Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07CHENNAI314
2007-05-01 08:51:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Consulate Chennai
Cable title:  

AFTER CLOSING COKE, KERALA ACTIVISTS TARGET PEPSI

Tags:  EINV ETRD PGOV IN 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO2161
RR RUEHBI RUEHCI
DE RUEHCG #0314/01 1210851
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 010851Z MAY 07
FM AMCONSUL CHENNAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0874
INFO RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 2470
RUEHCI/AMCONSUL KOLKATA 0764
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 5031
RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO 1323
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CHENNAI 000314 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS

COMMERCE FOR MAC: EROL YESIN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV ETRD PGOV IN
SUBJECT: AFTER CLOSING COKE, KERALA ACTIVISTS TARGET PEPSI

REFS: (A) 06 CHENNAI 0109, (B) 05 CHENNAI 2087

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CHENNAI 000314

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS

COMMERCE FOR MAC: EROL YESIN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV ETRD PGOV IN
SUBJECT: AFTER CLOSING COKE, KERALA ACTIVISTS TARGET PEPSI

REFS: (A) 06 CHENNAI 0109, (B) 05 CHENNAI 2087


1. (SBU) SUMMARY: On April 10, Pepsi won a four-year court battle
for survival in Kerala. But the legal victory has spurred a battle
on another front: a virulent media campaign directed against it. A
similar campaign succeeded in locking out Coca Cola in 2004, despite
court verdicts in Coke's favor. Pepsi's case is somewhat different.
Unlike Coke, Pepsi's Kerala plant is located in an industrial park
which offers legal protection from hostile village councils.
Nonetheless, activists opposed to multinational corporations are
clamoring for government action to close down Pepsi, but the state
government is divided on the advisability of such a move. END
SUMMARY.

-------------- --------------
COKE'S EXPERIENCE: CAUGHT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF POLITICS
-------------- --------------


2. (SBU) When Coke began production in Kerala in 2000, a leftist
coalition led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) governed the
state. A year later Kerala voted out the CPI(M) coalition and
Congress took power. Local resentment over a shortage of drinking
water in the drought-prone villages around Coke's premises soon led
to regular agitations against the company. In April 2003, the
panchayat (village council) of a nearby village ruled by the leftist
Janata Dal party refused to renew Coke's license. Despite the
panchayat's ruling, Coke was able to continue operations for almost
a year due to the support of the Congress-led state government and
the Kerala High Court. But, the Congress-led state government
reversed itself in February 2004 and barred Coke from drawing
groundwater, effectively ordering the plant to cease operations. In
April 2005, Coke obtained a High Court verdict in its favor, which
permitted the use of up to 500,000 liters of water daily.


3. (SBU) In May 2006, the CPI(M) returned to power with Coke's
fiercest opponent, V.S. Achuthanandan, as Chief Minister. When an
Indian nongovernmental organization alleged in August 2006 that Coke
and Pepsi contained high levels of pesticides, Achuthananandan's
government promptly banned the production and sale of both
companies' products. Though it was not actually producing in the

state, Coke was forced to halt Kerala sales of product it was
bringing in from neighboring Tamil Nadu. The Kerala High Court,
however, rescinded the government order in September 2006, allowing
both companies to resume sales of their products in Kerala.


4. (SBU) "Technically, we can restart production because the
panchayat has given us a conditional license following the April
2005 High Court order," said Coke's General Manager Vikas Kochar.
But Kochar added that Coke has not restarted production and has no
plans to do so because of the prevailing hostility of the local
community. Appeals against the High Court order filed by the
panchayat and the state government are pending in the Indian Supreme
Court. In addition, the state's Pollution Control Board repeatedly
denied Coke environmental clearance on the grounds that the
factory's effluent allegedly contains heavy metals. Having given up
hope of restarting production in the near future, Coke has shifted
one of the three production lines out of the state and has either
retired or redeployed almost the entire staff. According to Kochar,
Coke has also stopped the free supply of drinking water to the
neighboring villages.

-------------- --------------
WITH COKE GONE PEPSI FINDS ITSELF IN THE CROSSHAIRS
-------------- --------------


5. (SBU) While Coke was bearing the brunt of leftist opposition,
Pepsi managed to quietly continue doing business. Unlike Coke,
Pepsi's facility is located within an industrial park, which
provides it protection against the jurisdiction of the local
panchayat. Undeterred by this legal impediment, the panchayat still
canceled Pepsi's license in 2003. After a four year legal battle,
during which Pepsi operated under a stay of the cancellation, the
Kerala High Court ruled in April 2007 that the panchayat had no
right to cancel the license of a factory located in a notified
industrial area under the terms of the Industrial Township Area
Development Act of 1999. (NOTE: The Act was enacted with cases
such as Pepsi's in mind: to protect investors from cumbersome
licensing procedures and hostile bureaucracy it exempted industrial
parks from the purview of the panchayats. END NOTE.)


6. (SBU) The unambiguous court verdict did not end the matter. In
fact, it has only served to rile Pepsi's critics. Janata Dal Member
of Parliament, M.P. Veerendrakumar, whose family runs one of
Kerala's leading daily newspapers, is spearheading an anti-Pepsi
media campaign. Chief Minister Achuthanandan, whose district is in

CHENNAI 00000314 002 OF 002


the area of Pepsi' plant, reacted to the court verdict by saying the
panchayat's rights would be restored, and he reportedly indicated
that the government would consider amending the Industrial Township
Area Development Act.


7. (SBU) The architect of the Industrial Township Area Development
Act told post that he believes that chances of amending the law are
remote, although he added that one cannot be too sure given the
CPI(M)'s "crazy leadership." According to journalists, serious
differences still persist between the Department of Industries and
the Department of Local Administration (which governs the
panchayats) on the issue. They point out that the Advocate
General's office received conflicting directions from these
departments, one supporting the company and the other the panchayat.
The journalists told post that the Department of Industries is
aware that any attempt to restore the panchayat's right to cancel
industrial licenses at will would undermine the attractiveness of
its industrial parks and expose investors, particularly in the
manufacturing sector, to the whims of local politicians.


8. (SBU) COMMENT: The judiciary seems to be Coke and Pepsi's only
reliable ally in all of Kerala. But Coke's experience shows that
judicial verdicts alone are not sufficient to carry the day in
Kerala's rough and tumble political environment. Although Pepsi's
location in an industrial park afforded it the support of the
state's Department of Industries, the company still faces a threat
to its ability to do business in Kerala. Companies, particularly
multinationals, setting up operations in Kerala will face the
possibility of such problems until Kerala's governing class changes
its mindset and focuses on the need to create more jobs within the
state. END COMMENT.

HOPPER