Lalit Modi Wanted A Ferrari And Was Told No. He Gave His Son 12 Ferraris: Here’s Why He Parents Differently

The way we are raised often becomes the blueprint we carry into adulthood, sometimes consciously, and sometimes without realising it. For some parents, that blueprint is something they want to preserve. For others, it is something they are determined to rewrite. Entrepreneur Lalit Modi recently reflected on the latter while speaking to ANI, describing how his relationship with his father and the expectations placed on him shaped the way he eventually raised his own children. His story offers an interesting glimpse into a larger psychological question: when we consciously choose to parent differently from our own parents, are we breaking a family pattern or simply swinging to the opposite extreme? Growing Up With Rules And Breaking Them Modi described his family as a study in contradictions. He recalled his grandfather and grandmother as “very orthodox”, while describing his father and uncles as far more socially unconventional. “My father, he went all over the world. He was the playboy of the world, without doubt,” Modi said, adding that he may have inherited some of those traits and eventually took them “to another level altogether.” But, according to Modi, his own behaviour resulted in stricter expectations being imposed on him. “It was all about control, actually,” he recalled. “They couldn’t see anybody else do it. What they did, it wasn’t good enough for others to do it.” He said the rules became particularly strict because he was perceived as the one who pushed boundaries the furthest. “I was the black sheep of the family,” Modi said, describing himself as someone who repeatedly challenged the expectations placed on him. He also recalled how those family dynamics affected his siblings. According to Modi, his sister was married at a young age, while his younger brother was not allowed to go abroad for higher studies and instead had to study in India before entering an arranged marriage. The experience, he suggested, stayed with him long after he had left childhood behind. From Being Told “No” To Giving His Children “Yes” One of the clearest examples Modi offered was his longstanding desire for a Ferrari. He recalled wanting one while growing up, but said his father repeatedly refused to give him one. The refusal, rather than making the desire disappear, made him want it even more. “I always wanted a Ferrari. We could afford anything. He would say, ‘I’ll never give it to you.’ As an example, it used to make me want it more and more and more,” said Modi. He eventually received a Ferrari on his 40th birthday as a gift from his brother-in-law. But it was what he did with that experience as a parent that became more revealing. Modi said he decided to give his own son what he had once been denied. He claimed that from his son’s 21st birthday through his 31st, he gifted him a Ferrari every year. The philosophy behind it, according to Modi, was not simply about luxury. He believed that having access to what he wanted would prevent his children from developing the same constant hunger for acquisition that he associated with his own childhood. And, he said, that is exactly what happened. “When I Gave Them Everything, He Didn’t Want Anything Anymore” Modi contrasted his own relationship with money and possessions with that of his children. He recalled constantly finding ways to obtain what he wanted as a young man, describing himself as always doing some form of jugaad to get there. His son, he said, developed a very different relationship with money despite having access to considerable material wealth. “He’s not a spendthrift,” Modi said. According to him, his son has even begun advising him to spend less, telling him that his credit-card bills are too high and that he needs to “calm down”. For Modi, this became evidence that giving children everything did not necessarily make them more materialistic. But psychology suggests the answer is considerably more complicated. Why Our Childhood Can Follow Us Into Parenthood “Childhood experiences do not disappear when we become adults,” says Dr Sakshi Mandhyan, psychologist and founder, Mandhyan Care. According to her, early experiences can quietly influence what adults come to understand as normal parenting. Someone who grew up with very little freedom, for example, may become particularly sensitive to controlling their own children. “They may think, ‘I know how that felt and I do not want my child to experience it,’” she explains. This can be an important part of conscious parenting: recognising that certain experiences from childhood were painful or restrictive and deliberately deciding not to repeat them. But there is a catch. When Breaking The Pattern Becomes An Overcorrection Trying to parent differently can be healthy, but completely rejecting the parenting style one experienced as a child can sometimes create a new problem. Dr Mandhyan describes this as an attempt to break an intergenerational pattern, the ways in which behaviours, beliefs and emotional responses can be passed from one generation to the next. The challenge, she says, is that moving in the complete opposite direction can become an overcorrection. A child who grew up with excessive restrictions may become a parent who struggles to impose boundaries. Someone who was rarely given material comforts may decide to give their own children everything. A person who felt unheard may make their child’s wishes the centre of every decision. “The healthier goal is not to recreate our own childhood or completely reject it,” says Dr Mandhyan. “It is rather to understand what hurt us and decide consciously what deserves to be carried forward and what needs to stop with us.” That distinction is important. Breaking a pattern does not necessarily mean doing the opposite. It means becoming conscious of the pattern in the first place. Does Giving Children Everything Make Them Entitled? This is where Modi’s parenting philosophy raises a particularly interesting question. If a child rarely hears “no”, does getting what they want eventually become meaningless? Or can abundant access actually reduce the obsession with acquiring more? According to Dr Mandhyan, there is no simple answer. “There is nothing psychologically wrong with giving children things they enjoy,” she says. The concern arises when material rewards become the primary way of expressing love, managing behaviour, preventing disappointment or seeking compliance. In other words, the problem isn’t necessarily the Ferrari. It’s what the Ferrari represents. If a gift is simply a gift, something given with affection and without conditions, it is different from using possessions to replace emotional connection, boundaries or attention. Children can have material abundance and still develop healthy attitudes towards money, provided they also learn responsibility, empathy, gratitude, delayed gratification and the ability to cope with not getting what they want. The Difference Between Generosity And Overindulgence Parenting inevitably involves giving children things they want. Toys, holidays, experiences, clothes, gadgets and, for some families, significant material luxuries can all be part of childhood. But generosity and overindulgence are not necessarily the same thing. The distinction lies partly in whether children understand that possessions are privileges rather than entitlements. A child can receive an expensive gift and still understand its value. Equally, a child who receives relatively little can become deeply preoccupied with having more. Material abundance alone, therefore, does not determine whether someone becomes entitled. What matters is the broader environment in which that abundance exists. Perhaps The Goal Isn’t To Be The Opposite Parent Modi’s story is compelling because it demonstrates how powerfully childhood experiences can influence adult decisions. He experienced restriction and chose freedom. He experienced wanting and chose giving. He felt that his own desires were intensified by being denied them, and decided that his children would not have to experience the same frustration. Whether that approach works universally is another question. For Dr Mandhyan, the more sustainable goal is neither strict imitation nor complete rebellion. It is reflection. Parents can ask themselves: Why am I saying no? Why am I saying yes? Am I responding to my child’s needs, or reacting to something I experienced myself? Am I setting a boundary because it is healthy, or because I am repeating one I inherited? Those questions create space between childhood and parenthood and that space is where conscious choices become possible. What We Carry Forward Every generation inevitably inherits something from the one before it. Sometimes it is a value worth preserving. Sometimes it is a behaviour worth questioning. And sometimes it is a wound that quietly influences decisions long after the original circumstances have disappeared. The challenge of parenting is not to erase the past. It is to understand it well enough that it does not parent our children for us. Lalit Modi’s story illustrates one extreme response: if being denied something made him want it more, perhaps giving his children everything would free them from that cycle. Psychology suggests the answer may lie somewhere in between. Children do not necessarily need parents who recreate their childhoods. Nor do they need parents who completely reverse them. They need parents who can look at their own past, separate what helped from what hurt, and make deliberate choices about what comes next.