It Happened in India by [Biyani, Kishore, Dipayan Baishya] . Overall impression of Kishore Biyani after reading the book is he is one BIG "serial risk taker". Born in a middle class trading family, Kishore Biyani started his career selling stonewash fabric to small shops in Mumbai. Years later, with the launch of Pantaloons, Big Bazaar, Food Bazaar, Central and many more retail formats, he redefined the retailing business in India. Summary. The book depicts the ideologies behind the struggles and dedication in setting up a business from the scratch that nobody else dared to dream of.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Hindi|
|Genre:||Business & Career|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Here you can get you reqired e-book in pdf, word formats. 2)http://pdfdatabase. com/ruthenpress.info?q=it+happened+in+india+by+kishore+biyani. Autobiograpy and The Discovery of India — have been my companions through life. This book was written by me in Ahmadnagar Fort prison during the five months, April has happened since I wrote it. I have felt tempted to. Of the Indian Civil Service ; and of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-law, Meriber of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Asiatic.
In India, not only were they welcomed, but also they were allowed to live and practise their religion peacefully, till most of them went back to Israel after Independence… But it is not only the Jews, but also the Parsis, who fled persecution by the Muslims in Iran, or the Christian Syrians, who first landed in India in the 3rd century, or the Arab merchants who from time immemorial were allowed to establish trading posts in Kerala… Or even the Jesuits, who were welcomed when they landed with Vasco de Gama in Calicut in Because in the whole history of India, Hindus have not only shown that they are extremely tolerant, but Hinduism is probably the only religion in the world who never tried to convert others — forget about conquering other countries to propagate its own religion.
This is not true with Christianity, it is not true with Islam — it is not even true with Buddhism, as Buddhists had missionaries who went all over Asia and converted people. This historical tolerance of Hinduism is never taken into account by foreign correspondents covering India and even by Indian journalists. Thus, this beautiful tolerance was taken advantage off by numerous invaders — particularly Europeans colonisers. The Portuguese for instance, were allowed to establish trading posts in the 15th century by the Zamorin of Cochin.
And what did they do? After the failed mutiny of , the missionaries became even more militant, using the secular arm of the British Raj, who felt that the use of the sword at the service of the Gospel, was now entirely justified, so that at Independence, entire regions of the north-east were converted to Christianity. It is true that there happened two or three crimes, particularly a ghastly murder against an Australian missionary and his two young sons.
But the massive outcry it evoked in the Indian Press showed clearly how Indians are constantly denying themselves and consider the life of a White Man infinitely more important and dear than the lives of a hundred Indians.
Or to put it differently: Because when Hindus were slaughtered, whether in Pendjab in the eighties, or in Kashmir in the nineties, when militants would stop buses and kill all the Hindus — men, women and children, when the few last courageous Hindus to dare remain in Kashmir, were savagely slaughtered in a village, very few voices were raised in the Indian Press — at least there never was such an outrage as provoked by the murder of the Australian missionary.
At long last, Hindus are beginning to realize the harm done by missionaries to their social and cultural fabric. Yet even today, one still hears of covert attempts at conversion by Christian missionaries. And lo, this wish — a loan, some cloths, a boat — is miraculously granted a few days later.
Needless to say that the happy innocent converts quickly, bringing along his whole family. When they took over India, the British set upon establishing an intermediary race of Indians, whom they could entrust with their work at the middle level echelons and who could one day be convenient instruments to rule by proxy, or semi-proxy.
Macaulay had very little regard for Hindu culture and education: And what is even more paradoxical, is that most of them are Hindus! The recent Sabamarti burning followed by the rioting in Gujurat, showed again how Indian journalists are true descendants of Macaulay. Here you had fifty eight innocent Hindus, the majority of them being women and children, burnt in the most horrible manner, for no other crime but the fact that they want to build a temple dedicated to the most cherished of Hindu Gods, Ram, on a site which has been held sacred by Hindus for thousands of years.
