|
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]What almost nobody asked, for thirty years, was deceptively simple: behind the most admired bank in India, who was actually pulling the strings?
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]There is a question about HDFC Bank that sounds simple until you try to answer it. It is not a question about earnings, or about credit quality, or about the technology stack or the branch network or the market share. It is a more fundamental question, the kind that should be answerable in minutes and yet, when you sit with it, refuses to resolve cleanly.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Who controls HDFC Bank?
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]For most of its thirty-year history, that question was treated as unnecessary. The bank performed. The numbers were clean. The management was stable. The brand was trusted. In Indian financial markets, where the alternative was often a public sector bank drowning in political loans or a newer private bank lurching through one crisis after another, HDFC Bank was the safe harbour. You didn't interrogate the safe harbour. You parked money in it and slept well.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]That comfortable arrangement is now under strain. Not because the bank is failing — it isn't, not yet, not in the ways visible in a balance sheet. But because the chairman resigned suddenly, and the explanation offered to the market was thin enough that investors had to fill in the gaps themselves. And when you start filling in gaps around an institution this large, you find yourself not just asking what happened in a boardroom in 2024 — you find yourself asking what was always true about how this bank was built, and for whom, and by whose hand.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]The answers, it turns out, require going back much further than most people expect.
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]The layer above the bank
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]The story of HDFC Bank begins — in the version most people know — in 1994. A license is granted. A new private bank is born in the wake of India's liberalisation. A leadership team arrives. Growth follows, compounding year after year with an almost mechanical reliability that makes HDFC Bank, within a decade, the benchmark against which every other private bank in the country is measured.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]But the real story begins one level above that narrative. It begins in the institution that created HDFC Bank, that promoted it, that held roughly a quarter of it as its parent and guardian: HDFC Ltd, the housing finance company that had been operating since 1977, that had spent fifteen years building a mortgage franchise before it decided to add a bank to its portfolio.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]And among the largest shareholders of HDFC Ltd — the entity that sat directly above the bank, that was responsible for its governance, that was the formal promoter through which the bank's accountability was meant to flow upward — was not an Indian institution. Was not a development bank or a government entity. Was not a family house or a domestic financial group.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]It was Citigroup.
[size=1.28][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]"The capital did not arrive under its own name, and it did not arrive through the front door. It came through Mauritius — the offshore jurisdiction that, for two decades, was the most convenient route through which global money entered India without leaving obvious fingerprints."
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Citigroup held its stake in HDFC Ltd through a tax haven that have it a certain cover. It was via two Mauritius entities: Citigroup Strategic Holdings Mauritius and Citigroup Holdings Mauritius. It Mauritius, it is still difficult to lift the corporate veil and know, who are the real and ultimate benificieries. It could be anybody behind Citi Group Mauritius right from the Rotschilds, who have a history together, to the Pentagon backed institutions. Think tanks like the RAND Corporation are infamously known for this and few high ranking acidimicians that mattered in Indian financial echosystem were trained by RAND. Also, the US then was keen for a foothold in India's financial system after the Harshad Mehta scandal, wherein Citi Bank's role is not hidden.
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]The structure was, at the time, entirely routine for foreign institutional investors in India — the double taxation avoidance agreement between India and Mauritius had made routing capital through the island nation the standard playbook, not the exception. Nobody thought twice about a Mauritius holding entity in a large Indian company's cap table in the 1990s. It was simply how it was done.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Which is, of course, precisely why it worked so well as a structure if you happened to prefer that the true origin of capital remain somewhat diffuse.
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Citi's stake in HDFC Ltd~9.85%at exit, February 2012
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Sale proceeds~$1.9Bpre-tax gain approx $1.1B
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]HDFC Ltd's stake in HDFC Bank25.59%as promoter, March 2023
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Promoter holding today0%post-merger, June 2024
[size=1.06]The Cchain That Nobody Drew
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]When you lay out the capital structure as it existed for the better part of two decades, it looks like this:
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Citigroupvia Mauritius entities
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]→
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]HDFC Ltdthe promoter
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]→
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]HDFC Bank25.59% promoter block
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]→
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Indian householdssavings of millions
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]The connection was never secret. The shareholding data was in public filings. Citi's Mauritius entities appeared in the registers. Any analyst who wanted to trace the chain could have done so. The issue was never concealment — it was the absence of the question. In a market rewarding HDFC Bank quarter after quarter for its execution, nobody had a strong incentive to stop and ask who the upstream capital was, what it wanted, and what imprint it might be leaving on the institution.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Because capital, when it is patient and structurally positioned, does not need to send memos or sit in board meetings to have influence. It shapes an institution through the leaders it enables, through the culture it imports alongside its money, through the management philosophy that arrives with the backing and never quite leaves even after the capital does.
