logo
Remembering Emergency: When India banned Coke and brewed nationalism in a bottle called Double Seven

Remembering Emergency: When India banned Coke and brewed nationalism in a bottle called Double Seven

Time of India3 hours ago

HighlightsIn 1977, following the end of the Emergency and the fall of nearly three decades of Congress rule, the newly elected Janata Party government launched Double Seven, India's first government-backed cola, as a symbol of economic self-reliance and political change. The introduction of Double Seven was spearheaded by George Fernandes, the then Industry Minister, who expelled Coca-Cola from India due to its refusal to comply with local equity regulations, leading to the development of the indigenous beverage by Modern Food Industries. Despite a grand launch and the tagline 'The Taste that Tingles', Double Seven failed to capture the public's interest, facing stiff competition from established brands, and ultimately faded from the market after Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980.
In the summer of 1977, just after the 21-month Emergency ended and India turned the page on nearly three decades of uninterrupted Congress rule, a new political force was not the only thing bubbling to the surface.
The newly elected Janata Party government had shown the door to Coca-Cola and unveiled its own fizzy response -- Double Seven. The country's first "sarkari cola" was launched as a symbol of economic self-reliance and political change.
Named after the landmark year that brought the Morarji Desai-led Janata coalition to power, Double Seven was more than a beverage; it was a political statement in a bottle. The indigenous cola had an elaborate launch at the annual trade fair at Pragati Maidan.
The
Double Seven cola
, popularly known as "Satattar" (77 in Hindi) was manufactured and marketed by the makers of Modern breads - Modern Food Industries - a government-owned company.
Interestingly, then MP H V Kamath was also awarded a cash prize for coming up with the name "77".
Although "77" was not ready for sale until 1978, the name was chosen because 1977 was the year of big changes in India -- such as the end of the Indira Gandhi government and Coca-Cola.
At the helm of affairs in the cola episode was then Industry Minister George Fernandes, who decided to throw Coke as well as IBM out of India over their refusal to follow the provisions of what was then the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
Rahul Ramagundam wrote in Fernandes' biography "Life and Times of George Fernandes" that the provision stipulated that foreign companies should dilute their equity stake in their Indian associates to 60 per cent.
Fernandes wanted Coca-Cola Company to not just transfer 60 per cent of the shares of its Indian firm but also the formula for its concentrate to Indian shareholders. The company said it was agreeable to transferring a majority of the shares but not the formula, which it contended was a trade secret.
The company exited the Indian market as the government denied a licence to import the Coke concentrate. Fernandes then introduced the indigenous drink "77".
The government asked the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) in Mysuru to develop the formula.
Sold with the tagline "The Taste that Tingles", the cola did not strike the same chord with the public as Coca-Cola, amid tough competition from brands like Campa Cola, Thums Up, and Duke.
"I remember the launch of Double Seven at the annual trade fair at Pragati Maidan, a proud gift from the Janata Party, an indigenous drink supposedly superior than Coca-Cola and a stark reminder of Indira Gandhi's humiliating defeat in the recent general elections," author Sunil Lala says in his book "American Khichdi", published in 2009.
Tata McGraw Hill's book "Advertising Management: Concepts and Cases" also mentions Double Seven as an example of government branding and "swadeshi" marketing gone awry.
Hill cited the launch of Double Seven as a business school case study in government-backed branding, highlighting the campaign's missteps and beverage-market context of the late 1970s.
The end of Double Seven, not so surprisingly, coincided with Indira Gandhi reclaiming power in 1980.
Coca-Cola made a comeback in October 1993, post-liberalisation of the Indian market by the P V Narasimha Rao government and has maintained a strong presence ever since.
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor has also referred to the episode in his book "India: From Midnight to the Millennium and Beyond".
"Heedless to the signal these exits sent to the world - whose brief hopes that a change of government might have led to a more welcoming investment climate were poured down the same drain as the Coke - the Janata ministers chose to celebrate the departures of these multinationals as a further triumph for socialism and anti-imperialistic self-reliance," Tharoor wrote in the book.
The Emergency was imposed 50 years ago on June 25, 1975, by the then prime minister Indira Gandhi.
Triggered by political unrest and a court verdict invalidating Gandhi's election, the Emergency suspended civil liberties, censored the press and saw mass arrests of opposition leaders.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Emergency and politics of the body
The Emergency and politics of the body