No doubt, the rioting which followed in Gurjurat against the Muslims is equally unpardonable. No doubt, Indian and foreign journalists who rushed to Gujurat, wrote sincerely: Which decent journalist, who has at heart of reporting truth would not cry out against such a shame?
But then history has shown us that no event should be taken out of context, and that there is in India, amongst the Hindu majority, a simmering anger against Muslims, who have terribly persecuted the Hindus and yet manage to make it look as if they are the persecuted. And once again, the western press coverage of the Gujurat rioting comes back to haunt India: Hindus targeting Muslims, fundamentalism against innocence, minority being persecuted by majority… But when will the true India be sincerely portrayed by its own journalists, so that the western press be positively influenced?
India is always associated in the world with poverty: Mother Teresa, Unicef, or Calcutta.
Another factor which reinforces the image of poverty is the tremendous fame which Mother Theresa enjoyed in her lifetime — and even after her death, as she is in the process of being made a saint. While it is true that Mother Theresa did a tremendous job in Calcutta, she never tried to counterbalance the very negative image of India that her name was carrying, with some praise for the country which had adopted her for fifty years.
She could have spoken for instance about the great hospitality of Indians, or the open-mindedness of Hindu religion, which had allowed her to practise Christianity near one of the most sacred temples of the country, or even about the near worship which most Hindus showed for her. It is true that there is a tremendous amount of poverty in India, and that many people can only afford one meal a day.
But four things should be known. The second thing, is that all the great famines of India happened during the British time. Many historians, such as Frenchman Guy Deleury, have documented the economic rape of India by the British: Instead they oriented Indian industries towards jute, cotton, tea, oil seeds, which they needed as raw materials for their home industries. They employed cheap labour for the enterprises while traditional artisans were perishing.
Thus 25 million Indians died in years! The British must be proud of their bloody record. It is probably more honourable and straightforward to kill in the name of Allah, than in the guise of petty commercial interests and total disregard for the ways of a year civilisation.
Thus, by the beginning of the 20th century, India was bled dry and there were no resources left. This is a great achievement, a tremendous task of which India can be proud off. Millions died of hunger, for instance, when Mao diverted peasants from cultivating the land, in his misguided and megalomaniac effort to increase steel production. Finally, the history of the British would be incomplete without mentioning the positive side.
The vast railway system, which more than anything else unified India. The remarkable Postal system, whose structures have survived till today. The roads network of India. But all these were not really meant for the welfare of India, but for a better administration of their own colony.
And ultimately, the question should be asked: Except for a few souls like Annie Besant or Sister Nivedita, the answer seems to be: But then Mountabatten ought to have known better.
And naturally, the British wanted a history of India that suited their designs and showed Indians as an inferior race, who inherited their superior realizations, like the Vedas, from a western-aryan influence, or its mathematics from Alexander the Great.
Therefore the theory of the Aryan invasion, the voluntary post-dating of the Vedas by Max Mueller himself and the decrying of the caste system. Of all the Indians who embraced these false myths, Nehru must be the most to blame.
His love of western civilisation hence his infatuation for Lady Mountabatten, which, it seems, stemmed more from his fascination for the White Skin and the pomp which surrounded the Viceroys of India, than from any sexual or romantic inclination , his contempt for his own culture and the marxisation he has effected on India, which still survives today, have done immense harm to the country.
Indian history books teach that the independence movement started with the Indian National Congress. But originally, the Congress was a tool fashioned by the British for their own use. Witness the fact that it all began in December , with an Englishman, A. Hume, with the avowed aim to: Thus for a long time, the Britishers considered favourably the Congress and sought to use it to justify their continuing occupation of India.
