From 16 telecom companies to a handful. From many airlines to two giants. From hundreds of choices to “Which one of these two?”

Something strange is happening in India.

We are building one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, creating unicorns, launching satellites, building highways, expanding airports and becoming a global technology powerhouse.

Yet, at the same time, something is quietly disappearing:

Competition.

Look at your mobile phone.

A decade ago, the Indian telecom market was crowded with names such as Airtel, Vodafone, Idea, Aircel, Reliance Communications, Tata Docomo, Telenor, Videocon, MTNL, BSNL, MTS, Sistema and several others.

In 2008, India had around 16 significant telecom players.

Today, the consumer’s meaningful choices have narrowed dramatically. Jio and Airtel dominate, while Vodafone Idea and BSNL remain important competitors. Government data for December 2025 showed Jio with about 500.55 million wireless broadband subscribers and Airtel with 304.21 million, compared with 128.46 million for Vodafone Idea and 28.56 million for BSNL.

This isn’t just telecom.

Look at aviation.

Where did Jet Airways go?

Kingfisher?

Air Deccan?

Air Sahara?

Paramount?

Go First?

Vistara?

AirAsia India?

The list is long.

India once had a much more colourful airline industry. Air Deccan, SpiceJet, GoAir, Kingfisher and others entered during the great low-cost aviation boom of the 2000s. But one after another, airlines failed, were acquired or disappeared.

Vistara disappeared through its merger with Air India, while AIX Connect was merged into Air India Express.

And now?

IndiGo is enormous.

The Tata-owned Air India group is the other giant.

In July 2026, IndiGo’s domestic market share reportedly reached 66.3%, while the Air India group stood at about 23.9%.

That means roughly nine out of every ten domestic passengers are travelling with two corporate groups.

That should make every consumer, regulator and policymaker pause.

But is this really a monopoly?

Technically, no.

And that distinction matters.

A monopoly means one dominant seller controls a market.

What India is increasingly seeing in several industries is something different:

oligopoly or duopoly.

An oligopoly is a market dominated by a small number of powerful companies.

A duopoly is essentially a market where two major players dominate.

And sometimes that can be almost as important to consumers as a monopoly.

Because you don’t need one company to control everything.

You only need two companies to control most of it.

If Company A increases prices and Company B follows, consumers may technically have a choice—but not much of one.

That is the real question India needs to ask.

Are we preserving competition, or merely preserving the appearance of choice?

The airline story is a perfect warning

India’s aviation history tells us something important.

The disappearance of airlines wasn’t simply because someone decided to eliminate competition.

Most of these companies had serious problems.

High fuel costs.

Expensive aircraft leases.

Debt.

Weak cash flows.

Poor management.

Operational failures.

Aggressive expansion.

Regulatory complications.

Thin profit margins.

And sometimes plain bad business decisions.

Kingfisher collapsed under enormous financial pressure.

Jet Airways eventually stopped flying.

Go First collapsed after severe operational and financial problems, including aircraft-engine issues.

These weren’t all victims of some giant conspiracy.

Many simply couldn’t survive.

And that’s precisely the problem.

When an industry becomes so expensive and difficult to operate that only the largest companies can survive, consolidation becomes almost inevitable.

Today, IndiGo’s dominance is extraordinary.

Reuters reported in August 2026 that IndiGo already had around two-thirds of India’s domestic market.

There are now concerns about what happens when the largest player itself encounters a major disruption.

We already got a preview.

When IndiGo experienced massive operational disruption in 2025, thousands of flights were cancelled and airfares surged dramatically on affected routes.

Reuters described the situation as exposing the systemic risks of an aviation market dominated by IndiGo and Air India.

This is the hidden danger of concentration:

When one company fails, millions can feel it.

Telecom tells an even bigger story

Perhaps nothing illustrates India’s transformation better than telecom.

In 2008, the sector had around 16 players.

Today, the field is dramatically smaller.

Jio entered the market and changed the economics of telecom almost overnight.

Cheap data.

Cheap voice.

Free calls.

Massive network investment.

Competitors were forced to respond.

Consumers initially loved it.

And rightly so.

Competition from Jio pushed prices down and accelerated smartphone and internet adoption across India.

But there was a second effect.

Smaller telecom companies simply couldn’t keep up.

Some disappeared.

Some were acquired.

Some merged.

Some surrendered spectrum.

Vodafone and Idea themselves eventually became one company.

The irony is fascinating.

The same competitive disruption that gave Indians incredibly cheap internet also helped create a market with far fewer major competitors.

Vodafone Idea still exists and remains India’s third-largest telecom operator, but it continues to face enormous financial pressure.

So the question isn’t whether Jio did something wrong.

The bigger question is:

What happens to competition when only companies with enormous capital reserves can afford to compete?

And it isn’t stopping there

Look around.

Digital payments

UPI itself is an extraordinary Indian success story.