Hindustan Times

time37 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

The Emergency and politics of the body

For the average Indian, it was through the tyranny of the dreaded nasbandi (sterilisation) camps that the worst consequences of the suspension of civil and political rights under the Emergency manifested itself in their everyday lives. In September 1976, India recorded over 1.7 million sterilisations, a figure that equalled the annual average for the 10 preceding years. By 1977, Sanjay Gandhi, the younger son of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and his bulldozer gang had overseen the conduct of more than 8 million sterilizations. The predominance accorded to forced sterilisation was intertwined with Sanjay Gandhi's growing influence. He needed to consolidate his hold on power within the Congress, family planning (and his other obsession, urban gentrification) became his preferred tools. In the process, he unleashed the worst form of State violence, stripping ordinary citizens of agency over their bodies. The political and administrative zeal to comply with Sanjay Gandhi and his bulldozer gang was shaped by the nature of power he wielded over regional leaders. (HT Photo) Much has changed in India's approach to family planning since those dark Emergency years. However, 50 years on, Sanjay Gandhi's weaponisation of family planning and exertion of power over individual bodily rights afford important lessons for how we respond to demographic challenges in the contemporary moment. Above all, it serves as a critical reminder to be patient with democracy, for it is the only pathway for sustainable, socially just economic growth and development. On the surface, Sanjay Gandhi's approach to family planning was not new. Malthusian worries had shadowed India's demographic debates long before independence and India became the first country in the world to launch a national family planning programme in 1952. And as Christophe Jaffrelot and Pratinav Anil argue in India's First Dictatorship: The Emergency, 1975-77, elements of eugenics, visible in the Emergency, undergirded these debates. 'Undesirable others' – minorities and lower castes – were the targets. Coercive population control measures were introduced as necessary tools for 'modernisation' and 'development'. But it was only in the late 1960s that sterilisation acquired wide policy acceptance. On paper, India took a 'cafeteria approach' with sterilisation offered as one of many forms of family planning. In practice, however, sterilisation was prioritised. Targets were introduced and vasectomy camps, cash incentives, citizen motivators, and active coercion became acceptable methods to control India's 'population bomb'. But like most policies, implementation waxed and waned. India's sterilisation drive peaked in 1972-3 with 3.1 million sterilisations, falling to just under a million the next year. What differentiated mass sterilisation during the Emergency from the past was the scale and aggressiveness with which it was pursued. International agencies from the World Bank to the United Nations played their part, financing what they called 'crash sterilisation'. Sanjay Gandhi effectively leveraged Emergency conditions to direct political and administrative functionaries to use force and coercion with a vengeance. He bypassed the health ministry to directly hand out targets to states and used his powers to harass and intimidate regional leaders, bureaucrats and district administrators to comply. Over time, his tactics became almost necessary to feed the Emergency myth: That suspension of democracy and centralisation of power was necessary to ensure the 'trains run on time'. Eugenics, Jaffrelot and Anil, note were implicit in this framing in the targeting of Muslims and the poor. The horror that unfolded has been widely chronicled. The political and administrative zeal to comply with Sanjay Gandhi and his bulldozer gang was shaped by the nature of power he wielded over regional leaders. Inevitably, Delhi and the Hindi heartland became Sanjay Gandhi's playground, with party leaders and willing bureaucrats jostling to curry favour. Family planning policy was now no longer about broader societal goals but a weapon for political power and control. In the process, individual citizens were effectively stripped of any agency over their bodies. From nudging railway commuters to getting vasectomies if caught ticketless by waiving paying fines, to threatening slum dwellers with eviction notices, denying government benefits and when needed enabling violent use of force, Gandhi's bulldozer gang zealously did all that was demanded of them to coerce the poorest and most vulnerable citizens into sterlisation camps thereby fulfilling the political myth of the Emergency. Those who sought to protect their dignity and individual agency by escaping the sterilisation net, lived in terror. As ethnographer Emma Tarlo notes in her account of the nasbandi tyranny in Delhi, for anyone who escaped, public spaces and civic institutions like hospitals, schools and government offices, were places to avoid. Unsurprisingly, in many parts of the country, fear led to violence. Nasbandi was widely attributed to have contributed to Indira Gandhi's resounding electoral defeat. In a direct and tactile way, the ordinary Indian experienced the terror of the powers of the State over their bodies and they used democracy to reclaim control. Since that dark period, India's family planning policy, in tune with global trends, has evolved adopting a much more central focus on reproductive rights. Sterilisation, and associated policies like incentives and camps, continue to be part of the repertoire, indeed they often make headlines for medical negligence and death, but it no longer carries the zeal of the Emergency. The burden has now shifted to female sterilisation. The Emergency was an illustration of how the body is used as a site for exerting State power. In the contemporary moment, loose remarks by politicians in South India telling women to 'have more children' as they navigate delimitation politics is a warning signal that population policy may once again be weaponised. Ironically, these very states offered India an alternative to the tyranny of nasbandi: A model embedded in economic growth, choice and reproductive rights. Democracy afforded the path to achieve population goals. Today's politicians would do well to heed to the message that Indians gave to Indira and Sanjay Gandhi in 1977. Yamini Aiyar is senior visiting fellow, Brown University. The views expressed are personal.