But soon of course it changed into suspicion and downright hostility, as the Congress, realising is folly, turned towards constitutional agitation to obtain from the British Parliament a few laws favourable to India. And the Englishmen did hand over a few crumbs here and there, such as giving Lord Sinha Lord Sinha indeed! They were the outcrop of an old British policy of forming a small westernised elite, cut off from its Indian roots, which will serve in the intermediary hierarchies of the British Raj and act as go-between the master and the slaves.
But these westernised moderate Congress leaders, found it difficult to get identified by the vast mass of India which was deeply religious. It is these early Congress leaders who began the slow but insidious crushing of the Hindu society. For instance, the Congress Governments, which were installed after July in most of the provinces, encouraged everywhere the development of education modelled on the British system.
And comments Danielou: Thus the British declared the Congress illegal, jailed most of its leaders and embarked on a policy of heavy repression. So, ultimately, what was true nationalism?
Who were the real revolutionaries, those who had an inner vision of what the British really represented, those who knew what was the genius of India and how it was destined to be great again?
In Europe, nationalism means external revolutionary movements, revolutionaries, materialism. Not only her Brahmins, but also her Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras even, drew their heroism from that fountain.
Sri Aurobindo was born on the 15th August in Calcutta, he spent his first years at Rangpur now in Bangladesh and at the age of 5 is sent to Loreto Convent school in Darjeeling. Sri Aurobindo is a brilliant student and passes the I. He joined the Baroda State Service from to early and taught French and English at the Baroda college, before eventually becoming its Principal. Thus he began contacting revolutionary groups in Maharashtra and Bengal and tried to co-ordinate their action.
But action was accompanied by inner vision: I know I have the strength to deliver this fallen race. In , the terrible Lord Curzon partitioned Bengal. Bengal responded to its partition with massive and unanimous protests in which many personalities took part, such as Rabindranath Tagore, Surendranath Banerjee, Bepin Chandra Pal… The ideal of Swadeshi, which called for the boycott of British goods, spread widely.
Pal then launched the famous English daily, Bande Mataram; Sri Aurobindo joined it and soon became its editor. Day after day, he jotted down his vision and tried to instil fire and courage in the nation through the pages of Bande Mataram: If you are going to be a nationalist, if you are going to assent to this religion of Nationalism, you must do it in the religious spirit. But Sri Aurobindo had to fight against the Congress Moderates, who, it must be remembered came out openly for complete independence only in , of whom he said: Sri Aurobindo was very clear in what was demanded of a leader of India: Sri Aurobindo spent a year in jail, which proved to be the turning point of his life as he went through the whole gamut of spiritual realisations.
When he came out, the nationalist movement had nearly collapsed and he set about giving it a fresh impetus, launching a new English weekly, the Karmayogin, as well as a Bengali weekly, Dharma. This following is an extract from his famous Uttarpara speech, where he speaks of his spiritual experiences in jail: When it is said that India shall be great, it is the Santana Dharma that shall be great… But what is the Hindu religion?
It is the Hindu religion only, because the Hindu nation has kept it, because in this peninsula it grew up in the seclusion of the sea and the Himalayas, because in this sacred and ancient land it was given as a charge to the Aryan race to preserve through the ages.
That which we call the Hindu religion is really the eternal religion, because it is the universal religion which embraces all others. If a religion is not universal, it cannot be eternal…. In mid-February , news reached that the British had again decided to arrest Sri Aurobindo and close down the offices of the Karmayogin.
He settled there, with a few disciples, the number of whom slowly swelled, until it became known as the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. The great Sage passed away on 5 December Unfortunately, the leaders of the Indian National Congress did not have the same vision. Of these leaders, history has mostly remembered two, the most famous of all: Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. Yet a few historians have seen through him. He despised non-anglicised Indians and had a very superficial and partial knowledge of India.
His ideal was the romantic socialism of 19th century Britain. But this type of socialism was totally unfit to India, where there was no class struggle and where the conditions were totally different from 19th century Europe. Mahatma Gandhi was indeed a great soul, an extraordinary human being, a man with a tremendous appeal to the people. But, unfortunately, he was a misfit in India. Karma or fate, or God, or whatever you want to call it, made a mistake when they sent him down to the land of Bharat.
