12 ms·

When India kicked out Coca-Cola, local sodas thrived (2019)

194 points by ycombonator 6y ago

sandworm101 6y ago
Longtime traveler here. I was in india in the early nineties to witness thumbs up. Coke is a big bad corporation and that makes them evil, but when I traveled I always drink coke. Coke has always been obsessed with keeping its flavor consistent across markets. To get there they have to start with consistent water. That means their water is filtered and treated properly before it is turned into coke. So, when I am traveling, if I ever have a choice between coke and a local product I will go with coke. It is not the most enlightened decision but, having had a couple water-borne diseases in my day, coke is the safe bet. (Conversely, New England has a variety of local "sodas". I do not hesitate to try those when I am in that area. New England is not India.)
- Gwypaas 6y ago
  Quite interesting since american coke and the rest of the world is quite different due to the sweetener used which is adapted to the local market. In the US being HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup), and honestly when I lived in the US I could really taste the HFCS, something not really right with the products from my perspective. The rest of the world tends to use either cane sugar or sugar beets as their goto sweetener depending on location.
- sumanthvepa 6y ago
  If your health is the reason is why you are drinking Coke, I have some bad news for you. Coke is produced by local bottlers, franchisees, who produce it under license. The production standards for Coke vary across the world, and the health codes each bottler follows usually confirm to local law, which varies. The Coke process is simple enough that you get the same taste, but you won't get the same health standard. And even more ironically those local products you talk about are actually owned by Coke, and all those brands are made in the same factory. Yes, drinking out out a bottle is safer than drinking tap water in India, but do your health a favor and just buy yourself a bottle of branded water -- Aquafina is the Coke brand here. You'll be fine.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    When "coke" read "coke products". And there were far fewer of those when I was last in Bombay. Those local bottlers are inspected by coke... which is better than being inspected by nobody. I'll take industrial standards of health over local/nonexistant standards.
Mekantis 6y ago
People like to pretend that protectionism is such a bad thing. But Western nations built themselves through protectionism, it's something China has been doing to great success and the Asian tiger economies (primarily South Korea) did as well. After all, there's only so much you can do for your population if you never ensure a steady supply of high quality jobs that provide a path into the middle class, and you don't protect fledgling industries (beyond basic commodities) that are necessary to create these jobs but can't compete properly against well-established companies elsewhere. It's one of the great neoliberal myths that they've so successfully perpetuated (primarily through institutions like the IMF and the World Bank) that free trade and vicious, expansive privatization is the only right path.
- magicMonkeyPaw 6y ago
  oh yeah, I bet all the indians were very happy being only able to buy off-brand cola at horrendous prices. Woooo weeee.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  This is wrong, misguided and naive. International trade when done with effective reciprocity and managing the trade deficit, can lead to competition on a larger scale, better outcome for consumers and specialization in particular aspect of manufacturing or services. Even domestically, specialization is how human species became to me. If humans continued to be inwards looking and never engaged in barter-trade or any kind of bilateral exchange either with monetary instrument or goods/services; we would still be caves. National to international trade is just one more step in the expansion of trade that we all benefit from. We have proof that it works when all parties are rational and cooperative. If we found aliens on another planet, it would only make sense to trade with them (just increasing the abstraction layer from national to international to interplanetary).
  - rbecker 6y ago
    > International trade when done with effective reciprocity and managing the trade deficit This is exactly what protectionism can help achieve. Without it, you get banana republics, wholly owned by foreign multinationals. It's telling you ignore the parent posts Asian tiger economies as examples of successful protectionism, and instead address the ridiculous strawman of "never engaged in barter-trade or any kind of bilateral exchange either with monetary instrument or goods/services"
cvs268 6y ago
Until they allowed Coke back in and it promptly bought-out the various local brands! Every bottled drink brand is now either owned by the Coca-Cola Company, or by PepsiCo Inc. :-(
virtuabhi 6y ago
Limca and Thums Up are also available in Indian stores around the world.
- cvs268 6y ago
  Both are owned by the Coca Cola company now.
dang 6y ago
