There is a particular kind of businessman who never builds anything genuinely new. He does not invent. He does not research. He does not solve a problem that the world did not already know it had. What he does instead is far simpler, far cruder, and far more dangerous to the health of an economy: he watches someone else build something, waits until that builder is exhausted or vulnerable, floods the market with capital until the original player collapses under losses, and then, once the field is cleared of all competition, raises his prices and calls the whole exercise success.
This is not entrepreneurship. This is not capitalism in its productive, wealth-generating form. This is predation dressed in a suit and celebrated on the cover of Forbes India.
And it is happening at a scale that should alarm every citizen who buys a SIM card, pays an electricity bill, drinks a cola, or uses the internet in this country.
The Playbook Is Not Secret Anymore
The strategy is not hidden. It has been executed so many times, so openly, and so successfully that Indian business schools will one day teach it as a case study in what to do when you have unlimited capital and zero appetite for genuine innovation.
Step one: identify a market that already works. Do not create a new category. Do not fund research into a problem nobody has solved. Find something that already exists, that consumers already use, that smaller or medium-sized competitors have spent years building.
Step two: enter that market with a pricing structure that is economically irrational. Offer the product or service at a price so low that no competitor, regardless of operational efficiency, can survive. This is not competitive pricing. This is deliberate economic violence. The goal is not profit. The goal is annihilation.
Step three: wait. Burn capital. Absorb losses that would destroy any normal company. The losses do not matter because the capital reserves are bottomless. The competition does not have those reserves. They fold. They shut down. They are acquired for nothing.
Step four: once the market is empty, raise prices. Now enjoy the monopoly or duopoly that the cash burn bought. Consumers have no alternative. They pay. The press calls it market leadership.
Reliance Jio and the Telecom Massacre
No case study illustrates this playbook more brutally than the launch of Reliance Jio in 2016.
Before Jio, India had a functioning, if imperfect, telecom ecosystem. Airtel, Vodafone India, Idea, Aircel, Docomo, Telenor and others competed, invested in towers and spectrum, created jobs, and served hundreds of millions of users. The market was not perfect. But it was alive.
Jio entered with free calls and almost-free data at a scale that forced every competitor into a defensive crouch they could never escape. The losses Jio absorbed in those early years would have bankrupted any of its rivals three times over. That was the point. By 2023, Aircel was dead. Docomo had exited. Telenor had been absorbed. Videocon was gone. Vodafone Idea was bleeding so catastrophically that it required government intervention simply to survive, and even that survival remains precarious.
India now effectively has a three-operator telecom market, with Jio holding dominant share. Predictably, prices began rising. The "gift to India" narrative quietly ended. Consumers who once paid almost nothing now watch their recharge bills climb every few months. The product, meanwhile, offers no meaningful innovation over what those now-dead competitors were building.
This was not disruption. Disruption creates something new. This was elimination of competition through capital superiority, followed by standard monopoly rent extraction.
Campa Cola: Nostalgia as a Weapon, Not Innovation
In 2022, Reliance Retail acquired the Campa Cola brand and began its high-visibility relaunch. The marketing was clever. The nostalgia was real. But let us be absolutely clear about what happened here: a conglomerate with the largest retail infrastructure in India and the deepest capital pool in Indian consumer business chose to compete in the carbonated soft drink segment by resurrecting a brand that had been commercially dead for decades.
This is what Reliance, with all its resources, all its data, all its retail reach and engineering talent, decided was worth investing in. Not a genuinely healthier alternative to cola. Not a functional beverage category designed for Indian nutritional needs. Not an original brand built from the ground up with new formulations and real differentiation. A legacy brand, bought for a fraction of its potential, relaunched with muscle, deployed through Reliance's unbeatable distribution network to squeeze Coca-Cola and PepsiCo on price.
The ambition on display here is staggering in its smallness. This is a company that could fund the entire R&D budget of every mid-sized Indian pharmaceutical company and still have capital left over. And it chose flavored sugar water as its innovation project.
The Adani Pattern: Infrastructure as Monopoly Capture
Gautam Adani built his group into one of the largest conglomerates in the world. The scale is genuinely impressive. The scope across ports, airports, power transmission, renewable energy, cement, media, and FMCG is vast. But the more carefully you examine the growth pattern, the more a troubling structure emerges.
The Adani Group has an extraordinary ability to acquire control over infrastructure that is, by its nature, monopolistic. A port is not a competitive product. An airport is not something a rival can build next door. A power transmission corridor serves a geography that will never have two competing lines. These are not market victories earned through better products or superior customer experience. They are positional advantages embedded in the nature of the asset itself.
When a conglomerate of this scale controls the port through which your goods enter the country, the airport through which you travel, the power line through which your electricity arrives, and the gas distribution through which your city's fuel is delivered, the word "competition" loses its meaning entirely. The consumer is not a customer who can switch. The consumer is a captive.
The question that never gets asked loudly enough in Indian business media is this: what has all of this capital accumulation built that India did not already have and could not build with a different ownership structure? The ports existed. The airports existed. The power transmission grids existed or were going to be built by the state regardless. The acquisition of these assets by a single group does not generate new economic activity. It redirects the financial flows of existing economic activity toward one set of shareholders.
The IT Giants and the Innovation Illusion
Infosys, Wipro, TCS, and HCL are cited endlessly as proof of India's technological capability. They are not. They are proof of India's capacity to provide extremely talented engineers at a price arbitrage that Western companies found irresistible in the 1990s and 2000s.
These are not technology companies in any meaningful innovative sense. They do not hold transformative intellectual property. They have not invented platforms, operating systems, programming languages, or product categories that changed how the world works. They are, at their core, extraordinarily large and well-organized staffing and services businesses. They take specifications from clients in the United States and Europe, write the code, test the code, maintain the code, and send the invoice.
