2 ms·
There are some points that are missed in the article. Maruti was a company started by Sanjay Gandhi, son of India's most politically powerful and corrupt Nehru
by KorematsuFred 6y ago
There are some points that are missed in the article.
Maruti was a company started by Sanjay Gandhi, son of India's most politically powerful and corrupt Nehru-Gandhi family. He was known as ruthless and especially known for forced sterilization of poor people including college kids. He died mysteriously in a plane accident.
Maruti was a failed venture which was then conveniently sold to Indian government. Since India simply did not know how to make a proper car they basically used Suzuki's technology. I remember some early folks talking about how Indian government offered them a raw deal but Suzuki took it nevertheless partly out of charity/experimentation. This bet played out very big.
India at that time had banned import of foreign cars and the available ones in India were complete shit (Fiat Premier Padmini and Ambassador). Various politicians connected to the family then got dealerships across different states. Usual red tape of socialism was not applicable as this was the deals among friends. Rich and corrupt politicians selling cars to their other rich friends.
Suzuki however continued to focus on solid engineering and simple products. Before you knew it Maruti 800 had become a status symbol. Some of my relatives worked for a steel company (of course government owned) as officers. To boost the sales of the car, Indian government would offer a "car allowance" to these officers and offer to pay 80% of the car's cost. Every officer bought this car even though they did not need it and sold the tires and other spare parts to recover the 20% of the cost.
I belonged to a tiny state called Goa, which was a Portuguese colony until 1961, they had free trade with rest of the world and growing up I could see all sort of fancy cars from BMWs to Beetles to Porsches. When I left goa and reached Mumbai I simply could not understand why folks in Mumbai would not buy BMWs or Mercs.
It is a classic tale of nepotism, corruption and delayed growth of a poor country. Suzuki however deserves kudos and a million thanks for Indian people. They could have easily chosen to just act like rent seekers by delivering bad cars but they did not.
- newyankee 6y agoThe real issue is that Tata, although late to the game of passenger cars did not become as big as it was capable of. There are many factors here, but off course the main reason is the cost conscious Indian market. Tata could've been India's answer to Hyundai-Kia instead it is stuck with a poor acquisition of Jaguar Landrover. Something similar played out with Tata - Corus steel i think.
- dmos62 6y agoThanks for the story, it's an interesting read. A friendly advice: you seem sour about parts of the story you're retelling, which is understandable, but it causes the reader to perceive bias. If you can be more forgiving, for the lack of a better word, in your writing, the writing will be stronger.