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]The Men Citi Sent
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]In 1994, when HDFC Bank received its license, it needed a leadership team. It found one — not in the ranks of Indian public sector banking, not in the development finance institutions that had shaped Indian financial history, not in the domestic merchant banks or the insurance companies that had been the nurseries of Indian financial talent for a generation.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]It found one in Citibank.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Aditya Puri came from Citibank. Paresh Sukhtankar — his long-time deputy, the man who was internally positioned as the institution's designated heir for years — came from Citibank. A broader layer of senior management carried the same institutional pedigree. This was not unusual in isolation; emerging markets routinely recruit from global banking's talent pools. What was unusual was the totality of it. HDFC Bank was not just hiring experienced bankers. It was transplanting a complete operating philosophy — the American way of making decisions, allocating risk, managing people, and most importantly, concentrating power — from one of the most systematically controlled banking enterprises in the world into the most important new private bank in a country of a billion people.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]And it worked. Spectacularly, for a very long time.
[size=1.28][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]“The bank performed so well, for so long, that the market eventually stopped distinguishing between performance and governance. When returns are this consistent, the structure that produces them seems to validate itself. The question of how power is arranged inside the machine feels academic when the machine keeps delivering.”
[size=1.06]The Face and The Engine
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]But institutions of this kind require a public face — a person the market associates with trustworthiness, continuity, and domestic credibility. A human anchor for an institution whose operational machinery was shaped by foreign influence and whose capital structure was more complex than it appeared.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]That face was Deepak Parekh.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Parekh became chairman of HDFC Ltd in 1993 — the year before the bank was born after the Citi Bank fiasco and the Harshad Mehta scandal— and he remained the most visible symbol of the HDFC franchise for nearly three decades. He was consulted by governments, quoted by journalists, cited in boardrooms. He collected honours, including the Padma Bhushan, and cultivated a reputation for candour that made him, in the eyes of much of the Indian financial establishment, the conscience of the system rather than a participant in its more complicated arrangements.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]What Parekh represented, whether consciously or not, was the essential architecture of the HDFC project in its mature form: a trusted domestic face, rooted in Indian institutional tradition, providing the legitimacy and the public identity, while the management team below him operated with a degree of autonomy from the board that was, for decades, treated as a feature rather than a flaw. The public saw the chairman. The institution was run by the engine. HDFC was founded by Parekh's uncle HT Parekh but the American capital simply penetrated.
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]What the structure meant in practice
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Citigroup was a major shareholder in HDFC Ltd — the institution that was the formal promoter of HDFC Bank. At the same time, HDFC Bank's formative management came from Citibank. These are two distinct channels of influence — capital and culture — that reinforced each other without either one needing to be direct or visible. By the time Citi sold its HDFC Ltd stake in February 2012, the operating philosophy it had helped install had been running the bank for nearly two decades. The capital left. The culture did not.
[size=1.06]The Exit That Changed Nothing,0
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]In February 2012, Citigroup sold its entire stake in HDFC Ltd in a block deal. The reason given was Basel III capital planning — the post-financial-crisis regulatory framework that required banks globally to improve their capital ratios, and which made long-duration strategic investments in other financial institutions expensive to hold. The sale was orderly. The price was fair. The market received it as a clean chapter ending, the natural conclusion of a long-term investment by a foreign institution that had supported HDFC Ltd through its most important growth phase.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]What the exit narrative did not address was the more durable question. Capital can be sold. Shares can be transferred. Registers can be updated. But the management culture that Citibank had deposited into HDFC Bank a decade and a half earlier — the centralised decision-making, the instinct for control, the tightly held internal power structure, the tendency to project coherence outward even when the reality was more complicated — none of that was on the block deal ticket.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Citi left the cap table. The imprint remained.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]And in 2023, the last structural layer connecting the bank to its promoter institution was dissolved when HDFC Ltd merged into HDFC Bank. The parent disappeared into the child. The promoter block — that 25.59% that had, for years, provided at least a formal counterweight to executive power — went to zero. HDFC Bank became, in the fullest structural sense, a bank without an owner.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Which brings us back to the question that started this story.
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Who controls HDFC Bank?
[size=1.06][color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]The answer, today, is: formally, nobody. That is how the American capital is known to control global conglomerates— via the system and people if not shareholding. Substantively, whoever management allows to be in charge. And the implications of that answer — for the bank, for the millions of households whose savings sit inside it, and for a financial system that has allowed this institution to become too large and too central to question easily — are precisely what the next two parts of this investigation will examine.
[color=hsl(0, 0%, 0%)]Continues in Part II: The Machine — How the Bank Ran Itself, and What It Built Along the Way
|
