Well you might call that "context", but it looks more like socialist make-believe. I'll grant though that it does provide the narrative context (whether true or false) in which politicans were working at the time. And this can't be blamed on Indira.
You can call any narrative as make-believe... what's your point?
> I'll grant though that it does provide the narrative context (whether true or false) in which politicans were working at the time.
Again, not sure what you're disputing here. That World Wars weren't caused by unbridled capitalism?
> And this can't be blamed on Indira.
What can't be blamed on Indira? She nationalized most banks, airlines etc. basically snuffing out the nascent private sector and heavily regulating the scraps that were left.
You are right that the East India company was crony captilast* But it is no small thing that you changed the goalposts to go from the parent's "Unbridled capitalism" to "unfettered crony captialism". It was precisely the fetters that made it cronyist, since it was a state granted, privately owned monopoly.
After independence, India's did not break from those forces, embraced them (in less bad form) by granting new monopolies. They were only (partially) rolled back when the '90s reforms came (partially) embraced free market principles.
Capitalism as we use the term was defined/coined in the age of the East India Company and general European Colonialism. The European decimation of India/Asia, Africa, The Americas: these are the true realizations of capitalism.
While neither defending or attacking capitalism... Corporation is a polite term for sovereign granted monopolies like East India. Less polite are privateers, aka pirates.