Why Studying Big Business in India Leaves Many Citizens Uneasy
The more one studies India’s so-called “national champions,” the harder it becomes to accept the reassuring claim that their rise is simply the product of entrepreneurial brilliance and free-market competition. What begins as interest in economic growth often turns into agitation—not because of hostility to business, but because the gap between public narrative and institutional reality becomes impossible to ignore.
This unease is not unique to India, but it is sharper here than in many democracies, including the United States. Comparing the two business landscapes does not reveal a moral winner. Instead, it clarifies why Indian capitalism, as currently structured, generates a deeper sense of democratic discomfort.
The Allure and Elasticity of “National Champions”
The idea of national champions sounds reasonable. Large firms, the argument goes, require state support to compete globally, build infrastructure, create jobs, and advance strategic interests. Every successful economy has large firms; scale itself is not the problem.
The danger lies in elasticity. Once “national interest” becomes a blanket justification, preferential treatment can slide into insulation from market discipline, legal scrutiny, and democratic accountability—while still claiming public legitimacy.
That is where agitation begins.
India’s Business Landscape: Capitalism with Insulated Risk
India’s recent growth story has been accompanied by extraordinary concentration of economic power.
According to the World Inequality Database, the top 1% of Indians now own over 40% of national wealth, up from roughly 22% in the early 1990s. The top 10% own over 75%. This is not merely inequality; it is extreme concentration by global standards.
Corporate concentration mirrors this trend. In several infrastructure and natural-resource sectors—ports, power transmission, airports, telecom, mining market leadership is often determined less by open competition than by access to state-controlled assets. These assets are finite, politically allocated, and difficult to contest ex post.
Risk distribution tells the real story. Indian public-sector banks have repeatedly absorbed private corporate losses. Following the infrastructure and credit boom of the mid-2000s, gross non-performing assets (NPAs) of scheduled commercial banks peaked near 11–12% of advances in 2018, with public banks bearing the overwhelming share. The subsequent recapitalization—over ₹3 trillion injected by the state between 2017 and 2021 effectively socialized corporate risk.
This is not free-market capitalism. It is state-mediated accumulation, where upside accrues privately while downside is absorbed publicly.
Weak Friction, Fast Power
What intensifies unease is not state involvement per se, but weak friction.
India’s institutional counterweights struggle under scale and speed:
-
Judicial delays: India has over 50 million pending cases, with commercial disputes often taking years.
-
Regulatory capacity: Sectoral regulators lack consistent independence and enforcement depth.
-
Media economics: Corporate and government advertising form a large share of revenues for mainstream media, constraining scrutiny.
As a result, economic power converts quickly into political influence, and political influence reinforces economic dominance. Once this loop becomes visible, meritocratic explanations lose credibility.
Nationalism as Economic Armor
Perhaps the most unsettling feature is ideological. Corporate expansion is increasingly framed as “nation-building.” Critique is recast as anti-growth or anti-national. Scrutiny becomes suspect.
This framing matters because it short-circuits democratic evaluation. Questions such as “Who bears the risk?”, “Who benefits from policy sequencing?”, or “Who pays when projects fail?” are not answered substantively—they are morally deflected.
Agitation follows not from cynicism, but from recognizing how dissent itself is delegitimized.
The American Contrast: Corporate Power with Legal Friction
The United States offers no clean alternative. Corporate concentration is severe. By some estimates, the top four firms control over 40% of market share in more than half of U.S. industries. Inequality is extreme: the top 1% own roughly 32–35% of wealth, while real wages for the bottom half have stagnated for decades.
The U.S. government also socializes losses. The 2008 financial crisis bailouts exceeded $700 billion, and pandemic-era corporate support ran into trillions.
Yet the mechanics differ. Corporate power in the U.S. is exercised largely through law—contracts, courts, lobbying, and campaign finance. Antitrust actions, though weakened since the 1980s, still impose friction. In the last decade, the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have revived antitrust cases against large technology firms, something structurally harder to imagine in India’s current political economy.
The American system bends rules slowly and legally. The Indian system often reshapes them quickly and selectively.
Neither is admirable. But friction matters.
Why the Unease Is Sharper in India
Three factors amplify discomfort in India.
First, starting inequality is higher. When preferential treatment operates atop deep deprivation, its social cost is more visible. India still has over 230 million people living on less than $3.65 a day (PPP) by World Bank standards.
Second, institutional remedies are weaker. In the U.S., exposure can lead to litigation, fines, or regulatory change even if delayed. In India, exposure more often leads to normalization or fatigue.
Third, democratic expectations are higher. India’s constitutional promise creates an expectation of fairness. When elite insulation is presented as national progress, it feels less like hypocrisy and more like betrayal.
What This Agitation Is Really About
The discomfort many citizens feel is not hostility to wealth, scale, or enterprise. It is discomfort with a system that claims to reward merit while systematically insulating power from accountability.
This is not an argument against markets. Markets can be powerful tools for coordination and growth. Nor is it an argument against the state; every successful economy relies on it.
It is an argument against confusing private success with public interest and against treating criticism as disloyalty.
No modern economy functions without state intervention. The real questions are: For whom does the state intervene? At whose risk? With what transparency and accountability?
A Necessary Discomfort
Studying national champions carefully strips away comforting abstractions. It reveals capitalism as it actually exists not as a neutral market mechanism, but as a political settlement shaped by power, institutions, and ideology.
In India, that settlement is increasingly opaque, discretionary, and shielded by nationalist rhetoric. Feeling unsettled by this is not naïveté. It is civic awareness.
The task is not to suppress this discomfort or convert it into permanent outrage. It is to sharpen it into precise, evidence-based questions about risk, reward, and responsibility. Only such precision can sustain democratic scrutiny over time.
Because the real danger is not criticism of national champions.
It is a political economy in which they no longer need to answer to the nation at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment