Can and able: A family can fight if it's able to pay for it

Business family feuds are common in India but their cost must not burden other shareholders

- SRINATH SRIDHARAN

Family feuds have long been a staple of human drama. From ancient Indian epics to Shakespearean tragedies, tales of siblings battling over legacy, power and name continue to captivate audiences. But in the corporate arena, where legacies aren't confined to royal palaces but spill into the public space, the stakes rise sharply.

The latest Lodha versus Lodha saga is yet another reminder that while families can create dynasties, they are equally adept at tearing them apart. Indian corporate history offers no dearth of examples of family-name disputes. From the Ambanis and Bajajs to the Modis and Kirloskars, the script remains eerily similar: families have built fortunes together, only to squabble over them later.

But what often escapes scrutiny is the fallout on the businesses involved. And while such spectacles make for juicy boardroom gossip, they pose an uncomfortable question: At whose cost do these battles rage?

The reality is that families may build great companies, but they often fail to separate their personal identities from their professional roles. For family-run businesses, a name is not just a name. It's a brand, a promise of trust, and, ironically, often a seed of discord. But the public perception of a glamorous courtroom showdown, with one sibling accusing another of poaching a surname, obscures the real victims of this drama—other shareholders.

The silent majority of minority investors often find themselves becoming the collateral sufferers of family vendettas. Why should their investments be dragged into private battles of ego and wealth?