By the time it was 17 in 1994, the House of Ambani was at the pinnacle of its power. In terms of corporate clout, the group’s flagship, Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), which went public in 1977 though it was privately held for several years, was feared by competitors. RIL’s patriarch, the late Dhirubhai Ambani, could make or break governments. Investors loved the scrip. And the company was on its way to becoming the largest (in terms of revenues and profits) in India.
Dhirubhai’s penchant for business vengeance was legendary. He never forgot an insult. In the 1970s, he met Kapal Mehra’s father, the founder of Orkay Silk Mills, one of the fastest growing textile firms, for tips to set up a dyeing unit. The senior Mehra flexed his biceps and said, “You need to mix blood with chemicals to make dyes. You can’t do it.” Dhirubhai vowed to destroy Orkay. By 1994, Kapal Mehra, who had once desired to become what Ambani became, was practically on the streets.
Of course, everyone has heard about the mother of all corporate wars—Dhirubhai versus Nusli Wadia, Ram Nath Goenka, V.P. Singh and others—in the 1980s. Wadia, the suave grandson of Mohammed Ali Jinnah and owner of Bombay Dyeing, was Dhirubhai’s rival. And VP, the finance minister in Rajiv Gandhi’s government, wanted to teach corrupt businessmen a lesson they’d never forget.
The late Goenka, owner of Indian Express, became an arch-enemy of former friend Dhirubhai in 1984-85 when, as recounted in Gita Piramal’s Business Maharajas, Ambani told him that “everyone had a price, that Express reporters were on his payroll, and that even Goenka had a price”. Two senior journalists, however, say the differences were somewhat older; Dhirubhai had accused them of “being sent by Goenka” to ask controversial questions when they went to meet him in 1981.
In the second half of the ’80s, Express, with help from Wadia and VP, brutally attacked RIL. Dhirubhai suffered a stroke; RIL’s share price crashed by over 80 per cent; and the group had cases slapped against it. By 1994, however, Wadia was down in the dumps (Dhirubhai referred to Bombay Dyeing as Bombay Dead), VP’s meteoric political career had almost ended, and Goenka was at the receiving end of government ire.
At this stage, everyone recognised Dhirubhai’s ability to ‘manage’ governments. He supported Indira Gandhi in the ’70s, had powerful friends in the Janata Party, which came to power in 1977 on an anti-Congress plank, and then backed Indira’s return to power in 1980. And, despite the initial hostility between them, he got close to Rajiv and was partly responsible for the fall of VP’s government in 1990, helping Chandra Shekhar become the prime minister.
Businesswise, RIL remained on top. Despite the turbulent ’80s, shareholders did not run away when its share price fluctuated wildly. In ’93, Reliance Petroleum successfully launched the then-largest public issue. During 1992-94, RIL raised money thrice in the European stockmarkets. All its backward integration plans in plastics, petrochemicals and polyester were in place. In 1994-95, the company’s net profits crossed the Rs 10 bn mark, the highest in Indian private sector companies.
Ironically, 1994 also marked the beginning of the end of Dhirubhai’s supremacy. Mad with success and money, he took on any entrepreneur—Ruias (Essar), Manu Chhabria (Jumbo) and Rajan Pillai (Britannia)—who dared to enter his territory, and even needled those who didn’t. When Aditya Vikram Birla died in 1995 and his 28-year-old son K.M. Birla took over, RIL planted a story that it would enter the cement sector, where the Birlas had a presence. Business enemies, including Marwaris (Birlas), Parsis (Wadia) and NRIs (Chhabria), became friends, and ganged up.
Dhirubhai suffered his first real political setback in 1994, when Narasimha Rao did not allow him to take over construction conglomerate L&T. Subsequent governments were vertically split in their support or opposition to the Ambanis. Policymakers became careful; political predators awaited their chance to pounce. Earlier, Chandra Shekhar had ordered Dhirubhai’s arrest, but it was scuttled because of inaction on the part of one of his ministers.
Businesswise, though, past momentum was enough to propel the group to new heights. In 1999-2000, it built the world’s largest grassroots refinery and India’s largest port. In 2001, RIL and Reliance Petroleum emerged as the country’s largest companies, and were merged the next year.
The breaking point came with Dhirubhai’s death in July 2002. Sons Mukesh and Anil fought immediately over the spoils—the sibling rivalry becoming a bitter, no-holds-barred public war in late 2004—and the group split in June 2005. Today, the Ambanis’ hold over India’s politics, business and investors has weakened considerably.
Alam Srinivas is a Reliance observer whose next book on women entrepreneurs will be out later this year.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
A truly evil and parastic family drinking the blood of mother India and feasting on her flesh. I am happy their malign influence has diminished.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT