Blind Spots of The Scion

Rahul Gandhi’s recent claims about India’s economic history were debatable, to say the least. He sought to link the struggles of the East India Company with present-day monopolies, arguing that India’s silencing under British rule wasn’t due to the Company's business acumen but its ability to manipulate maharajas and nawabs through bribery and threats. It’s a strong critique, but one that I feel is perhaps a bit too eager, lacking the nuance required to fully understand the complexities of history and tinged with a certain irony, given his family’s involvement.

Let me take a moment to highlight a historical reality that Rahul Gandhi might find uncomfortable. According to family records from the Nehrus, his own grandfather, Motilal Nehru, wasn’t immune to the influence of the East India Company. In fact, Motilal’s own grandfather, Laxminarayan, was a staunch advocate for the Company in the Mughal Durbar, and Gangadhar Nehru, his father, served as the Dilli Shahar Kotwal (essentially the Police Commissioner) during British rule via East India Company. Before he criticises the maharajas, Rahul Gandhi might want to look at the history of his own family, which had a significant connection to the British Empire’s establishment in India. 

Fast forward to the present day, and Rahul Gandhi speaks about monopolistic "match-fixing" groups stifling innovation. He points to the growing success of entrepreneurs who’ve built their businesses without political connections, like Peyush Bansal of Lenskart or Faqir Chand Kohli of TCS. These are indeed inspiring examples of how innovation and risk-taking have allowed Indian businesses to thrive in the global marketplace. 

But then, I find his narrative to be a bit incomplete. Take Bajaj Auto, for instance, under the Congress government during his grandmother Indira Gandhi's time, Bajaj held an absolute monopoly over the scooter market. For years, consumers were frustrated with long waiting lists and unavailability of products. Rahul Gandhi conveniently ignores this chapter in India’s business history, where the political favoritism his own family afforded to Bajaj led to this monopoly.

As for the modern-day business magnates like Adani and Ambani, while they certainly wield significant influence, it’s a stretch to accuse them of monopolistic tendencies in the way Rahul Gandhi seems to suggest. These tycoons’ businesses span a wide range of sectors, from infrastructure to power to mining. None of them hold the kind of exclusive control over a single industry that companies like Bajaj once did. The comparison between these modern giants and the monopolies of the past isn’t quite valid. In fact, companies like TCS, which emerged in the 1970s, have played a pivotal role in turning India into a global IT powerhouse, a far cry from the monopolies that stifled competition decades ago.

It’s clear that Rahul Gandhi’s focus on micro-enterprises and the startup ecosystem is commendable, but his critique ignores the broader historical context of monopolistic practices in India. The reality is that these practices have existed long before the rise of Adani and Ambani, and they were often perpetuated by political forces, many of which were close to his own family’s inner circle.

In the end, Rahul Gandhi’s continuous criticism of India’s business leaders says more about the lens through which he views India’s economic evolution than about the reality on the ground. It’s evident that his understanding of both the historical and modern business landscape is shaped by a sense of entitlement and political convenience. If he truly wants to see India’s economy thrive, he needs to set aside these biases and acknowledge the complexity of a rapidly evolving market, one no longer dominated by monopolies but driven by innovation and competition.

It’s time Rahul Gandhi stopped underestimating the intelligence of the Indian people. India has come a long way since the colonial era, and its economy is evolving in ways that his narrative just doesn’t capture. As a politician, his focus should be less about casting aspersions and more about creating an environment that nurtures the entrepreneurial spirit, one that’s free from the constraints of the past.