Discussed last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192335
newyankee 6y ago
When India liberalized in 1991 and welcomed foreign investment again rick Coke simply bought out a lot of local competitors. Even today my favorite local soda 'thums up' is marketed as a separate drink by Coke in India. A water scarce country like India should really not promote high consumption of soda and sugar based drinks. However the same cannot be said about other industries. Pre liberalization India used to be a country of license permit raj. Handful of local companies were highly inefficient and did not produce quality products or have incentive to improve and innovate. Liberalization did introduce competition and a lot of international products like Honda motorcycles and scooters. Indian 2 wheeler manufacturers like Bajaj had to innovate to compete and did become succesful. However a lot of sectors today are facing the problem from cheap Chinese products. Even though we are a much poorer country a lot of local products could not compete with Chinese imports. A classic example is furniture. Wood was always expensive here and it was crafted into something useful by local carpenters and artisans for what i would consider were reasonable prices. However a lot of urban furniture is now imported from China.
- rammy1234 6y ago
  Indian companies are slowly avoiding chinese products, for example all the chinese apps are now not allowed. https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/checkout-the-name-of-the-chinese-banned-apps-in-india/articleshow/76696132.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/checkout-the-n... Also today's news, Hero Cycles of India is shelving its plans to do business with China in light of recent changes. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/plans-business-china-rs-900-crore-shelved-hero-cycles-6489756/ https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/plans-bu...
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > A water scarce country like India should really not promote high consumption of soda and sugar based drinks. I mean, I can see not promoting sugary drinks in general…but what does this have to do with water scarcity?
  - telesilla 6y ago
    It takes a lot more than the volume of water to make the same volume in soda, beer and other commercial beverages. Consider bottle sterilization, crop irrigation.. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/business/energy-environment/22iht-rbog-beverage-22.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/business/energy-environme...
madmax108 6y ago
Travelling the world, one of the things that always strikes me is how omnipresent Coke and Pepsi are. But at the same time, every part of the world has it's own local twist on sugary sodas. The duopoly is so nice: You want something familiar, you always have it. You want something that cements a place in your mind, you have that too manufactured by the same conglomerates! A sip of Thums up takes me back to my college days (in India), just like Fresca teleports me to Costa Rica, The orangey goodnesss of Kas takes me to the coast of Malaga in Spain, and I can't even think of Mexico without tasting the many flavours of Jarritos available there!
- twic 6y ago
  I need to go back to Malta to drink some Kinnie!
  - BMorearty 6y ago
    Haha, I never expected to see Kinnie on HN. My wife's parents are American immigrants from Malta. I tried Kinnie when we visited Malta. Not personally a fan. I think it's an acquired taste.
tadasZ 6y ago
In my opinion Vita-Cola, Polo-Cockta, Kofola faded not because of coca cola, but because they were controlled by soviet mentality people from "higher status", party people and so on, who didn't care about anything but themselves, a lot of companies disappeared after soviet union collapsed (thank god it did collapse) because of crime, corruption and complete incompetence.
- jlg23 6y ago
  Vita-Cola is again alive and kicking, and I am one who actually loves it. I am sure this is not just nostalgia, because, even though I was born in the GDR, I was 9 when the wall fell and maybe had 3 glasses of Vita Cola before. "crime, corruption and complete incompetence" are often cited as the reasons for why local brands disappeared, along with "nostalgia" for their revival. I personally believe people just wanted to have the stuff they could not get before - or "curiosity" to put it in one word. Once that was over, people went by taste again and yes, there are actually customers who just like a higher acidity, less sugar or simply a different taste.
  - RealityVoid 6y ago
    I think curiosity doesn't really cover it. Being a kid in the 90's, home-grown soda sucked. In Romania, we had knock-offs such a Adria Cola witch were, quite honestly, horrible.
  - rurban 6y ago
    Also living in the east. Many local services only offer Vita-Cola, no Coca-Cola. By choice. And it tastes good. Support the local economy.
chrisco255 6y ago
When Austin kicked out Lyft and Uber, local ride sharing thrived. However, the problem was they paled in comparison.
- amelius 6y ago
  I'm sure that customers still reached their destination just fine like before ride-sharing was a thing, perhaps with only some minor inconveniences.