The patterns and goals he put forward for India, not only came to naught, but sometimes did great harm to a country, which unquestionably he loved immensely. Furthermore, even after his death, Gandhism, although it does not really have any relevance to Modern India, is still used shamelessly by all politicians and intellectuals, to smoke-screen their ineffectiveness and to perpetuate their power.
To understand Gandhi properly, one has to put in perspective his aims, his goals, and the results today. One has to start at the beginning.
There is no doubt that after his bitter experiences with racism in South Africa, he took to heart the plight of fellow Indians there. But what did he achieve for them?
Second class citizenship! Worse, he dissociated them from their black Africans brothers, who share the same colour and are the majority. And today the Indians in South Africa are in a difficult position, sandwiched between the Whites who prefer them to the Blacks, but do not accept them fully as their own and the Blacks who often despise them for their superior attitudes.
Ultimately, they sided with the Moderate Whites led by De Klerk and this was a mistake as Mandela was elected and the Blacks wrested total power in South Africa -and once more we might have an exodus of Indians from a place where they have lived and which they have loved for generations. The Mahatma did a lot for India. But the question again is: Spinning was a joke. How many, even among his own followers believe in the gospel of Charkha? Does any Congress leader today still weave cotton?
All his life he felt guilty about having made love to his wife while his father was dying. But guiltiness is truly a Western prerogative. In India sex has was at least always been put in its proper place, neither suppressed, as in Victorian times, nor brought to its extreme perversion, like in the West today.
But why impose on others what he practised for himself? Again, this is a very Christian attitude: John Paul II, fifty years later, enjoins all Christians to do the same. But did Gandhi think for a minute how millions of Indian women would be able to persuade their husbands to abstain from sex when they are fertile? And who will suffer abortions, pregnancy and other ignominies? For all the world, Gandhi is synonymous with non-violence. But once more, a very Christian notion.
Gandhi loved the Mahabharata. But did he understand that sometimes non-violence does more harm than violence itself? Take the Cripps proposals for instance. In , the Japanese were at the doors of India. England was weakened, vulnerable and desperately needs support.
Churchill sent Sir Stafford Cripps to India to propose that if India participated in the war effort, Great Britain would grant her Dominion status as in Australia or Canada at the end of the war. Sri Aurobindo sent a personal letter to the Congress, urging it to accept. Nehru wavered, but ultimately, Gandhi in the name of non-violence put his foot down and the Cripps proposal was rejected. Had it been accepted, history might have been changed, Partition and its terrible bloodshed would have been avoided.
Gandhi also never seemed to have realised the great danger that Nazism represented for humanity. A great Asuric wave had risen in Europe and threatened to engulf the world and it had to be fought -with violence. And did not Gandhi also advise the Jews to let themselves be butchered? Ultimately, it must be said that whatever his saintliness, his extreme and somehow rigid asceticism, Gandhi did enormous harm to India and this harm has two names: Muslims and Untouchables.
The British must have rubbed their hands in glee: Sri Aurobindo was very clear about Hindu-Muslim unity: It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus.
Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organise themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem.
Otherwise we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it. Glorifying the scavenger as a man of God makes good poetry, but little social meaning.
In the words of Sri Aurobindo: In any case, it is not true that the Bhangi life is superior to the Brahmin life and the reward of special righteousness, no more that it is true that a man is superior because he is born a Brahmin. A spiritual man of pariah birth is superior in the divine values to an unspiritual and worldly-minded Brahmin.
And unfortunately he sowed the seeds of future disorders and of a caste war in India, of which we see the effects only today. Non-violence, you say?
