Negotiating in India: Some Case Studies

In this chapter we discuss three salient cases that illustrate Indian negotiating behavior. The cases have been constructed on the basis of published material. It needs to be noted that these cases represent high profile and salient disputes in which the Indian government was a major player. In all of these cases, the Indian government was interacting either with a multinational firm (Enron, Union Carbide) or with other governments and international trade organizations (WTO). The negotiations were often protracted, difficult, and messy. The dynamics of the negotiation processes can be well understood from the standpoint of the institutional perspective, which has formed the basis of our comparing India with China. The Enron case represents a well-publicized dispute between the state government of Maharashtra and the now defunct Enron corporation. The parties negotiated and renegotiated, but to no avail. The Union Carbide (now part of Dow Chemical) dispute dates back to the Bhopal tragedy of 1984, when a leak of a poisonous gas led to thousands of deaths. Although the Indian government and Union Carbide initially reached a financial settlement, the Indian government has to this day continued to insist on the extradition of the then Union Carbide Chairman, Warren Andersen, a request which the US has turned down previously. Our discussion of the case highlights all of the salient elements in this apparently never-ending controversy.