  - icebraining 6y ago
    Or, just like before ride-sharing was a thing, they wouldn't go at all. Lots of teenagers / young adults I knew who lived in areas with poor public transport got a massive upgrade to their social and cultural lives when ride-sharing appeared. For example, they could now join a band, since they could get home afterwards. Some elderly people I know also started going to the doctor more often, because walking to and from the bus stops was difficult, and the taxi was quite expensive for their low pensions.
- paxys 6y ago
  That's because the problem wasn't Uber or Lyft, but the ridesharing business model itself.
intended 6y ago
I was there during the liberalization. What a time to have witnessed. I remember the headline when coke bought Parle, for what was then an eye watering number. And then several years later, TATA motors bought JLR. Of the two purchases, Coke definitely seems to have gotten the better of it. It’s quite impressive what was managed in 1991, and the deep impact it’s left on the country.
intended 6y ago
Interesting note on thumbs up - it still exists - Coke’s attempt to phase it out resulted in consumer backlash, since there is still a large demand for it. So they did the logical business thing and sold both. (Although thums up may be smaller than it used and could just be dying a slower death.)
markdown 6y ago
Maaza ftw!
satya71 6y ago
There are basically two ways a company can gain market share: make better product or spend a lot capital. Opening up the economy allows both kinds of competition, and local companies in a developing cannot do the second. Cold drinks are a sector where capital is the only way to gain market share. No wonder Coca Cola could outspend its local rivals and capture market share. Sectors where innovation and understanding of local market matters, local competitors can emerge and do better. Vehicles are one such market where developed country behemoths have had limited success. Dinosaurs like Hindustan Motors couldn't compete, but Maruti Suzuki (now Suzuki) and Hyundai maintain comfortable leads in market share.
ncrmro 6y ago
When I went to PyCon India 2017 i travled a bit and it was cool to see the regular name brand soda used sugar.
Proven 6y ago
What a stupid title. When State screwed the customers and removed the choice to buy Coke, they bought other stuff. Some investigative journalism! What does that tell me about whether customers were better off? Nothing. Maybe they had to pay more for the same or the same price for inferior substitutes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pkilgore 6y ago
I've stopped reading stories like these through a lens of globalism or protectionism, but instead from the perspective of concentration of market power and competition. It seems to me more and more that the mere existence of a Goliath in a marketplace causes far fewer David's to even attempt competition, whereas their breakup or de-integration can cause new markets to flourish (and eventually new Goliaths to arise). The part of the story that seems to be missing above that you would normally see in the USA is that the upstarts in India here were not purchased / tookover / or otherwise integrated by the larger entity. I wonder why this didn't happen? Is there something about India's corporate law or antitrust?
shakencrew 6y ago
previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192335
elSidCampeador 6y ago
Protectionism by itself may not be a very bad thing - it was the top-down planning mechanism tacked on top of the protectionism that did India in. Every bloody aspect of industry was regulated by the government, which was counterproductive. For example, Bajaj scooters could only manufacture a fixed number of scooters, and that number was decided by a bureaucrat with no idea of how much demand there was. The waiting list for these scooters stretched to 10 years at times! [source - interview with Chairman of Bajaj Group here https://www.hbs.edu/creating-emerging-markets/Documents/transcripts/Bajaj_Rahul_Web%20Transcript.pdf https://www.hbs.edu/creating-emerging-markets/Documents/tran... ]
missedthecue 6y ago
When [country] enacted protectionist polices, [protected industry] thrived!
- paxys 6y ago
  Look up the limitless number of examples of government overregulation and failed policies for the past hundreds of years in every country in the world and you'll see why it isn't that obvious.
rayiner 6y ago
> “When I chucked out Coca-Cola in 1977, I made the point that 90 percent of India’s villages did not have safe drinking water, whereas Coke had reached every village,” the late Fernandes said in a 1992 New York Times article, adding “Do we really need Coke? Do we need Pepsi?” Between 1977, when India kicked Coke out the country, to 1993, 16 years, when Coke reentered the Indian market, India's GDP per capita (adjusted for inflation) increased 65%. During the next 16 years, from 1993 to 2009, GDP per capita increased increased 267% (multiplying by 3.6x). In the next 11 years, GDP per capita doubled again. Had India not engaged in a multi-decade dalliance with central planning and pursued economic liberalization off the bat, India's per-capita GDP would be twice as high today.

