The Indian government's decision in September 2012 to allow foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail — permitting international retailers like Walmart and Carrefour to establish majority-owned operations in India — was among the most contested economic policy decisions of the Manmohan Singh government's second term, and the claim that it would create ten million jobs over a decade was central to the political defense of a reform that faced fierce opposition from multiple directions.

The job creation projection came from government analyses and studies commissioned by FDI proponents, who argued that the establishment of modern retail supply chains, cold storage infrastructure, and organized retail operations would generate employment across the entire agricultural-to-consumer supply chain, including in logistics, food processing, and back-end operations.

Opponents — a coalition that included small traders, kirana shop owners, and political parties from the BJP to Left formations — argued that organized retail's entry would destroy far more informal sector livelihoods than it created formal jobs. The analogy to other emerging markets was contested: retail modernization in China, for instance, had been accompanied by significant displacement of informal retail, though the net employment effects were disputed.

The political economy of the reform was as important as its economics. India's vast network of small shops — the kirana network — represented not only livelihoods but a political constituency. State governments, which under the policy framework had the right to choose whether to implement the reform within their territories, became a key battleground. Several BJP-governed states announced they would not permit the entry of foreign multi-brand retailers.

Whether the ten million jobs figure would ultimately prove accurate depended on assumptions that could not be tested in advance — and the political fight continued long after the policy was announced.