Does Indian society truly appreciate its capitalists and wealth creators? Most often not. In this post, I will highlight this attitude through the lens of Gautam Adani. 
The Roots of Distrust
The anti-capitalist sentiment in Modern India was seeded in 1947 when policymakers had a unique opportunity to shape a newly independent nation’s economic mindset. Instead of fostering entrepreneurship, they embedded a socialist mindset that viewed private enterprise as inherently suspect. This mentality persists today.
This distrust isn’t uniquely Indian. Even capitalist America once vilified prominent industrialists such as Rockefeller and Carnegie as predatory robber barons. Similarly, in South Korea, the founders of Samsung and Hyundai faced scorn and scrutiny.
The Dilemma of Judging Capitalists
Undoubtedly, entrepreneurs worldwide have exploited loopholes and political connections, raising legitimate ethical concerns. But they have also created jobs, generated wealth, and transformed societies.
So, how should we judge them? By the utilitarian standard of “greatest good for the greatest number” or by the unforgiving lens of ethical absolutism?
History offers perspective. Many industrialists, reviled in their lifetimes, are celebrated for their transformative impact. For instance, once controversial, the founders of Samsung and Hyundai are credited for building today’s modern, prosperous South Korea.
Considering that time has softened its stance on past industrialists, how should we assess contemporary controversial industrialists, such as Gautam Adani, who’s been faulted for his association with Prime Minister (PM) Modi?
The Gujarat Connection: Modi and Adani
Detractors allege cronyism based on circumstantial proximity, as Modi and Adani hail from Gujarat and have risen in parallel.
Notably, Adani’s early successes in trading and coal and the flagship Mudra Port predate Modi’s tenure as Gujarat’s Chief Minister (CM).
During Modi’s time as CM, the Group’s milestones included an IPO, a power plant in Gujarat, and an Australian port acquisition.
Modi could have done little regarding the IPO and port acquisition but likely facilitated the setting up of the power plant, which was consistent with his aggressive promotion of investment in Gujarat. For example, he famously enabled Tata Motors to relocate its Nano plant from West Bengal to Gujarat.
Adani: Builder, Beneficiary, or Both
The biggest concern is the Adani Group’s rapid and significant growth during Modi’s tenure as PM.
The Group’s growth has come primarily from its strengths in ports, coal, and power and strategic expansion into airports and renewables, which align with key government reforms and policy priorities.
Did Adani thrive because his businesses aligned with policy priorities, or were policies designed to favor him? Which narrative is more credible?
The Group’s securing significant contracts in seven non-BJP-ruled states suggests, to some extent, that ability, not the Modi connection, has fueled its growth (though there are unresolved bribery charges in some of these states).
Surprisingly, there are concerns about Adani securing overseas projects following Modi’s state visits. However, that is what heads of state do—promote national businesses abroad. Moreover, these contracts have less potential for impropriety.
Adani operates in highly capital-intensive, heavily regulated industries with long gestation periods, where success often hinges on business acumen and government interface. This context complicates the distinction between merit-based success and political favoritism.
Even if Adani benefited from political patronage, the government’s backing of a skilled executor suggests pragmatism rather than blind political favoritism.
Nevertheless, the favoritism claim remains unproven. While Adani and Modi appear to have or may have a symbiotic relationship, allegations of favoritism and quid pro quo are unsubstantiated by direct evidence.
No legal challenge has overturned the allocation of contracts or regulatory approvals, reinforcing the absence of substantiated wrongdoing.
Moreover, despite extensive efforts by Modi’s opponents, both within and outside India, to expose any impropriety in his ties with Adani, no smoking gun has emerged, which in itself is telling.
Recent Controversies: Substance or Smoke?
Last year, two controversies unrelated to cronyism intensified anti-Adani rhetoric.
First, a small Wall Street short seller accused the Group of manipulating stock prices. Despite the questionable ethical credibility of short sellers, parliament erupted with demands for PM Modi’s response and expedited regulatory investigations.
How would America react if an obscure Indian firm accused a major U.S. conglomerate of wrongdoing?
Ultimately, the short-seller firm itself disbanded.
Second, US prosecutors indicted Adani for bribing Indian officials to win contracts. The case is ongoing. Interestingly, President Trump recently put the relevant law’s restrictions on hold.
The Adani Contribution
Looking beyond controversies, the Adani Group has:
- Created thousands of jobs across India.
- Stimulated economic activity in underdeveloped regions.
- Demonstrated Indian competitiveness in international markets.
- Built critical infrastructure—ports, airports, and power plants—integral to India’s growth.
- Invested heavily in renewables, aligning business goals with national climate commitments.
And all of this in under four decades. Despite all this, Adani remains underappreciated.
Wealth Creation Blind Spot
We celebrate cricketers, actors, and politicians with unrestrained enthusiasm but not industrialists and even less when perceived political ties exist. This disparity, worsened by political polarization, likely prevents India from fully harnessing its entrepreneurial spirit.
Ironically, we hold industrialists to higher ethical standards than we apply to ourselves, often overlooking the complex, bureaucratic, and corrupt environment in which they operate, where doing business is rarely straightforward. Yet, we expect them to succeed while maintaining absolute integrity. And in doing so, we underappreciate them.
Conclusion
A nation aspiring to economic prosperity must appreciate its wealth creators, even as it debates their methods. We cannot seek prosperity while routinely demonizing those who drive it.
At the same time, no one is above the law. In Adani’s case, however, there is no incriminating evidence, at least so far. We can cling to cynicism, fixating solely on unproven allegations, or also celebrate the contributions of an impactful group.
The real question isn’t whether we should celebrate wealth creators—it’s whether we can afford not to.