194 points by ycombonator 6y ago

Longtime traveler here. I was in india in the early nineties to witness thumbs up. Coke is a big bad corporation and that makes them evil, but when I traveled I always drink coke. Coke has always been obsessed with keeping its flavor consistent across markets. To get there they have to start with consistent water. That means their water is filtered and treated properly before it is turned into coke. So, when I am traveling, if I ever have a choice between coke and a local product I will go with coke. It is not the most enlightened decision but, having had a couple water-borne diseases in my day, coke is the safe bet. (Conversely, New England has a variety of local "sodas". I do not hesitate to try those when I am in that area. New England is not India.)

Gwypaas 6y ago
Quite interesting since american coke and the rest of the world is quite different due to the sweetener used which is adapted to the local market. In the US being HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup), and honestly when I lived in the US I could really taste the HFCS, something not really right with the products from my perspective. The rest of the world tends to use either cane sugar or sugar beets as their goto sweetener depending on location.
sumanthvepa 6y ago
If your health is the reason is why you are drinking Coke, I have some bad news for you. Coke is produced by local bottlers, franchisees, who produce it under license. The production standards for Coke vary across the world, and the health codes each bottler follows usually confirm to local law, which varies. The Coke process is simple enough that you get the same taste, but you won't get the same health standard. And even more ironically those local products you talk about are actually owned by Coke, and all those brands are made in the same factory. Yes, drinking out out a bottle is safer than drinking tap water in India, but do your health a favor and just buy yourself a bottle of branded water -- Aquafina is the Coke brand here. You'll be fine.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  When "coke" read "coke products". And there were far fewer of those when I was last in Bombay. Those local bottlers are inspected by coke... which is better than being inspected by nobody. I'll take industrial standards of health over local/nonexistant standards.

Mekantis 6y ago

People like to pretend that protectionism is such a bad thing. But Western nations built themselves through protectionism, it's something China has been doing to great success and the Asian tiger economies (primarily South Korea) did as well. After all, there's only so much you can do for your population if you never ensure a steady supply of high quality jobs that provide a path into the middle class, and you don't protect fledgling industries (beyond basic commodities) that are necessary to create these jobs but can't compete properly against well-established companies elsewhere. It's one of the great neoliberal myths that they've so successfully perpetuated (primarily through institutions like the IMF and the World Bank) that free trade and vicious, expansive privatization is the only right path.

magicMonkeyPaw 6y ago
oh yeah, I bet all the indians were very happy being only able to buy off-brand cola at horrendous prices. Woooo weeee.
systemvoltage 6y ago
This is wrong, misguided and naive. International trade when done with effective reciprocity and managing the trade deficit, can lead to competition on a larger scale, better outcome for consumers and specialization in particular aspect of manufacturing or services. Even domestically, specialization is how human species became to me. If humans continued to be inwards looking and never engaged in barter-trade or any kind of bilateral exchange either with monetary instrument or goods/services; we would still be caves. National to international trade is just one more step in the expansion of trade that we all benefit from. We have proof that it works when all parties are rational and cooperative. If we found aliens on another planet, it would only make sense to trade with them (just increasing the abstraction layer from national to international to interplanetary).
- rbecker 6y ago
  > International trade when done with effective reciprocity and managing the trade deficit This is exactly what protectionism can help achieve. Without it, you get banana republics, wholly owned by foreign multinationals. It's telling you ignore the parent posts Asian tiger economies as examples of successful protectionism, and instead address the ridiculous strawman of "never engaged in barter-trade or any kind of bilateral exchange either with monetary instrument or goods/services"

cvs268 6y ago

Until they allowed Coke back in and it promptly bought-out the various local brands! Every bottled drink brand is now either owned by the Coca-Cola Company, or by PepsiCo Inc. :-(

virtuabhi 6y ago

Limca and Thums Up are also available in Indian stores around the world.

cvs268 6y ago
Both are owned by the Coca Cola company now.

