In Riyadh’s exclusive club of royals and business tycoons, among whom rank some of the world’s wealthiest, frowns and sneers appear on the faces of its members at the mention of three words—India, Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) and Mukesh Ambani. Aware of Ambani’s political and economic clout, Riyadh has come around to believe, rightly or otherwise, that it was at his company’s behest that New Delhi has invoked the anti-dumping law against Saudi companies that want to sell polypropylene (aka PP), an important ingredient in making plastic and other items, in the Indian market. Such is the anger and dismay in Riyadh that the anti-dumping controversy threatens to cast a shadow on the strategic partnership that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Saudi king, Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, fostered through the signing of the Riyadh Declaration last February.
India called the anti-dumping law into use after a complaint was filed against the Saudi companies by RIL, Asia’s largest PP producer which has carved out a 70 per cent stranglehold on the Indian market. Bengal-based Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd subsequently signed on to RIL’s complaint, but its comparatively small share of the market has convinced the Saudi firms of the hand played by Ambani in fanning the PP controversy. India, sources say, has been informed by the Saudi Arabian leadership that it would not “expect such an unprecedented, economically harmful and WTO (World Trade Organisation)-inconsistent approach to be applied to a strategic partner with which one seeks to expand trade and improve relations overall”.
But what exactly is the anti-dumping controversy between India and Saudi Arabia? Employed in the context of international trade, the term anti-dumping has gained much currency after the accession of most countries, including both India and Saudi Arabia, to the WTO agreements. The anti-dumping law is often invoked against a foreign manufacturer for exporting a product to another country at a price much lower than that prevailing in the receiving country’s market. The low price of the product in the manufacturer-exporter’s country is achieved because of the government subsidising the costs involved in its production. Occasionally, it is also initiated against a foreign manufacturer that tries to flood the market of another country in order to bring about a steep decline in prices, consequently muscling out rivals unable to cope with the resultant sustained low prices and losses. Obviously, the lowered prices are good news for the domestic consumers.
RIL MD Mukesh Ambani
India has resorted to invoking the anti-dumping law because it perceives Riyadh as having subsidised the Saudi companies’ manufacture of PP, couching this perception in the euphemistic phrase of “particular market situation”. This is what the Saudis oppose—on the basis of “principle”. Indian officials dealing with the anti-dumping case say the Saudi supply of propane, used in the production of PP, isn’t transparent. In other words, it is being supplied to Saudi manufacturers at a price lower than the existing market rate. An Indian official told Outlook, “The 30 per cent (consequent) offset that the Saudi government gives its industry affects the market and creates unfair conditions.”
Riyadh has given such salience to the PP issue because the prestigious Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) is, willy nilly, implicated in the controversy. Describing itself as one of the world’s “leading manufacturers of chemicals, fertilisers, plastics and metals” that are supplied to other manufacturing companies, SABIC is the showpiece of Saudi Arabia’s diversification efforts in sectors other than oil. Not only are Saudi elites invested heavily in SABIC, Riyadh fears India’s anti-dumping case could lead to “copycat” actions in Turkey and the European Union, which are potentially much larger markets than India. The Saudis’ attempt at seeking redressal is to essentially ensure such cases do not dog it elsewhere.
The origin of this controversy dates back to 2009, when RIL lodged a complaint against the Saudis. As is the procedure, the Indian government sent a team to Saudi Arabia to investigate; its report prompted the government to issue notices to Saudi companies declaring that duties would be levied on their PP exports to India. It’s only now that the issue has begun to loom large, what with Riyadh sending a series of senior-level delegations to Delhi. The PP issue is also expected to pop up in a Joint Commission meeting scheduled between India and Saudi Arabia in the coming months. Faisal H. Trad, Saudi ambassador to Delhi, told Outlook, “I can assure you that unless the anti-dumping case is resolved by then, it will be on the top of the meeting’s agenda.”
Indian officials are vehement in their denials of Saudi Arabia’s insinuations against RIL, which told Outlook it had no comment to offer. A senior mea official, aware of the controversy, told Outlook, “We are not in the business of favouring any particular Indian business group. We have filed the case against Saudi Arabia on merit. India deeply values its relationship with Saudi Arabia, but unfair trade practices can’t be justified.”
A strained relationship with Riyadh has inimical implications for New Delhi. Not only is Saudi Arabia India’s main source of oil, it is also where more than two million Indians work and remit home $15 billion. Riyadh has also begun to look to India as an important destination for investment; the Saudi market too provides a potentially huge market for Indian investors and companies.
This is precisely why serious efforts are afoot to ensure the PP issue is resolved without dragging it to the WTO. As Trad says, “You wouldn’t want to go to court against your strategic partner.” Ultimately, the two countries will weigh their gains and losses before fashioning their strategies on the PP controversy.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
There are tremendous synergies between Saudi Arabia and India. The PP issue should be resolved keeping this fact in mind.
" “You wouldn’t want to go to court against your strategic partner.”
Not necessarily true. What's the WTO for?
GOI's reliance on Reliance!
Could this be the making of one of India's badly needed bargaining chips with KSA?
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT