Independence Day 2023: Captains of industry who fought for our freedom to do business

Punjabi drawing of British officials. Punjab School, ca.1858. Economic exploitation and lack of political freedom were a big part of the anti-colonial discourse during the Raj years. (Image via Wikimedia Commons)

It is natural that the story of India’s freedom struggle is centred around key leaders who directly took on the might of the British Raj. They faced imprisonment, penalties, suffered personal loss, and made huge sacrifices. To name just a few of the top leaders, this includes Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and Subhash Chandra Bose. They also worked towards freedom by playing their part in civic bodies and assemblies as and when the participation of Indians in legislative bodies was allowed and expanded.

Underpinning the anti-colonial movement was the discourse of economic exploitation and lack of political freedom. Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917) formulated the “drain of wealth” theory in the latter half of the nineteenth century, arguing that British rule was draining India of her resources and pulling her towards poverty. Dinyar Patel’s comprehensive biography of Naoroji maps his anguish and experiences that led to the “drain of wealth” formulation. Economic historians remain divided over the theory, but Naoroji remains one of the best-remembered early Indian nationalist.

Sharing Naoroji’s background in commerce were some latter-day leaders who were captains of industry, sat in Assemblies and served on numerous committees in semi-official roles. But neither did they have Naoroji’s charisma, nor can they be called nationalist. They represented the interest of indigenous business, and had to face the ire of mainstream Indian politicians and British officials.

The stories of the bigger and the better-known ones have been comparatively well documented. Medha Kudaisya’s masterful analysis of G.D. Birla, Gita Piramal’s work on the Bajaj's, and the ever-increasing monographs on the Tatas reveal the rich field of business history. Cipla, Godrej and Wipro have made laudable efforts at company archives. But at the same time, there were some who did not spawn a business empire, nor were they seen as keen followers of Gandhi.

Take, for instance, Sir Ibrahim Rahimtoola (1862-1942), the Muslim Khoja industrialist from Bombay who seemed indispensable for any committee relating to commerce and industry in colonial India. He was born in Bombay in a family of merchants who hailed from Bhavnagar in Gujarat. Sir Ibrahim was a long-standing member of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, and became a member and chair of both the Bombay Legislative Council and the Indian Legislative Assembly. It is to his credit that the Industrial Commission, Railway Committee and the Fiscal Commission were appointed.

Sir Ibrahim was among the earliest proponents of universal primary education, and spoke about introducing compulsory education in Bombay city. His very first bill in the Bombay Legislative Council was registration of private charities to stem their misuse and facilitate the proper use of funds. In 1921, Sir Ibrahim became the first Indian to be appointed president of the Fiscal Commission. Other members included G.D. Birla, Jamnadas Dwarkadas, and Narottam Morarji. The First World War had ended and there were expectations from Indian businessmen that the British government would usher in greater reforms in return for the help towards the war effort by them, which included the granting of fiscal autonomy.

As this was not offered, Sir Ibrahim, Birla and others made a note of dissent, recording that instead of being a large importer of manufactured goods, India should be allowed to develop her industries to reach a position of exporting her surplus manufactured goods. Sir Ibrahim did not mince words and said that fiscal autonomy was essential for India, arguing that it would allow her, just like Japan, to become a rich and powerful nation. So commanding was his position in Indian business circles that some British officials, including governors, would come to regard him as an evil genius capable of mounting opposition to policies that would harm the interests of Indian business or landlords. That he managed to do all this just about being a matriculate speaks volume about his industriousness and strength of character. His eldest son Fazal Rahimtoola followed Sir Ibrahim’s career path and was President of the Indian Tariff Board in the mid-1930s. Fazal Rahimtoola was also a long-time director of several companies belonging to the Tata group.

Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas (1879-1961) is a now an almost forgotten personality but in his heyday, he was referred to as “King Cotton”. There was hardly a sector or business group that would not have taken his help or advice. From trade in East Africa, to imports from Europe; and from internal trade to development of heavy industries, Sir Purshottamdas’s expertise was sought by the British and fellow Indian businessmen alike.

Sir Purshottamdas began his career in the firm of his uncle Narandas Rajaram and became the first vice-president of the Indian Merchants’ Chamber (IMC) in 1907. Just like Sir Ibrahim, he too was a member of the Central Legislature although he did not reach the same political heights. However, in terms of influence among fellow capitalists, he was second to none. Arguably far more involved in business and trade than Sir Ibrahim, Sir Purshottamdas, like any other influential businessmen, had a hard time balancing between politics and business.

He termed Congress’s civil disobedience movement a hasty step which wouldn’t be conducive to India’s interests. Although Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas respected Gandhi, it didn’t stop them from exchanging sharp letters. Around the same time as the civil disobedience movement, in protest against the Cotton Industries Protection Bill which led to differential duties on British and non-British cotton goods, Thakurdas resigned from the Legislative Assembly. Sir Purshottamdas co-founded along with G.D. Birla, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) in 1927 on the advice of Mahatma Gandhi.

The uneasy relationship between Indian capitalists and political leaders like Gandhi, Nehru and Patel, and the role of key personalities like Sir Ibrahim Rahimtoola and Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas has attracted the attention of economic historians, but there is ample scope for much more work. Over the years, Claude Markovits, A.D.D. Gordon, Aditya Mukherjee, Rajnarayan Chadavarkar, Tirthankar Roy, Nasir Tyabji and others have written on the confluence of politics, labour and business, but in recent years, the trend has shifted to examining the working of large corporates or industrialists.

Figures like Sir Ibrahim Rahimtoola and Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas serve to highlight that there were several factions and interest groups within Indian capitalists in colonial India. For example, Sir Ibrahim Rahimtoola along with Dorab Tata was in favour of establishing a separate capitalist political party in 1929 which was opposed by Birla and others. And even after Partition, when it became difficult for several businesses to continue trade across the borders, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas would write letters to ministers in Pakistan seeking interventions on the strength of his past connections.

Mainstream political leaders were well aware of the balancing act by Indian capitalists. Speaking about the industrialist Doshi brothers (Walchand Hirachand group), Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel once remarked: “Walchand belongs to every party, Gulabchand to the Hindu Mahasabha, Ratanchand to no party, and Lalchand to the Congress.”