But Gandhi did the greatest violence to his body, in true Christian fashion, punishing it, to blackmail others in doing his will, even if he thought it was for the greater good. India has fought three wars with Pakistan, had to combat the Chinese, has the second biggest army in the world and has to fight counter-insurgency movements in Punjab, Assam and Kashmir. Gandhi must have died a broken man indeed.
He saw India partitioned, Hindus and Muslims fighting each other and his ideals of Charhka, non-violence and Brahmacharya being flouted by the very men he brought-up as his disciples.
However, his heritage is not dead, for it survives where it should have been in the first instance: History will judge. But with Nehru on one side and his westernised concept of India and Gandhi on the other, who tried to impose upon India a non-violence which was not hers, India was destined to be partitioned. Thus when the time came, India was bled into two, in three even, and Muslims took their pound of flesh while leaving.
India never recovered from that trauma and today she is still suffering from its consequences. Yet has anynobody really understood the lessons of history? Its philosophy is founded upon the recognition of Hinduism as one of the highest forms of revelation, as Mrs Besant wrote: The first leaders of pre-independent India took some disastrous decisions, and the worst of them was to allow the division of their own country on religious lines.
And today, the consequences of this partition are still felt: Kashmir is the most visible of them; but you also have Ayodhya, Kargil, the nuclear bomb, the Bombay or Coimbatore blasts — and above all, the self-negation of a nation which is not whole, which has lost some of its most precious limbs in Yes, it is true, the British used to the hilt the existing divide between Hindus and Muslims; yes, the Congress was weak: But ultimately, one has to go back to the roots, to the beginning of it all, in order to understand Partition.
One has to travel back in history to get a clear overall picture. This is why memory is essential, this is why Holocausts should never be forgotten. For Jinnah was only the vehicle, the instrument, the avatar, the latest reincarnation of the medieval Muslims coming down to rape and loot and plunder the land of Bharat. He took up again the work left unfinished by the last Mughal two centuries earlier: The Hindu-Muslim question is an old one — but is it really a Muslim-Hindu question, or just plainly a Muslim obsession, their hatred of the Hindu pagans, their contempt for this polytheist religion?
This obsession, this hate, is as old as the first invasion of India by the Arabs in After independence, nothing has changed: The Muslims invaded this country, conquered it, looted it, razed its temples, humiliated its Hindu leaders, killed its Brahmins, converted its weaker sections.
True, it was all done in the name of Allah and many of its chiefs were sincere in thinking they were doing their duty by hunting down the Infidel.
So how could they accept on 15th August to share power on an equal basis with those who were their subjects for thirteen centuries? Hence the near total exodus of Hindus from Pakistan, whereas more than half the Muslim population in India, chose to stay, knowing full well that they would get the freedom to be and to practice their own religion.
In passing, the Muslims took their pound of flesh from the Hindus — once more — by indulging in terrible massacres, which were followed by retaliations from Sikhs and hard core Hindus, the ultimate horror.
Partition triggered one of the most terrible exodus in the history of humanity. And this exodus has not ended: For French historian Alain Danielou, the division of India was on the human level as well as on the political one, a great mistake: And he adds: At a time when the Muslim invaders seemed to have lost some of their extremism and were ready to assimilate themselves to other populations of India, the European conquerors, before returning home, surrendered once more the cradle of Hindu civilisation to Muslim fanaticism.
Pakistanis will argue that the valley of Kashmir, which has a Muslim majority, should have gone to Pakistan — and in the mad logic of partition they are not totally wrong. It is because Nehru and Gandhi accepted this logic, which was tremendously stupid, that India is suffering so much today. Of course, we cannot go back, History has been made: But if you go to Pakistan today, you will notice that its Punjabis look exactly the same as Indian Punjabis: And this is what Sri Aurobindo kept saying in It is to be hoped that the Congress and the Nation will not accept the settled fact as for ever settled, or as anything more than a temporary expedient.