This is not an insult to the engineers who work there. Those engineers are genuinely talented. The insult is to the leadership that has spent three decades making enormous personal fortunes from that talent arbitrage without ever seriously attempting to build an Indian product company that competes at the global frontier of technology.
TCS had every opportunity to build the Indian equivalent of SAP, Oracle, or Salesforce. Infosys had the talent pool and the client relationships to create enterprise software products that could have been sold to the same Western companies it was servicing. Wipro had decades of healthcare and technology revenue that could have funded a genuine pharmaceutical technology platform. None of them did it. None of them seriously tried. The services model was too comfortable, too predictable, and too profitable to risk disturbing.
The result is that India accounts for a staggering share of global software engineering talent but owns almost no meaningful software intellectual property. That talent builds the products of American and European companies that then sell those products back to Indian consumers and Indian enterprises at prices set in dollars and euros. The value creation happened here. The value capture happened elsewhere.
What These Capital Pools Could Actually Do
This is where the critique becomes not just moral but analytical. The failure here is not merely ethical. It is a catastrophic misallocation of resources at a national scale.
India needs deep technology development in semiconductors. It needs original pharmaceutical research beyond generic manufacturing. It needs agricultural technology built specifically for Indian soil, Indian climate, and Indian supply chain realities. It needs advanced materials science. It needs investment in small and medium manufacturers who are already making things the world wants but who cannot scale because they cannot access capital at reasonable cost.
The capital to do all of this exists. It sits in the balance sheets of the very conglomerates being discussed here. A single year of Reliance's operating cash flow could fund a credible semiconductor design institute. Adani's capital allocation toward one airport acquisition could have seeded fifty mid-sized manufacturing companies in tier-two Indian cities. The combined R&D budget of Infosys and Wipro, if redirected toward original product development over a decade, could have produced enterprise software that India actually sells to the world rather than labor hours it rents to the world.
The choice was made not to do any of this. Not because it was impossible. Not because the capital was insufficient. But because the returns on predatory market consolidation and infrastructure monopoly are faster, safer, and higher than the returns on genuine innovation. Building something new is hard and uncertain. Crushing existing competition with capital surplus and then extracting monopoly rents is simply a matter of patience and nerve.
The Consumer Is the Final Victim
The consumer harms from this pattern are direct, measurable, and intensifying.
When Jio's competitors collapsed, the cost of mobile data began its climb upward. That climb has not stopped and will not stop because the structural incentive to keep prices low no longer exists. When Adani acquired the NDTV media group, one of India's most credible independent news voices began its transformation into something less critical of the interests that now own it. When conglomerates acquire food and beverage brands, the first post-acquisition move is almost invariably to rationalize ingredients downward to protect margins.
The consumer who once had four telecom options now has three, effectively two. The consumer who once had twenty competing cement brands in her region now has fewer. The consumer who turns on the news and reaches for a cola and charges her phone and pays her electricity bill is, in almost every one of those transactions, paying into systems increasingly controlled by the same few hands.
This is not the natural outcome of competition. Competition produces variety, quality improvement, and falling prices over time. This is the manufactured outcome of capital-backed elimination of competition, and it produces the exact opposite.
The Real Benchmark India Is Missing
South Korea built Samsung, LG, POSCO, and Hyundai because its industrial policy explicitly directed conglomerate capital toward frontier manufacturing and global exports. Germany's Mittelstand companies, mostly family-owned mid-sized manufacturers, are world leaders in precision engineering not because they had unlimited capital but because they chose to build real things that no one else could build as well.
China, for all its political complications, built a semiconductor industry, an EV industry, a battery industry, a solar panel industry, and a consumer electronics manufacturing base that now exports hundreds of billions of dollars of genuinely manufactured goods to the world.
India's equivalent capital pools chose airports, colas, SIM cards, and staffing contracts.
The gap between what Indian conglomerate capitalism chose to build and what it could have built is not a small gap. It is the gap between an India that exports intellectual property, advanced manufactured goods, and original technology platforms, and the India that actually exists: a country that remains dangerously dependent on importing the products its own engineers have the talent to design.
The Accountability That Does Not Arrive
These men receive awards. They receive honorary doctorates. They are invited to speak at Davos and CII summits and IIM convocations about the future of India. The financial press covers their net worth movements as though the expansion of their personal wealth is synonymous with national progress.
It is not. A man who became richer by eliminating his competitors through capital flooding and then charging more to captive consumers did not add wealth to India. He redistributed wealth toward himself. The value was not created. It was extracted.
The tragedy of Indian business in the current generation is not that these men are unintelligent. They are clearly intelligent, strategically sharp, politically connected in ways that would be impossible without real sophistication. The tragedy is that all of that intelligence, all of that capital, all of that organizational capacity has been deployed not toward building an India that makes the world genuinely better-off, but toward ensuring that within India, their particular organizations extract the maximum possible rent from the maximum possible number of people.
That is not nation-building. That is not innovation. That is not the legacy of a generation that happened to be alive when India had its greatest opportunity in five hundred years to join the frontier of global economic development.
It is a historic waste, and it deserves to be called exactly that.
----------------‐-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources and references: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India annual reports; KPMG India Private Equity and Venture Capital Report 2023; Reserve Bank of India annual reports on corporate investment trends; Ministry of Commerce and Industry export data 2022-24; Hindenburg Research report on Adani Group (January 2023); National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) industry data; World Bank India Development Report; McKinsey Global Institute report on Indian productivity 2023; Economic Survey of India 2023-24.
----------------‐-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Comments