "Skinny's music store on Adelaide in Brisbane. Actually had ok prices for an independent. Along comes JB (an electronic superstore) and kills them". 

I can give you hundreds of such examples from real life people, showing how small businesses have been killed by superstores. The Indian media shows us manipulated market research reports, prepared by paid agents, to show that the FDI in Retail will bring a shopping haven to India. As you can see its nothing but a lie.

EVIDENCE FROM MEDIA AND AUTHORITIES:

Big name superstores, all over the world, like Wal-Mart, Tesco, Aldi etc. sell more than 75% of their products with “Made in China” label. This strategy has gradually killed the local manufacturers and vendors, who cannot match the Chinese prices. Their owners are workers have been rendered jobless.

Let us now see the facts found out by Australian authorities, in charge of ensuring fair competition, and published in the media.

Kate Carnel, Chief Executive of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, writing in Sydney Morning Herald, a leading Australian newspaper, says, “Aggressive price promotion and discounting by supermarkets is a normal part of competitive retailing to encourage customers into stores…… advertising new unsustainably low prices on staple products ………… will inevitably flow through to farmers and affect the viability and competitiveness of both farmers and the agri-food manufacturing sector, which employs more than 288,000 Australians, including half in rural and regional areas…… If these companies cease and reduce manufacturing in Australia, then infrastructure, employment and the social fabric of many rural towns will be significantly undermined… supermarket chains have moved many non-food manufacturing base offshore – we don’t want the same to happen to food products. Australians don’t want ….. cheap imports for our food supply.” 

Most customers in the developed countries are unhappy with the foreign outsourcing and quality of these products, but have little choice. The local governments are unable to do anything because of WTO rules, where trade restrictions and tariff protection is nearly impossible. It is like the genie of the bottle – once released you cannot put it back in to the bottle.

Conclusion: What will be the consequence of this unfair pricing? The smaller retailers, the farmers and the agro-based manufacturers will be forced to keep reducing prices, till they become nonviable and close down. What will happen then? Just more products with “Made in China” labels! Do you want this to happen in India in the next 15-20 years? As India is primarily an agrarian economy, the consequences of rural job losses will be catastrophic.

The Census 2011 report has said that 20% joblessness exists in the youth, both male and female. If FDI in Retail is allowed to come in to the country, the coming years will see this jobless figure jump to anywhere between 40-50%. Imagine while half of our country’s youth will be jobless, the foreign companies, owning the FDI in Retail, will be laughing all the way to the bank.

PART 3: In this part we shall analyse the truth of the claim that FDI in Retail will provide better margins to farmers and smaller manufacturers.

Sincerest Regards,
AAP - THE ROAD AHEAD

We look forward to your comments and suggestions.
Please Share on Other Pages To Maximize Participation.

FDI IN RETAIL: PART 1 IT IS A BIG HOAX PROMOTED BY US MNCs AND INDIAN MEDIA

The Government is planning to bring in FDI In Retail, in On-Line Retail and In Defence. 

We all have a keen interest in knowing the effects of FDI in these sectors.
We start with the effects of FDI on the Indian retail sector. 
We are presenting you a series of articles, to help you come to an informed conclusion.

PART 1: Market dominance

(Summary of PART 1: It has been said by the media and by the politicians repeatedly that FDI in Retail will only have a market share of 3-5%. It will thus have no impact whatsoever on the market dynamics of pricing or purchase control. The truth is just the opposite. In all developed countries, where supermarket chains operate, they control between 50-88% of the market share. They completely dominate all aspects of purchase and sales pricing. The small retailers, manufacturers and farmers have no say at all.)

The story told by Politicians In Support of FDI in Retail:
The Biggest bluff that the Indian politicians and the Indian media are telling the public is that FDI in retail sector will have multiple benefits for the Indian economy. It will bring in billions of dollars in investment, boost employment, reduce wastage of food grains and other edibles, set-up modern storage and transportation facilities, increase revenues and profits of the primary producers and reduce prices to the end-consumers. 

The Biggest bluff that the Indian politicians and the Indian media are telling the public is that FDI in retail sector will have multiple benefits for the Indian economy. It will bring in billions of dollars in investment, boost employment, reduce wastage of food grains and other edibles, set-up modern storage and transportation facilities, increase revenues and profits of the primary producers and reduce prices to the end-consumers.

Nothing can be farther from the truth.

The facts from developed economies, from where we are planning to copy the superstore-retail model, tell a completely different story. Based on my personal experience of such superstore chains of Australia, where I live, and from discussions on the subject with many close friends, who work in retail super stores, I find that the Indian public is being taken for a royal ride. 

The impact of superstore proliferation has also been analysed by many well-respected International management consultants. Their analysis and conclusions are available as private reports and as published articles in leading newspapers. Let us study what all they have to say and whether they also extol the virtues of the retail-superstore model. Does their analysis also match what is being told to us by the Indian media and .politicians?

Let us take up each of the arguments offered in support of the retail super-store model.

    1.    The superstores will only have a market share of 3-5% and thus hardly impact the total economic scenario:

The facts from various world markets, by well-respected sources, tell us a completely different story:

a)     Professors Graeme Samuel AC and Stephen King, co-directors of the Monash Business Policy Forum, who led a research project on Australia’s national Competition Policy, have this to say in an article published on 1/.Aug/.2013 “Australia’s ‘big three’ account for 95 per cent of grocery sales. Equivalent ‘big three’ shares in other countries range from around 65 per cent in Canada and Sweden, to 50 per cent in the UK and Austria, down to about 40 per cent in Germany”.

Coles and Woolworths, account for around 75 per cent of Australia’s sales of packaged groceries.

b)    
     A report produced with the financial assistance of the European Union, for Consumers International, documents the high degree of national grocery markets in a number of countries. In all cases not more than 5 supermarkets share 50 - 88 % of the National Food Market. This is a very high concentration of buying and selling power. A diagrammatic representation shows how in UK 4 supermarkets control 76% market share from 7000 suppliers and have a client base of 25 million households.

 c)  As per Stuart Alexander, a leading marketing and distribution consultant in consumer marketing, “It is estimated that there are over 10,000 small and independent retailers across Australia. The total market share of these is 2%”. It is very clear that over the years, the major players have squeezed out the small independent corner stores, similar to our Indian kirana stores, who are now left with a mere 2 market share. Majority of the existing 10,000 stores are in very small localities, where big superstores do not find it viable to operate.

d)   Euromonitor International, a leading tracker of supermarkets all over the world says, “Wal-Mart Stores Inc. remained the largest grocery retailer in the US with 25% value share of overall grocery retailers. Wal-Mart’s value sales grew by 2% in 2013”. Thus Wal-Mart, which also has operations in India, alone controlled 25% of the retail grocery market share, and this grew by over 2% in 2013, a year in which the US economy was in recession. This would imply that more and more small retail players are being systematically squeezed out.

What does this mean for us in India:  Once we allow FDI in retail in India, over a few years the independent retailers will be squeezed out from all major markets. They will only be able to operate in small and uneconomic geographical areas, where super-stores will not like to go. The cumulative market share of the major superstore chains will not be 3-5%, but more like 40-50%.

PART 2: In this part we shall analyse what will be the consequences of such market dominance by the super-stores.