For if it lasts, India may be seriously weakened, even crippled; civil strife may remain always possible, possible even a new invasion and foreign conquest. The partition of the country must go…For without it the destiny of India might be seriously impaired and frustrated. That must not be. It is only when the subcontinent will be whole again and the scars on both sides have been healed, that a Greater India will regain some of the self-pride gone with Partition.
India was free and everything was anew, the sky was the limit and a new glory was awaiting the land of Bharat. But what did Nehru and the Congress proceed to do with this new India? Writes Danielou: They thought that once independence was acquired, the Congress would revise its policies and would re-establish proper respect towards Sanskrit culture, Hindu religious and social institutions, which form the basis of Indian civilisation.
But nothing doing, the minority formed by the Congress leaders was too anglicised, to reconsider the value of what they had learnt. And indeed, on top of the Partition tragedy, there is the other calamity of modern India: For not only the Greatness that WAS India was ignored, but unconsciously, it is hoped, one made sure that there would never be a greatness that IS India.
Democracy was then the new name of the game for India. I hold that India, having a spirit of her own and a governing temperament proper to her own civilisation, should in politics as in everything else, strike out her original path and not stumble in the wake of Europe. Sri Aurobindo also felt: There were monarchy, aristocracy, democracy; every interest was represented in the government. While in Europe the Western system grew out of the mind: India is now trying to imitate the West.
Socialism certainly has its values, as Sri Aurobindo observed in Was socialism best suited for India? But if Nehru and the Congress leaders had not been so anglicised and had known a little more of the exalted past of their country, they would have opted for a more indianised system of socialism, such as the ancient panchayat system which Rajiv Gandhi would attempt to revive later. Their socialism, although it was full of great and noble intentions, created great evils in India.
The controls established by a an incapable and corrupted bureaucracy, the ruin of private property, the incredible taxes slapped on capital, the confiscations, the dictatorial exchange controls, and the heavy custom duties, plunged India in a terrible misery.
The prohibition to export profits as well as the excessive taxes, forced all capitalist to flee the country.
One of the worst legacies of Nehru and the Congress is political. Like the British, Nehru centralised all the power at the Centre, the states were formed in an arbitrary manner and very little political autonomy was left to them. This created a land of babus and bred corruption. In turn, it triggered in certain states such as Tamil Nadu, whose culture has been preserved much more than in North Indian states, maybe because it was more sheltered from Muslim incursions by the Deccan plateau , a resentment against the Centre, who was trying to impose Hindi on them, for instance, and fostered a seed of separatism.
And why should the Centre try to impose Hindi on all Southern states? Hindi is a language which is spoken only by a few Northern states. And why for that matter should the Centre impose anything on the States, except in vital matters such as Security and External Affairs?
Nehru also initiated the entire bureaucratisation of India, which was a terrible mistake, if only because it was a system established by the British who wanted to centralise and control everything from the top. It was all right when the English were there, they were the masters, they made their riches out of plundering the country and had no need to be corrupt. But how do you give so much power to an insensitive babu, who earns only a few thousand rupees a month?
Hence corruption and bureaucracy flourished together in India under Nehru. The Soviet-type industrialisation, such as massive state industries, big steel, mills and mega dams, have already proved a failure in the West; yet Nehru and his successors all went for it. India became a state owned country which produced sub-standard quality goods. The only merit it had was to shelter her from a take-over by multinationals and allow her to develop her own products, however deficient.
Again, the Indian judiciary relies for his judgements on western values, on European jurisprudence, which are totally unfit for India.
In education, Nehru carried on with the British policy of imposing a westernised English system: We have seen that bias time and again, whether after Graham Staines murder, or during the burning of the kar sevaks in the Sabamarti Express in Gujurat. This too is leftover from Nehruvianism. He fought for her independence with all his heart; and when freedom came, he applied to India the ideals he knew best, however misconceived they might have been. He was lucky enough to be in office while India went through a relatively peaceful period of her post-independence history, except for the first war with Pakistan and the China invasion.