But look at the apps sitting on top of it.

PhonePe and Google Pay have historically dominated UPI transactions.

In May 2026, their combined share fell below 80% for the first time, to around 79%, which is actually a positive sign because smaller players are gaining ground.

This is an important distinction.

UPI is not a monopoly.

The underlying infrastructure is shared.

But the consumer interface layer can still become highly concentrated.

And that’s where power increasingly sits.

Food delivery

Remember when there were numerous food delivery startups?

Today, for most consumers, the market effectively revolves around two major names:

Zomato and Swiggy.

Their food-delivery market has settled into a remarkably stable two-player structure, with estimates around 57% versus 43% in gross order value.

Again, technically not a monopoly.

But if two companies control almost the entire organised food-delivery market, they have enormous influence over:

• restaurant commissions
• delivery charges
• consumer discounts
• advertising visibility
• restaurant rankings
• customer data
• delivery-worker economics

That is a lot of power concentrated in very few hands.

E-commerce is different—but watch it carefully

E-commerce is not yet a simple Indian duopoly.

Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho remain major players, alongside specialist platforms and thousands of independent sellers.

But the pattern is familiar.

The bigger the platform becomes, the more sellers want to join it.

The more sellers join, the more consumers come.

The more consumers come, the more sellers become dependent on it.

And eventually the platform becomes infrastructure.

That’s when something changes.

A marketplace stops being merely a marketplace.

It becomes a gatekeeper.

Why is this happening?

The easy answer is:

Big companies are killing small companies.

But that isn’t the complete truth.

The deeper answer is that India has entered an economy of scale.

And scale is becoming brutally important.

Consider telecom.

Building a nationwide 5G network costs enormous amounts of money.

A small company cannot simply decide:

“Let’s compete with Jio.”

The capital requirement is gigantic.

Aviation is similar.

Buying aircraft costs billions.

Aircraft leasing costs money.

Fuel costs money.

Airport charges cost money.

Maintenance costs money.

Pilot training costs money.

Regulatory compliance costs money.

A new airline can burn enormous amounts of cash before becoming profitable.

This creates a vicious cycle.

Big companies become cheaper because they are big.

And because they are cheaper, they attract more customers.

Because they attract more customers, they become bigger.

And because they become bigger, smaller competitors find it harder to survive.

That is the scale flywheel.

The Indian consumer created this monster too

This is the uncomfortable part.

We cannot blame corporations alone.

We, the consumers, constantly reward scale.

We want:

Cheapest price.

Fastest delivery.

Largest selection.

Best network.

One-click convenience.

Free delivery.

Cashback.

Lowest airfare.

Unlimited data.

And we want all of it immediately.

A small company cannot always provide these things.

A giant corporation can.

So we move toward the giant.

One customer at a time.

Then one million.

Then 100 million.

Then the competitor disappears.

And suddenly we look around and ask:

“Where did all the choices go?”

But cheap isn’t always cheap

This is where consumers need to think differently.

Suppose there are ten airlines.

Airline A charges ₹4,000.

Airline B charges ₹4,300.

Airline C charges ₹4,500.

Airline D charges ₹4,200.

They compete aggressively.

Now imagine nine disappear.

The remaining company doesn’t necessarily need to charge ₹4,000 forever.

Competition has weakened.

The consumer’s bargaining power has weakened.

The same logic applies to telecom, payments, food delivery and other sectors.

Competition is not merely about getting a cheap price today.

Competition is an insurance policy against excessive power tomorrow.

So what went wrong with India?

I don’t think the answer is that “India went wrong.”

India actually did many things right.

Liberalisation created competition.

Digital infrastructure created entirely new markets.

Cheap mobile data connected hundreds of millions.

UPI transformed payments.

Private airlines expanded access to air travel.

E-commerce expanded consumer choice.

Startups created enormous innovation.

Capital flowed into new businesses.

Millions of entrepreneurs got opportunities that were unimaginable decades ago.

The problem is what happens after the first phase of disruption.

India has become exceptionally good at creating markets.

But we now need to become much better at protecting competitive markets after they mature.

Otherwise, disruption simply follows this pattern:

Many players enter → price war → weaker players disappear → consolidation → two or three giants remain → consumers lose meaningful alternatives.

And this is where regulation matters

India already has a competition regulator: the Competition Commission of India.

The CCI itself uses tools such as concentration ratios and other economic measures to assess competition.

But regulating concentration is complicated.

A large company isn’t automatically bad.

In fact, India needs large companies.

We need Indian companies capable of competing with Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, global airlines, Chinese manufacturers and multinational corporations.

We need companies with enormous capital.

We need scale.

We need world-class infrastructure.

We need global champions.

The objective cannot be:

“Don’t allow companies to become big.”

That would be disastrous.

The objective should be:

“Allow companies to become big—but don’t allow markets to become impossible for new competitors to enter.”

That distinction could define India’s next decade.

