CONGLOMERATE BIG BUSINESS GROUPS 39 nies in diverse fields as possible. The concentration of control in the hands of a tiny minority of big agencies wiped out smaller ones. Centralization was also accomplished when one group of agencies swallowed other groups, the latter often continuing their independent existence outwardly. The period between 1939 and 1947 may be termed as the formative period of Indian monopolies as a distinct and influential group. The huge accumulation of money capital in the hands of the Indian big business during the war years accelerated the grov/th of Indian monopoly capital. A substantial part of this accumulation was used to acquire the interests of the British managing agency houses. Investment in new industries was difficult because of the problems of importing machinery from abroad. Thus, from the very beginning, Indian big business tended to develop into a retrogressive conglomerate form. Pervasiveness of Interest The interests of Indian monopoly houses range from steel to textiles and from vanaspati (hydrogenated edible oil) to pasting gum. Hardly any sphere of economic activity in the Indian economy has escaped their direct or indirect control. Data for 37 top Indian owned groups studied showed, on the average, five activities per group. Excluding the two largest groups (the Tatas and the Birlas), the average was still four activities per group. Financial strength and versatility of interests were the two important sources of power of the big business groups of India. Such power and influence as are being enjoyed today by the Indian monopoly houses could not have come merely from the concentration of capital in factory industry or product monopolies. The official estimates of the total assets of the big business houses provide a good index of the growing power of Indian monopoly capital (Table I). It must be noted specifically that much of the total assets of the big business houses has been financed by borrowings from outside. "External borrowings constituted barely 20 per cent of the total funds invested by the public limited companies in 1961-62. By 1969-70, however, such borrowings rose to 40 per cent of aggregate funds invested in the private corporate sector. In 1974-75, borrowed funds—mostly from the public sector—provided nearly one-half of the aggregate investments in thejsector.953 Such a situation is a result of the declining profitability of the corporate sector during the decade froml960-1961 to 1970-1971. Thus a decline in internal investible resources has not stood in the way of growth in