And he must have felt gratified to see his beloved country through the first stages of her recovery from the yoke of colonialism. On the other, that the Bengalis are too great a race for completely being bowled over by a thoroughly materialistic ideology.
Naxalism also had its meaning: But once again this is not the way for India, for she has another wisdom waiting to be used again and solve all her problems without violence. What is the future of communism in India?
Like the rest, it may be absorbed back in her psyche, transformed and adapted to her psychology, for even communism can find its place, as long as it recognises the central Dharma of India. Or maybe will it disappear altogether from the land of Bharat. Why is it that Indians, particularly its elite — the intelligentsia, the journalists, the writers, the top bureaucrats, the diplomats — hold an image of themselves which is often negative, and have a tendency to run down their own country?
The self-perception that Indians have of themselves, is frequently detrimental to their self-confidence. No, they would rather turn to Thoreau, Marx or Jean-Paul Sartre, people who have even lost relevance in the West, for a solution to thy immense problems.
It is done in a very brilliantly manner, it is true — because Indian journalists, writers, artists, high bureaucrats, are often intelligent, witty and talented people — but always with that western slant, as if India was afflicted by a permanent inferiority complex. And certainly, Nehru, his daughter Indira, Rajiv and the subsequent Congress leaders must be held partly responsible for this lack of confidence. The so-called Kargil war of Kashmir in June 99 has triggered two very positive phenomenons for India.
For the first time in a long stretch, it gave the country a bit of nationalism, it made many Indians proud of the heroism and selflessness of their soldiers. And that was very positive, for unless a nation possesses a bit of nationalism, it cannot keep on growing. He was running the largest retailer in the country and was named as retailer of the year by the National Retail Federation , which at one earlier point had refused even to admit him.
He was, however, facing a threat from the much larger resources of conglomerates such as Aditya Birla Group and Reliance Industries , both of whom had signalled an intention to move into the retail sector. There were postponements in planned expansion and downsizing in some areas. Pantaloons Retail had a debt-to-equity ratio of Sales plunged; bankers who until then had queued up at his offices started to call in their loans; mutual funds that had invested in his companies buckled under redemption pressures and decided to get out; sources of foreign capital dried; his market capitalization plunged two-thirds in a matter of six months; and Biyani who had invested way ahead of the cash flows from his network found himself trapped.
He appointed a cousin, Rakesh Biyani , more methodical and patient than himself, to take over his responsibility for the retail business and in particular to resolve issues with the poor supply chain and internal distribution logistics that had resulted from rapid expansion.
He also rolled-over debt , converting it into loans that would mature in three to five years' time, and pulled out of joint venture deals with companies such as Etam.
Things appeared to be improving after the initial shockwave of CEO of Future Group. Slightly repetitive but much refreshing read on managerial thought process — less process orientation, hierarchy, review and analysis- more of imagination, speed, observation and intuition.
Sep 19, Pallavi Kamat rated it liked it. He always believed in learning, un-learning and re-learning. He is the one who redefined the retail industry in India. The book also sheds light on style and kishorw of KB; in fact biyaani book reveals journey toward formation of his business empire: Setup and progress of Biyani group.
Jul 05, Sunny rated it liked it. Jun 06, NakulJain rated it really liked it. The book is well structured and takes us through the journey of Future Group kishlre it grows into a successful brand. He was running the largest retailer in the country and was named as retailer of the year by the National Retail Federationwhich at one earlier point had refused even to admit him.
If you want to understand the evolution of modern retail in India, this book will be a help. Bkyanithe Pantaloon franchise was turning over 9 million rupees but with a smaller profit margin. Biyani has also had a foray into Bollywoodunderwriting the critically panned box-office failure Na Tum Jaano Na Hum movie that was released kisnore and also Chura Liya Hai Tumne But the how a man managed to establish modern retail in India where retailing was largely disorganised and lacked any success kiwhore to imitate?