The bigger danger: vertical empires

There is another trend that deserves even more attention.

The future may not simply be about companies dominating one industry.

It may be about companies controlling multiple layers of the same ecosystem.

Imagine a corporate group that has interests in:

Airports → Airlines → Hotels → Travel platforms → Payments → Retail → Data centres → Financial services.

Or:

Telecom → Digital payments → Entertainment → E-commerce → Cloud → Advertising → Retail.

The more layers one ecosystem controls, the harder it becomes for a new competitor to enter.

Because the new competitor isn’t fighting one company.

It is fighting an entire ecosystem.

That is a much bigger challenge.

What happens to small businesses?

This is where I worry most.

India’s greatest economic strength has historically been its enormous number of small businesses.

Small manufacturers.

Traders.

Weavers.

Artisans.

Restaurants.

Retailers.

Local transport operators.

Independent service providers.

Family businesses.

Regional brands.

But digital platforms can gradually transform these businesses from independent enterprises into dependent suppliers.

A restaurant may own its kitchen.

But another company controls customer discovery.

Another controls payments.

Another controls delivery.

Another controls advertising.

Another controls the data.

The restaurant may still technically be “independent.”

But economically?

Its independence can become very thin.

And this is especially dangerous for India’s traditional sectors

Take handloom.

A small weaver cannot compete with a giant fashion marketplace on advertising budgets.

A local artisan cannot spend millions on customer acquisition.

A cooperative cannot necessarily build a sophisticated logistics network.

A small natural-fibre brand cannot always match the discounts of a venture-funded platform.

Eventually, the marketplace can become dominated by large brands.

The artisans remain at the bottom of the supply chain.

This is why competition isn’t only a corporate issue.

It is also a livelihood issue.

What will India look like in 5–10 years?

Nobody can predict the future precisely.

But some trends are already visible.

If current consolidation continues, India could move toward an economy where a relatively small number of enormous corporations dominate the infrastructure through which ordinary Indians live their daily lives.

Your communication.

Your payments.

Your shopping.

Your food delivery.

Your travel.

Your entertainment.

Your financial products.

Your cloud services.

Your data.

Your advertising.

Your digital identity.

And potentially even your access to artificial intelligence.

That doesn’t necessarily mean India becomes a “monopoly country.”

It could become something more sophisticated:

An economy of corporate ecosystems.

A handful of gigantic groups.

Thousands of smaller businesses operating around them.

Millions of consumers using their infrastructure.

And increasingly high barriers for anyone trying to build the next competitor.

But there is another possible future

India could choose a different path.

We could build scale without eliminating diversity.

Imagine:

Large Indian companies competing against each other globally.

Thousands of startups continuously entering markets.

Strong antitrust enforcement.

Open digital infrastructure.

Interoperability.

Fair access to platforms.

Transparent algorithms.

Protection for small suppliers.

Data portability.

Open networks.

Strong cooperatives.

Regional businesses using technology to compete nationally.

And consumers who deliberately support alternatives instead of always choosing the biggest name.

That would be a much healthier capitalism.

India doesn’t need fewer giants.

India needs more challengers.

This is the central lesson.

We should not be afraid of companies becoming enormous.

A ₹10 lakh crore Indian company competing globally is not necessarily a problem.

The problem begins when a company becomes so powerful that an entrepreneur with a better idea cannot realistically challenge it.

That is when innovation starts dying.

Because startups stop asking:

“How can we build something better?”

And start asking:

“How can we survive against them?”

That is a completely different economy.

The next decade will decide this

India is entering a remarkable period.

The country has the demographics.

The digital infrastructure.

The capital.

The entrepreneurial talent.

The manufacturing ambition.

The technology.

The world’s attention.

But economic growth alone is not enough.

We need competitive growth.

Because a country can have billions of transactions, hundreds of millions of consumers and enormous GDP growth—and still have markets where ordinary people have very little bargaining power.

The real measure of a healthy economy isn’t simply how many billion-dollar companies it creates.

It is also how easy it is for the next billion-dollar company to emerge.

The question we should be asking

The question isn’t:

“Is Jio bad?”

Or:

“Is IndiGo bad?”

Or:

“Are large corporations bad?”

No.

The real question is much bigger:

Can India create giants without destroying the environment in which the next giant can be born?

Because today it may be someone else’s company dominating the market.

Tomorrow it could be yours.

And if we build an economy where only the already-powerful can survive, we may eventually discover that India’s greatest competitive advantage—its millions of entrepreneurs—has quietly become its greatest casualty.

A healthy economy needs giants.

But it also needs challengers.

And perhaps the most important economic policy for India’s next decade should be simple:

Don’t kill the giants.

Don’t worship the giants.

Make sure there is always a path for the next challenger.

Because when consumers have only two doors to walk through, it doesn’t matter how beautiful the building is.

They still have only two doors.

Comments

comments