U.S. to India: Drink Coke or else!

Some background (scholars of international politics please correct any errors)

India has a multiple-party system of democratic government that means parties have to work together and build alliances. Since gaining its independence from Britain, India has mostly been governed by a party called the Indian National Congress. It's left-leaning, sort of. Its primary opposition is the BJP, a hindu nationalist party, the religious right of India.

Five states in india have enacted limited bans on Coca-Cola but the state of Kerala is the first to ban it entirely. Kerala is one of the most left-leaning states in India, it also has the country's highest literacy rate, highest life expectancy, lowest infant mortality, lowest population growth, etc. As of this year's elections, the state government is controlled by the Left Democratic Front, a coalition to the left of the Indian National Congress. The right-wing BJP has no seats in the Kerala state assembly.

The struggle against Coke in Kerala has gone on for years, on several fronts, but state-level efforts were often overturned at the federal or judicial stage. They'd tried legal battles over the groundwater and the toxic sludge stuff before. It's likely that the the Left Democratic Front winning the majority in the state government is what finally enabled the ban to take place. And now, unsurprisingly, the Indian federal government is disputing Kerala's claims of pesticide contamination.

What makes a democratic left-wing party like the Indian National Congress beholden to corporate interests? In part, pressure from the U.S. government. Consider the statement made by Frank Lavin, the Bush administration's undersecretary for international trade, disapproving of the Coke & Pepsi ban: "When India is working hard to attract and retain foreign investment, it would be unfortunate if the discussion were dominated by those who did not want to treat foreign companies fairly." The rhetoric of "fairness" is pretty funny, as what Lavin really wants is preferential treatment for multinationals, the ability to overrule local democratic decision-making. Consider also the $380,000 donated by Coca-Cola to the 2004 Bush campaign. Probably a wise investment.

Subtext: India, still struggling to emerge from colonialism, is facing significant environmental and humanitarian crises, as well as a heated relationship with Pakistan. Developed countries have pushed trade agreements and "development aid" (with strings attached) supposedly offering "help", but this isn't motivated by altruism, but the promise of expanded reach and global market dominance.

So this issue with fizzy-sugar-water and India is one that has very real tangible effects on the welfare and survival of people in that country, but it's also a symbolic struggle for a country that is still being forced to fight for their independence more than half-a-century after escaping British rule.