“India needs Big Four”: Grant Thornton Bharat CEO VISHESH CHANDIOK calls for local local audit giants

Fishish Chandiok, CEO of Grant Thornton Bahrat, notes that the scrutiny of India either has the four or smaller companies. “Who will defend Indian capital? Someone needs Indian capital as well and has a record sound on the Indian view,” as he confirmed in an interview with the works today. He says that reforms are necessary on multidisciplinary partnerships, the ability to bring capital and create demand and support for work to expand the scope of local accounting and audit companies. Excerpts edited:

> The government is working to expand the scope of local Indian accounting companies. What is the way forward?

India is the fastest growing economy, and thinking is that it should have its own institutions. China understood this and started doing something in the audit world 15 years ago. They have identified the 10 largest Chinese companies and gave them a review of state -owned companies as well as all the work of the list for Chinese companies in Hong Kong alongside Big 4 some of these Chinese companies are larger than the four Big today.

In India, there is nothing equivalent to this. Either we have the four major or smaller companies. Who will lead to Indian capital? Someone needs to support Indian capital as well and have a sound on the standard setting on the Indian view. In India, there should be clarity about who is the final regulatory authority, especially for public interest entities. There must also be regulatory reforms on three provisions: multiple disciplinary partnerships, which will enable auditing companies to bring any other professional as a partner, says Cibran security or SAP expert.

It has been legislated in the corporate law, but has not been effectively implemented. The second issue is the ability to bring capital, which is necessary to invest in talent, technology and everything else. The four adults had for years, but Indian companies could not do much. Why can’t they benefit from private stocks or investment capital? Finally, how to create demand and support for their work. For example, the joint auditing of the best 100 companies can be opened to start. We need to do this gradually and wise, and perhaps only for a very short period of 5 or 10 years.

In the banking sector, it entered the joint scrutiny in place, but many Indian companies do not have the ability. They end up playing the shadow role. Many companies want the four adults to sign their public budgets because of their foreign investors, and depicts capabilities, ability and credibility.

> Many Indian companies say they have the ability and ability to work for large companies, but the four adults do not agree. Follow:

I think the feeling is mutual! Frankly, everyone needs to think about the success of the profession and enable it to the entire ecosystems, for only one category. If what you described in the previous response, India 10 will have an Indian 10 soon, and some end from GTBHARAT until the Indian Global Big4 is within 10 years.

I also talked about the issue of Capital and MDPS, but one of the concerns that the organizers usually highlight is known that they want to have a degree of independence and do not want the money to come from somewhere …

This is a very correct concern – frankly, it is worth an accurate response, not a restriction. Independence is crucial to the credibility of our profession, and any reform must maintain this above all. But the current approach or nothing-so that the share of minority shares without CA is not allowed-is not considered in the other direction.

Throughout the world, including in markets such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, companies work as multiple specialties, and often recognize unpopular professionals such as technology experts, legal advisers or strategic investors. The main protection is that professional control – majority voting rights – is always with qualified CAS. India can adopt the same form. We are already applying such logic in the sectors subject to severe regulation such as banking services and insurance, where Indian chiefs are assigned or board controls.

Organized participation from external investors will enable Indian companies to collect capital, attract talents and invest in global power. Independence does not come from a capital ban. It comes to those who control decisions related to auditing quality and how the organizers impose accountability. Do you think that any investor wants to destroy his money by prejudice to quality or promoting shortcuts? Will anyone say that PE companies generally do not start by requesting the highest standards of government when they invest?

> What kind of schedule do you think is necessary for this front and expanding the scope of Indian companies?

The next six months is very important. April 1, 2027, the second main round of rotation at the mandatory audit company coincides with the trusted companies, the choices of their review. More than 50 % of the first markets of companies-and once this window is closed, the next opportunity will not arise for another contract.

If India wants to see its companies appear as serious competitors in this session, political reforms and organizational reforms must be closed by January 1, 2026. This gives companies a realistic listed to evaluate and appoint Indian companies. This is not only about grabbing a moment-it is about avoiding a 10-year Miss.

> What kind of capacity building does Indian companies need to expand their scope?

They need to invest in talents in line with market salaries and benefits, provide guidelines about informants and luxury, and invest in skills, learning, technology and cyber security. Most of these major Indian companies already have ties with international network companies. Therefore, they only need to integrate more, learn from them, and adopt some of their methods, programs and business practices, including talent management and “going to the market” strategies, and the rest will be followed.