Opinion On autonomy

Mamata Banerjee may have opposed the hike in prices of petrol and diesel,but the Left claims that she had concurred the cabinet decision. An article in New Age claims that Banerjee met Petroleum Minister Murli Deora “just before the cabinet meeting and had given her consent for the decision.”

“To keep an escape route for skirting his responsibility,in consultation with them,she premeditatedly absented herself from the cabinet meeting,” it says. Never missing an opportunity to attack the Trinamool chief,the CPI says,“fuel price hike is not the only anti-people,anti-nation decision of this government. There are many such decisions and Banerjee is party to all those decisions.”

Liability too limited

The CPM journal People’s Democracy carries the note given by General Secretary Prakash Karat to the standing committee of science and technology and environment and forest on the civil nuclear liability bill. He talks about the government pushing through the legislation under pressure from the US and lists out the party’s concerns. On the government’s keenness to join the convention on supplementary compensation or CSC,he argues that liability bill has been drafted to make it compatible with CSC. “US nuclear industry and the US administration want all countries which receive US manufactured nuclear equipment to sign the CSC and indemnify the US suppliers,” he says.

“The key difference between the CSC and other similar international conventions is the degree of protection offered to the suppliers — CSC provides the maximum protection to the US suppliers,” he argues. He reiterates that the bill exempts suppliers from virtually any liability to pay compensation for the damages caused.

Supermarket myths

The UPA government is mulling the opening up of the retail sector to FDI. In an article in the party’s official voice,the CPM tries to debunk theories that the arrival of MNC retail giants with superior technology and investment would put an end to the huge wastage in the agri-produce supply chain and the farmer would also benefit from this improved efficiency. “International experience has shown that,except for the huge profits raked in by the supermarket chains,organised retail has been a lose-lose scenario for farmers,small traders and wholesalers,consumers,and the environment and therefore society as a whole,” it says.

It cites the examples of the US and the UK to buttress its argument. The article says supermarkets in the US throw away Rs 95,000 crore worth of food every year,more than twice as much as in the EU,partly from fear of spoilage but also simply because they appear unappealing to consumers.

On whether organised retail would benefit farmers and small traders,it says “the authoritative UK Competition Commission found in a 2000 study of major retail chains including Marks & Spencer,Sainsbury and Tesco that supermarkets had a poor record on treatment of all categories of suppliers,specifically that the burden of cost increases in the supply chain has fallen disproportionately heavily on small suppliers such as farmers”. Apart from prices,smaller farmers came under severe pressure from supermarkets due to the latter’s requirement for large volumes of each product,pushing farmers to grow single crops rather than the multiple produce they would usually grow to minimise risk.

In its January 2010 report,the UK Competition Commission concluded that the practices of big retail chains continued to cause losses for farmers and small stores. The near-monopoly of supermarket chains,which procure over 70 per cent of food products in the UK,enables them to “dictate prices and force farmers into trading for less and less.”

Compiled by Manoj C.G.