At the official level, noted votary against MNCs and defence minister George Fernandes has translated his sentiments into action. Along with railway minister and fellow Samata Party leader Nitish Kumar, Fernandes has banned the sale of Coca-Cola and Pepsi in the premises that houses the two ministries, Sena Bhavan and the Rail Bhavan. Instead, apple juice produced by the Himachal Horticulture Association is being made available in the soft-drink kiosks.

But such sentiments against MNCs have been expressed by a cross-section of people and associations in the past too.

The first voices of dissent against MNCs came in 1993 through the so-called Bombay Club. This group ofindustrialists had complained about what it felt was discrimination against indigenous enterprises. But it was too early for them to make an impact on an absolutely reform-committed Congress government led by finance minister Manmohan Singh. Though a swadeshi-flavoured budget was widely anticipated from Yashwant Sinha, there was nothing substantial towards that end.

The clash of interests between the MNCs and local businesses, which was bound to occur, was temporarily but forcibly buried by the first major reform package introduced during the Narasimha Rao regime. The hope behind such a move was that over a period of time small and lesser-known business houses of the indigenous type would also follow the footsteps of the leading business houses in clinching profitable deals and thereby reap huge benefits. This would have silenced the grumbling elements. Sadly, in India those who crave for more are also those who already have the most. The second string of industrialists, after being unable to reap theanticipated benefits, was a discontented lot and joined in the chorus seeking a "level-playing field" to stay in the race.

The room for discontentment against MNCs arises from the very nature that MNCs characterise. Technically, an MNC is a firm that owns production, sales and other revenue-generating assets in a number of countries. An MNC has certain competitive "firm-specific advantages" over rival suppliers in the form of patented process technology or a unique branded product, which it can better exploit and protect by establishing overseas supply facilities.

It is these firm-specific advantages of MNCs that are working against the Indian industries. The argument of the present disgruntled is not so much about the need for a level-playing field, as had been the case earlier. It is now more about too many incentives being given to the MNCs and that without their required commitment to the Indian economy. CII had, a few years ago, alleged that MNCs had only a short-term focus on the Indian market;second, they were more interested in selling rather than set up manufacturing facilities; third, they brought in obsolete technology; fourth, they eventually try to edge out their Indian partners in joint ventures or set up 100 per cent owned subsidiaries; fifth, they exaggerate investment costs, as was the case in the Enron deal and that which was subsequently reduced after much brow-beating; and finally, they relied more on expatriate management rather than Indian expertise.

The validity of CII's arguments is not without rationale.

A case in example is the role of one of the better known MNCs, Pepsi Foods, which gained entry into the soft-drinks and food-processing market in India by promising investment in agricultural research and breeding new varieties suited for food processing. However, Pepsi has not produced a single new variety of anything in all these years. Apart from not furthering its research programme, it has involved itself in such practices that could be potentially dangerous for India inthe years to come.

The point here is that no self-respecting nation should allow MNCs to play around with the issue of food security and allow them to control the means of food production. If they do, it is nothing short of mortgaging the country's sovereignty.

We must remember that ours is a "buyers" and not a "sellers" market. Backward integration, as the Reliance group is attempting, is better suited. Even if one argues that MNCs bring in technology, one can be sure that there is a definite time-gap between newly invented technology and its transfer to a beneficiary country, by which time the vitality of that technology is lost. So also the argument against removal of subsidies on agricultural inputs, which if carried out would lead to reduced use of fertilizers, better seeds, etc., thereby bringing down production. This would make a country rely more on imports and if it fails to substitute the same adequately through exports, it would lead to a severe balance of payment crisis.