dang 6y ago

Discussed last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192335

newyankee 6y ago

When India liberalized in 1991 and welcomed foreign investment again rick Coke simply bought out a lot of local competitors. Even today my favorite local soda 'thums up' is marketed as a separate drink by Coke in India. A water scarce country like India should really not promote high consumption of soda and sugar based drinks. However the same cannot be said about other industries. Pre liberalization India used to be a country of license permit raj. Handful of local companies were highly inefficient and did not produce quality products or have incentive to improve and innovate. Liberalization did introduce competition and a lot of international products like Honda motorcycles and scooters. Indian 2 wheeler manufacturers like Bajaj had to innovate to compete and did become succesful. However a lot of sectors today are facing the problem from cheap Chinese products. Even though we are a much poorer country a lot of local products could not compete with Chinese imports. A classic example is furniture. Wood was always expensive here and it was crafted into something useful by local carpenters and artisans for what i would consider were reasonable prices. However a lot of urban furniture is now imported from China.

rammy1234 6y ago
Indian companies are slowly avoiding chinese products, for example all the chinese apps are now not allowed. https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/checkout-the-name-of-the-chinese-banned-apps-in-india/articleshow/76696132.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/checkout-the-n... Also today's news, Hero Cycles of India is shelving its plans to do business with China in light of recent changes. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/plans-business-china-rs-900-crore-shelved-hero-cycles-6489756/ https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/plans-bu...
saagarjha 6y ago
> A water scarce country like India should really not promote high consumption of soda and sugar based drinks. I mean, I can see not promoting sugary drinks in general…but what does this have to do with water scarcity?
- telesilla 6y ago
  It takes a lot more than the volume of water to make the same volume in soda, beer and other commercial beverages. Consider bottle sterilization, crop irrigation.. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/business/energy-environment/22iht-rbog-beverage-22.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/business/energy-environme...

madmax108 6y ago

Travelling the world, one of the things that always strikes me is how omnipresent Coke and Pepsi are. But at the same time, every part of the world has it's own local twist on sugary sodas. The duopoly is so nice: You want something familiar, you always have it. You want something that cements a place in your mind, you have that too manufactured by the same conglomerates! A sip of Thums up takes me back to my college days (in India), just like Fresca teleports me to Costa Rica, The orangey goodnesss of Kas takes me to the coast of Malaga in Spain, and I can't even think of Mexico without tasting the many flavours of Jarritos available there!

twic 6y ago
I need to go back to Malta to drink some Kinnie!
- BMorearty 6y ago
  Haha, I never expected to see Kinnie on HN. My wife's parents are American immigrants from Malta. I tried Kinnie when we visited Malta. Not personally a fan. I think it's an acquired taste.

tadasZ 6y ago

In my opinion Vita-Cola, Polo-Cockta, Kofola faded not because of coca cola, but because they were controlled by soviet mentality people from "higher status", party people and so on, who didn't care about anything but themselves, a lot of companies disappeared after soviet union collapsed (thank god it did collapse) because of crime, corruption and complete incompetence.

jlg23 6y ago
Vita-Cola is again alive and kicking, and I am one who actually loves it. I am sure this is not just nostalgia, because, even though I was born in the GDR, I was 9 when the wall fell and maybe had 3 glasses of Vita Cola before. "crime, corruption and complete incompetence" are often cited as the reasons for why local brands disappeared, along with "nostalgia" for their revival. I personally believe people just wanted to have the stuff they could not get before - or "curiosity" to put it in one word. Once that was over, people went by taste again and yes, there are actually customers who just like a higher acidity, less sugar or simply a different taste.
- RealityVoid 6y ago
  I think curiosity doesn't really cover it. Being a kid in the 90's, home-grown soda sucked. In Romania, we had knock-offs such a Adria Cola witch were, quite honestly, horrible.
- rurban 6y ago
  Also living in the east. Many local services only offer Vita-Cola, no Coca-Cola. By choice. And it tastes good. Support the local economy.

chrisco255 6y ago

When Austin kicked out Lyft and Uber, local ride sharing thrived. However, the problem was they paled in comparison.

