Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with FOI Partner Russell Stamets, a lawyer who has spent more than two decades advising American and multinational firms on doing business in India. Their conversation explores why American companies are now moving decisively away from China, how India’s internal federal competition has transformed investment decisions and why India’s southern state of Andhra Pradesh has emerged a standout destination for large American projects. At the center of the discussion is the leadership of Chief Minister Nara (N.) Chandrababu Naidu and a governing philosophy that prioritizes speed, credibility and execution over slogans.
Doing business in India
Stamets begins by describing what he sees as the central misconception American companies bring to India. American executives tend to think in binary extremes, swinging between despair and hype. As he puts it, American companies often believe either that India is “horrible and impossible and completely corrupt” or that “everything’s been fixed, everything’s fine,” and everyone must rush in immediately. In reality, India is both difficult and full of opportunity simultaneously.
This binary thinking, Stamets argues, leads companies to wait for a mythical “right moment” to enter the market. That hesitation seems misguided. India’s complexity is not a temporary phase but a permanent condition, and firms that accept this and commit for the long term tend to do well. Those who wait for perfection usually miss the opportunity altogether.
The Andhra Pradesh model
There is growing autonomy and competition among Indian states. Stamets calls this dynamic the most significant development in Indian democracy in decades. While foreign investors often focus on New Delhi, the Indian capital, real economic decision-making has increasingly shifted to the state level, where governments now compete directly for capital, projects and talent.
Andhra Pradesh stands out in this environment. The state has claimed to have secured more than $120 billion in investment commitments in just over a year, including projects involving Google and Amazon. Stamets argues that these announcements reflect a deeper structural shift rather than short-term political theater. American companies are learning, sometimes slowly, that India is not a single market but a collection of competing jurisdictions with very different capacities and priorities.
Naidu’s business model
Stamets attributes Andhra Pradesh’s success largely to Naidu, whose earlier tenure put the undivided state on the global investment map. Naidu’s defining trait was his willingness to invest ahead of demand. While other states waited for companies to arrive before building infrastructure, Naidu focused on preparing first, ensuring that roads, power and administrative systems were already in place.
Stamets recalls an early encounter in the northern city of Delhi, in which Naidu spoke unusually candidly about his own political background. He acknowledged that he had operated like a traditional politician in the past but emphasized that this approach no longer worked. What followed was a sustained effort to modernize governance through digital services, infrastructure investment and long-term urban planning.
Stamets describes the transformation of Hyderabad as the most dramatic and intentional economic shift he has seen anywhere in India. He likens Naidu’s approach to a baseball player openly declaring his target before delivering results — not perfection, but real progress built over time.
Speed of doing business
Khattar Singh highlights a shift in how Andhra Pradesh now presents itself to investors. Rather than emphasizing the familiar “ease of doing business,” Naidu and his son, Minister of Human Resources Development Nara Lokesh, speak instead about the “speed of doing business.” Stamets sees this as more than a branding exercise. For global corporations managing complex supply chains and political risk, time matters as much as formal rules.
Stamets expresses confidence that the gap between this rhetoric and reality in Andhra Pradesh is smaller than in most jurisdictions. He argues that companies respond positively to governments that acknowledge problems openly and work alongside investors to resolve them, rather than taking offense when obstacles are raised. What matters is not pretending to be flawless, but demonstrating responsiveness and momentum.
Stamets dislikes grand narratives about “growth stories.” Business leaders, he says, are not looking for fairy tales. They want evidence, consistency and a track record of delivery — qualities he increasingly associates with Andhra Pradesh’s current leadership.
Large projects in India
The discussion turns to large-scale investments, including Google’s proposed data center and steel manufacturer ArcelorMittal’s metalwork projects. Stamets dismisses the idea that these are merely symbolic announcements. He describes them as hard business decisions rooted in geography, logistics and long-term strategy. The city of Visakhapatnam’s status as a major port, for example, makes it a logical location for heavy industry and data infrastructure.
While acknowledging that timelines can shift, Stamets says he does not expect these projects to evaporate. In his view, they reflect the same logic that once drew American companies to China: scale, necessity and the absence of viable alternatives.
Window of opportunity
Stamets closes on an optimistic note, describing the current moment as the most promising phase in the US–India economic relationship precisely because of global uncertainty. With China no longer a reliable option, American companies are reassessing India with renewed seriousness. If Indian bureaucracy continues to enable rather than obstruct and American firms approach India with patience and commitment, the next two decades of economic engagement could be transformative for both sides.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.








Comment