Equality debates have been heating up in India. Recently the press
reported that an actress demanded wage equality between actresses and actors.
The word ‘actor’ is now commonly applied to both genders and it’s now the ‘female
actor’ and the ‘male actor’! So, I have to revise my sentence to negate the
semantic distinction and mention that a female actor demanded wage equality
between ‘female actors’ and ‘male actors’! Equality has been achieved in ‘word’
but it appears that in terms of wages in the tinsel world it is not yet a
reality!
The Times of India carried an advertisement as part of its own
Corporate Social Responsibility yesterday, claiming vociferous attention to gender
equality that is denied under some laws that treat women as unequal
second-class citizens. The advertisement copy read thus: “Identity in Crisis – Acknowledge
the Individual in Every Woman” featuring Chanda Kochhar, ICICI Bank’s Managing
Director. The advertisement said, ”The Hindu Succession Act says that in the
absence of a spouse and childless, the property of a woman who dies without a
will goes to the husband’s heirs. Why? Why not to her siblings or heirs?” The
equality demand raised by TOI is only just and fair.
It’s the turn of retailers to look at equality rights now. Just as the fourth estate has been
highlighting equality demands, the modern retailers of India have lost no time
in staking their claims. (The neo-modern ones are the online retailers who are
pushing the brick and mortar moderns into the past, fast!). The big brick and
mortar retailers have moved the Delhi High Court seeking justice for ‘level
playing’ field with online retailers. High level discussions are on for
allowing 100% Foreign Direct Investment in online B2C retailing in India and in
brick and mortar it’s allowed only partially with conditions on investments.
India is a land of small retailers with a statistical count of over 14 million
tiny retailers. Consequent to that singular attempt to have level playing field
with them, did the Government of India not allow FDI fully in the modern retail
trade.
Arguments are centering on numbers. On the one hand pro-online
retailers argue that the number of marketplace vendors that online retailers
have been able to create is humungous with the large ecommerce organizations
sourcing from as many as over three lakh suppliers who are the Micro Small
& Medium Enterprises (MSME) in India. They say on the other hand that brick
and mortar retailers have been able to develop only a few hundreds of vendors
from within the country! And online retailers have been able to attract
investors with billions of dollars while the brick and mortar retailers have
not been able to garner even a tenth! Brick and mortar retailers cry foul
saying that if FDI were allowed 100%, investments would pour in larger measures.
The next question goes towards the concern of the Government of India for small
retailers and what would happen to them if FDI were allowed 100% in brick and
mortar retailing.
Level playing fields in retailing seem to go fathomless. Online
retailers have been rocking the marketplaces and benefitting Indian consumers. The
claim of big retailers may work more the other way than getting FDI norms in
their favour. It may attract the attention of policy makers to lay conditions (like
the ‘must source’ clause) for e-commerce organizations to source and sell
majority of merchandise made in India (which if implemented may only do good
for our country!) But, would that be just and fair to all including the
millions of new online consumers? Or open FDI 100% in modern retailing considering
retailing as one entity, that is, online retailers and brick and mortars
combined, without any conditions? Would that be just and fair to the millions
of small retailers who depend on the daily business from their petty shops for a livelihood? The Modi Government must have the answers!
- Dr. Gibson G. Vedamani
