Preamble of our Constitution says, “we, the people of India, constituted India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic with the objective of securing to all its citizens justice, social, economical and political liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, equality of status and opportunity.
Article 39 of our constitution says, ” The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing -
(a) That the citizen, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.
(b) That the ownership and control of the material resource of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good.
(c) That the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.”
Article 37 of the Constitution says that the principles laid down there are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. Any indifference or negligence in the direction of implementation of the directive principles of the State policy is bound to be fatal to the very cause of the Constitution.
The Constitutional machinery of the Union and the directive principles of the State policy are meant to achieve the objective of the Constitution. Although the Directive Principles of State Policy are asserted to be fundamental in the governance of the country, they are not legally enforceable. It shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. Any indifference or negligence in the direction of implementation of the directive principles of the State policy is bound to be fatal to the very cause of the Constitution.
However, In the name of reformation, the Indian government decided to introduce Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in order to balance its budget deficit, boost growth and ward off a credit downgrade. The government reasoned, “FDI was expected to generate a large number of jobs in rural India besides giving remunerative prices to farmers for their products.” It is therefore, assumed that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) shall increase economic growth by dealing with different international products, 1 Crore employment will create in three years, Billion dollars will be invested in Indian market, India will spread import and export business in different countries, Indian agriculture related people will get good price of their goods.
In reality, the decision of FDI could potentially be a game-changer for India’s retail market, which is dominated by neighborhood stores.
FDI means Foreign Direct Investment which is mainly dealings with monetary matters and using this way they acquires standalone position in the Indian economy. Their policy is very simple to remove rivals. In beginning days they sell products at low price so other competitor shut down in few months. And then companies like Wall-Mart will increase prices than actual product price. Introduction of FDI in India shall affect 50 million merchants in India, an economically backward class person suffers from price raise, retailer will face loss in business, since market places are situated too far which will increase traveling expenses, in the policy, workers safety and policies are not mentioned clearly, profit distribution, investment ratios are not fixed, inflation may be increased, again India become slaves because of FDI in retail sector.
FDI means Foreign Direct Investment which is mainly dealings with monetary matters and using this way they acquires standalone position in the Indian economy. Their policy is very simple to remove rivals. In beginning days they sell products at low price so other competitor shut down in few months. And then companies like Wall-Mart will increase prices than actual product price. Introduction of FDI in India shall affect 50 million merchants in India, an economically backward class person suffers from price raise, retailer will face loss in business, since market places are situated too far which will increase traveling expenses, in the policy, workers safety and policies are not mentioned clearly, profit distribution, investment ratios are not fixed, inflation may be increased, again India become slaves because of FDI in retail sector.
Over the last few decades, enormous efforts have been made by developing countries to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). It is commonly agreed upon that, by accelerating economic growth, FDI is a determining feature in poverty reduction. However, various work by the trade economists on the impact of trade on poverty reduction, a simplified framework is suggested which breaks down the influence of FDI into its “growth enhancing” and “distribution” effects. Contrary to (now) conventional wisdom, little evidence is found that FDI is a major instrument for poverty reduction.
Although the potential of FDI as a source of capital and knowledge transfer, but it raises a series of issues essentially related to the abuse by multinational corporations of their market power. The crux of the fact is that multinationals exert pressure on developing country governments that they typically poorly equipped to resist: multinationals distort policy choices, and make control of the domestic economy increasingly difficult. FDI could impede the development of the national economy if multinational corporations ended up dominating local industry and distorting the domestic policy environment to their favour.
The effects of Foreign Direct Investment alleged to be good for development, and hence the rapid expansion of FDI considered a gift from heaven. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine whether the same development level could have been achieved without FDI. Critics, however, contend that FDI leads to more poverty, isolation and a neglect of local capabilities. Difficulties with the privatisation, which involved FDI, appear to tell us that not all shares in the benefits, Observations rather reflect that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) resulted income inequality.
To be continued….