amelius 6y ago
I'm sure that customers still reached their destination just fine like before ride-sharing was a thing, perhaps with only some minor inconveniences.
- icebraining 6y ago
  Or, just like before ride-sharing was a thing, they wouldn't go at all. Lots of teenagers / young adults I knew who lived in areas with poor public transport got a massive upgrade to their social and cultural lives when ride-sharing appeared. For example, they could now join a band, since they could get home afterwards. Some elderly people I know also started going to the doctor more often, because walking to and from the bus stops was difficult, and the taxi was quite expensive for their low pensions.
paxys 6y ago
That's because the problem wasn't Uber or Lyft, but the ridesharing business model itself.

intended 6y ago

I was there during the liberalization. What a time to have witnessed. I remember the headline when coke bought Parle, for what was then an eye watering number. And then several years later, TATA motors bought JLR. Of the two purchases, Coke definitely seems to have gotten the better of it. It’s quite impressive what was managed in 1991, and the deep impact it’s left on the country.

intended 6y ago

Interesting note on thumbs up - it still exists - Coke’s attempt to phase it out resulted in consumer backlash, since there is still a large demand for it. So they did the logical business thing and sold both. (Although thums up may be smaller than it used and could just be dying a slower death.)

markdown 6y ago

Maaza ftw!

satya71 6y ago

There are basically two ways a company can gain market share: make better product or spend a lot capital. Opening up the economy allows both kinds of competition, and local companies in a developing cannot do the second. Cold drinks are a sector where capital is the only way to gain market share. No wonder Coca Cola could outspend its local rivals and capture market share. Sectors where innovation and understanding of local market matters, local competitors can emerge and do better. Vehicles are one such market where developed country behemoths have had limited success. Dinosaurs like Hindustan Motors couldn't compete, but Maruti Suzuki (now Suzuki) and Hyundai maintain comfortable leads in market share.

ncrmro 6y ago

When I went to PyCon India 2017 i travled a bit and it was cool to see the regular name brand soda used sugar.

Proven 6y ago

What a stupid title. When State screwed the customers and removed the choice to buy Coke, they bought other stuff. Some investigative journalism! What does that tell me about whether customers were better off? Nothing. Maybe they had to pay more for the same or the same price for inferior substitutes.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pkilgore 6y ago

I've stopped reading stories like these through a lens of globalism or protectionism, but instead from the perspective of concentration of market power and competition. It seems to me more and more that the mere existence of a Goliath in a marketplace causes far fewer David's to even attempt competition, whereas their breakup or de-integration can cause new markets to flourish (and eventually new Goliaths to arise). The part of the story that seems to be missing above that you would normally see in the USA is that the upstarts in India here were not purchased / tookover / or otherwise integrated by the larger entity. I wonder why this didn't happen? Is there something about India's corporate law or antitrust?

shakencrew 6y ago

previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192335

elSidCampeador 6y ago

Protectionism by itself may not be a very bad thing - it was the top-down planning mechanism tacked on top of the protectionism that did India in. Every bloody aspect of industry was regulated by the government, which was counterproductive. For example, Bajaj scooters could only manufacture a fixed number of scooters, and that number was decided by a bureaucrat with no idea of how much demand there was. The waiting list for these scooters stretched to 10 years at times! [source - interview with Chairman of Bajaj Group here https://www.hbs.edu/creating-emerging-markets/Documents/transcripts/Bajaj_Rahul_Web%20Transcript.pdf https://www.hbs.edu/creating-emerging-markets/Documents/tran... ]

missedthecue 6y ago

When [country] enacted protectionist polices, [protected industry] thrived!

paxys 6y ago
Look up the limitless number of examples of government overregulation and failed policies for the past hundreds of years in every country in the world and you'll see why it isn't that obvious.

rayiner 6y ago

> “When I chucked out Coca-Cola in 1977, I made the point that 90 percent of India’s villages did not have safe drinking water, whereas Coke had reached every village,” the late Fernandes said in a 1992 New York Times article, adding “Do we really need Coke? Do we need Pepsi?” Between 1977, when India kicked Coke out the country, to 1993, 16 years, when Coke reentered the Indian market, India's GDP per capita (adjusted for inflation) increased 65%. During the next 16 years, from 1993 to 2009, GDP per capita increased increased 267% (multiplying by 3.6x). In the next 11 years, GDP per capita doubled again. Had India not engaged in a multi-decade dalliance with central planning and pursued economic liberalization off the bat, India's per-capita GDP would be twice as high today.