What makes for power? From a cursory glance at The Power List 2004 of 'The High And Mighty' published in India Today dated March 1, 2004, the answer would be business. Of the 50 names featured, as many as 19 people-counting the Ambani brothers as two-are described as industrialists, businessmen, bankers or business executives. The number doesn't sound awfully domineering, but when you consider that eight of the top 10 are in business (Bal Thackeray and Amitabh Bachchan being the two exceptions), it sure adds up to a powerpack of breathtaking proportions.

The rankings, subjectively composed by India Today, are a depiction of those who wield influence in India beyond their vocation and even field of activity.. That anyone engaged in business should be so close to being thought of as 'His Highness' by the multitudes, might shock some readers. But like it or not, it represents a kind of power shift that has been underway for some time now.

The economy is opening up, did we hear you say?

Yes, that transition has played an obvious role in empowering India Inc. The policy framework has changed for statism to make way for private initiative. Long hobbled by a labyrinth of regulations in the name of the greater common good, businesses found themselves free (or freer, more accurately) in the 1990s to pursue their self-interest with gusto.

Yet, that is only part of the story. For it is not corporations that we're talking about here, but individuals. 'Big Brothers' Mukesh and Anil Ambani of Reliance are on top of The Power List 2004. Second placed is 'The Titan' Ratan Tata of the Tata group. And then N.R. Narayana Murthy of Infosys, the 'Soft Power' man. There are many other familiar names as you scroll down.

Even after accounting for the country's almost atavistic propensity to crown individuals with power instead of institutionalised organisations, Indian corporate leaders have more power than their corporate designations would suggest. Their wealth apart, lack of genuine shareholder democracy is the most obvious reason, with all its accountability implications. If owners of a mere handful of shares tend not to ask managements too many questions, it's for good reason. The shareholding patterns make little space for threats to the incumbents' power, and it is the government anyway that indirectly remains the single largest holder of shares in India Inc.

Any 'Highness', you could safely assume, is status quoist at least in relation to his own power. But with dynamism so critical to growth, it would still be important to know what the 'High And Mighty' make of the status quo. How much change, for example, would they endorse? In which direction and at what pace? To what extent do they agree with Alvin Toffler's take on power per se-that it's fast becoming a function of knowledge more than violence or money?

The expanse and diversity of the businesses that the list's most powerful straddle-be it oil or software-is another issue of interest. Let's not forget, unlike most other mortals, these are globally ambitious people. Many of their businesses involve being engaged with global dynamics (oil and currency price fluctuations, for a start), and this factor alone would necessitate, one may imagine, wide-angled thinking. This, realistically, could engender a sense of powerlessness in a bigger context. Even vulnerability.

Could exporting and acquiring their way to global scale get them global influence? So far, there have been few signs of this. Software, India's most exciting export story, is a mere part of the outsourcing phenomenon-with work being passed along to save on cost. Indian exporters aren't exactly shaking up the software market with proprietary product breakthroughs, nor are they in any position to set usage standards (even as China, with its huge domestic market, gains standard-setting clout).

To go back to Toffler, though, knowledge can change plenty of things. And those who walk the knowledge walk have long argued that self-interest must always be enlightened self-interest.