Response to “A New Deal for Indian Business” by Rahul Gandhi.

Here is a response addressing the issues raised in this hypocritical article, examining the historical role of the Congress party, particularly under the Nehru-Gandhi family, in fostering a monopolistic and restrictive economic environment in India:

The above article by Rahul Gandhi presents an impassioned critique of the socalled monopolistic tendencies within Indian business. Ironically, however, his argument overlooks a key historical truth: the Congress Party, under the leadership of the Nehru-Gandhi clan, has long been one of the primary architects of India’s monopolistic and restrictive economic environment. For almost 6 decades, Congress was a monopolistic political entity, dominated by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, which exercised unprecedented control over India’s economy, limiting competition, stifling entrepreneurship, and sustaining a regime where economic progress was often sacrificed for political control.

The Nehru-Gandhi family has always had a total Monopoly over Political Power. For more than half a century after independence, the Congress Party, led by successive members of the Nehru-Gandhi family, governed India as a virtual monopoly in itself. Jawaharlal Nehru established a socialist economic model that centralized power in the hands of the government, cutting off India from the dynamic possibilities of a free-market economy. This monopoly over political power was consolidated by Indira Gandhi, who ruled with an authoritarian approach that went beyond politics and into economic life. Her nationalisation of banks, insurance, coal, and other industries exemplified a monopolistic attitude that permeated India’s economy, reinforcing the Congress Party’s control over critical sectors.

Moreover, the almost entire tenure of Congress witnessed the institution of the dreaded “license-permit-quota raj,” which imposed a labyrinth of bureaucratic controls on businesses. This system restricted entry into almost every industry, ensuring that only a handful of business houses, often those close to the ruling party, could function profitably in this stifled environment. Competition was virtually nonexistent, with the Congress administration doling out licenses selectively and ensuring that economic power rested in the hands of a few loyalists. This “licensing raj” choked innovation, curbed growth, and was notorious for breeding inefficiency and corruption. India’s entrepreneurial spirit was essentially shackled, and the average Indian’s economic aspirations were stifled under this oppressive regime.

By the early 1990s, decades of mismanagement and protectionism had led India to the brink of bankruptcy. From 1991 onwards, the Congress Party had to abandon its long-standing policies, effectively dismantling the very system it had created. And a Forced Departure from Congress’s Monopolistic Policies had to be made by Prime Minister late Shri PV Narsimha Rao which is often hailed as a landmark reform, ushering in a new era for the Indian economy. However, it was not the Nehru-Gandhi family that championed this change; this reform was continued to some extent by Dr. Manmohan Singh. It was thereafter that India moved towards an open economy. Ironically, it was Congress’s own failures that forced this shift. In a desperate bid to revive the economy, Rao and Singh were compelled to open up the market — a move that was a direct repudiation of the Nehru-Gandhi economic policies. Today, the benefits of this liberalization are clear: millions of Indians have risen out of poverty, new businesses have flourished, and India has emerged as one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

Rahul Gandhi’s article fails to acknowledge that this economic liberalisation was necessitated precisely because the Congress’s model of restrictive economics had failed. Instead of empowering Indian businesses, the Congress regime had weakened them, leaving Indian industry ill-prepared to compete on a global stage and China surged ahead.

Rahul Gandhi’s criticism of “match-fixing monopoly groups” rings hollow when viewed against the Congress Party’s history of supporting monopolistic practices. Under the Congress regime, only a select few families controlled large sectors of the economy, and this monopolistic structure was enforced by the state itself. Far from fostering a fair, competitive market, the Congress Party actively restricted entry into various industries, denying opportunities to a new generation of entrepreneurs. This system benefited only a small circle of elites while denying the common Indian the chance to succeed based on merit and innovation.

Even today, the Congress Party remains closely tied to a few select business interests. Rahul Gandhi’s accusations of “crony capitalism” lack credibility when Congress’s own past is littered with instances of preferential treatment and favoritism towards certain business houses. The reality is that the Congress’s model of governance has always favored a small, privileged elite, both in politics and in business. Further, even today Congress seems to act against the Indian business interests by being hostile to them for political reasons and thereby supporting foreign interests particularly the Chinese business interests. They would rather prefer International arms manufacturers to the indigenous Indian manufacturers to suckout their commission by their agents in arms deals like they are alleged to have done in the matters like Bofors and Augusta Westland.

The irony of Rahul Gandhi’s call for freedom from monopolies cannot be overstated. The Congress Party itself has long been a family-owned entity, where leadership is passed down within the Nehru-Gandhi lineage. Much like a monopoly in business, this dynastic rule in politics has stifled democratic competition within the party, ensuring that genuine leadership does not emerge outside the family and sychophants continue to rule to roost. This approach has extended into economic policy as well, where the state has been used as an instrument to maintain control, both politically and economically.

If Rahul Gandhi is truly serious about breaking monopolies, he would start by promoting merit-based leadership within his own party. He would also acknowledge the need for policy reforms that empower ordinary Indians rather than protecting an elite few. However, as long as Congress remains a dynastic organisation, its calls for fair play and competition in the business world will continue to sound hollow.

Rahul Gandhi’s article, while ostensibly a critique of the socalled monopolistic practices, conveniently ignores Congress’s own history of fostering monopolies in both politics and economics. For decades, the Nehru-Gandhi family used the apparatus of the state to suppress competition, maintain control, and limit economic freedom for millions of Indians. The economic liberalization of the 1991s was not a gift from the Nehru-Gandhi family but a forced correction of decades of Congress’s policy failures. Today, India’s economic dynamism is a result of moving away from the restrictive and monopolistic policies that the Congress regime had imposed.

Rahul Gandhi’s rhetoric about “freedom over fear” would be more credible if he acknowledged this history. Until then, his arguments appear less like a hypocritical call for economic justice and more like a convenient narrative aimed at political posturing. India deserves genuine leadership that respects democratic and economic freedoms, not a return to the monopolistic control that the Congress Party once imposed on this nation.

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.