The false binary of old and new cities
The false binary of old and new cities

Hindustan Times

time37 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

The false binary of old and new cities

Jun 23, 2025 08:51 PM IST HT reported Monday that the Centre has decided to shelve a scheme mooted by the 15th Finance Commission to build eight greenfield cities. The funds, ₹ 8,000 crore, will now be utilised to improve infrastructure in cities with a population of up to 100,000. Interestingly, at least 26 proposals for new cities were in consideration when the scheme was abandoned. The binary of greenfield versus brownfield cities makes no sense in the Indian context. Cities are not merely the built-up area; they can become living spaces only if the physical infrastructure enables economic activities. (ANI) India is urbanising at great speed and existing cities are unable to carry the burden of ever-expanding populations. Existing cities need a massive infusion of capital to augment creaking infrastructure to withstand the inflow of people. Spatial differences are vanishing so much that planners now speak about urban conglomerations that subsume peri-urban areas — multiple towns, cities and villages — in existing metropolises. Schemes such as JNURM and the current AMRUT mission have attempted to fix the infrastructure gaps. This must continue. But these efforts need to be complemented with greenfield cities that can be sustainable in terms of water and energy use. The case of Amaravati is interesting; the city was conceived as not just the administrative capital of Andhra Pradesh but also as a potential economic hub. India needs more Amaravatis. Cities are not merely the built-up area; they can become living spaces only if the physical infrastructure enables economic activities. Just as roads and rail networks to sewage systems and garbage disposal are needed, cities, greenfield and brownfield, must provide uninterrupted power and clean drinking water, ensure law and order, and build soft infrastructure such as educational institutions and provide entertainment options. Old cities have achieved such 'organicity' over decades if not centuries: City builders of the past considered urban spaces as cultural and economic hubs and made provisions for it. Greenfield projects in India may need tweaks so that they plug into the idea of a layered urban living space rather than elite enclaves — but they are an idea worth exploring. Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it's all here, just a click away! -Login Now!

India-US Trade Deal To Increase US Exports To India: Crisil
India-US Trade Deal To Increase US Exports To India: Crisil

India.com

time43 minutes ago

  • India.com

India-US Trade Deal To Increase US Exports To India: Crisil

New Delhi: Given that India has much higher tariffs than those imposed by the US, the impending Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) — which would reduce tariffs — is set to increase US exports to India more than vice versa, according to an analysis by Crisil. India would be able to import more energy products, certain agricultural products, and defence equipment, among others, from the US, Crisil said in a 'Quickonomics' report. India, according to Crisil, should be prepared to see more imports from the US under the BTA. A lowering of tariffs under the agreement would make US goods more competitive in India, it argued. "This is because India's tariffs are much higher than those of the US, and bringing these down would be advantageous to exporters in the US," Crisil said. India's exports, however, are unlikely to see a major spike because the focus of President Donald Trump's administration is to reduce its trade deficit with India, and most of India's top exports to the US are already duty-free (excluding the baseline 10 percent tariff applicable since April 10). Besides, the export potential would also depend on the level of tariffs India faces compared to other competing nations, Crisil noted. The US has categorically stated that it wants to reduce its trade deficit with India (among other nations) and has complained that India's high tariffs and non-tariff barriers have hindered American companies from increasing their exports. Even though India has shown its discomfort with allowing US agricultural products into the country, imports of certain items such as walnuts, pistachios, and cranberries could rise, as India's share in US exports of these items was relatively low — at 19.4 percent, 5.0 percent, and 3.1 percent, respectively — in 2024. This contrasts with almonds, where India's share was a hefty 70.5 percent in 2024 — making it one of the US's top agricultural export items to India. Further, with India's aviation sector growing, there is scope to increase imports of civilian aircraft, engines, and parts. According to Crisil, there also seems to be strong complementarity in the energy sector, as the US is a large exporter and India a large importer of energy commodities. Even though India has a significant opportunity to import crude oil from the US, Crisil said the prospects of increasing such imports would have to be weighed against challenging factors — such as the higher cost of transportation and longer transit times. "The US is a large exporter and India a large importer of LNG, providing a mutually beneficial ground. Here, the synergy seems to be much better than that in crude petroleum, as the US is already among the top three suppliers of LNG to India," Crisil said. "With favourable factors such as US natural gas prices being more stable than those in the Middle East (India's largest LNG import partner) and long-term contracts being signed between Indian entities and US suppliers, there has been an increase in the import of this commodity from the US," it added. Defence imports into India could also rise under the BTA. "Even as India is trying to increase its defence production and export capabilities, it remains one of the largest arms importers. At the same time, the US is the world's largest arms exporter. While Russia has traditionally been India's largest arms supplier, its share in India's arms imports has declined in recent years. This has created space for Western suppliers, led by the US, to step up their sales," the report said. In fact, in 2023, the US and India launched a bilateral Defence Acceleration Ecosystem (called INDUS-X) to facilitate defence collaboration between the two countries. Combining all these opportunities, India's trade surplus with the US is expected to come down — a major demand from the US, which has implemented reciprocal tariffs on countries in proportion to their trade surplus with it. On the other hand, India may see some gains in exports of smartphones, certain pharmaceuticals, and labour-intensive sectors such as textiles and gems and jewellery. The US announced reciprocal tariffs on India and a host of other nations on April 2, and then paused the increase for 90 days from April 10 to negotiate trade deals with these countries. (For India, the reciprocal tariff was 26 percent — lower than the tariff on many other Asian peers.) During the pause period, a 10 percent base tariff remains applicable (over and above the existing tariffs) on all countries, including India. India is currently negotiating a trade deal with the US, known as the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) — the first tranche of which is targeted to be completed by the fall of 2025.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store