I Screwed Up: 10 Lessons in leadership
By Sanjay Jha
( An extract from my forthcoming book on Leadership : yet untitled)
I woke up one morning to the best quote, and what was finally the winner of the sound byte of the year 2009. US President Barack Obama , not once, but several times confessed on national television that “I screwed up” , with reference to his nomination of Tom Daschle , Health Secretary who unfortunately ended up being a tax violator. Shoddy due diligence, but it happens. What was truly refreshing though , like driving down a deserted Marine Drive at 3 am in the morning, was his straight- from -the- heart brutal transparency. No pretentions! No justifications! No shrouded in calibrated jargon! I am sure the conservative Republicans cried foul at the usage of the slang term with a sexual connotation, but Obama was ‘cool
But this is Obama’s second staccato-fire. His first was absolutely brilliant, when he termed the financial jack-asses ( the erstwhile over-rated over paid investment bankers of Waterfall Street ) as “shameful” for pocketing million dollar bonuses even as long-term investors went bankrupt, families got wiped out, and the world plunged in The Great Recession . And that too from the bail-out funds from government charity and tax-payers money! What a monumental repugnant act of self-aggrandisement ! It took a honest, bold and a true leader to condemn the preposterous day-light robbery by these flaky fools in pin-striped suits chewing on Cuban cigars, to set the record straight. And while these thick-skinned financial racketeers are collectively protesting, Obama has gone and done the hitherto unthinkable; he has put a cap on their disproportionate salary levels, thus ensuring no subterfuge methods of compensation. Now that’s what you call a real leader; he does the right thing, fearlessly, and without blinking an eyelid.
For Corporate India there some lessons to be learnt from both Obama ( I confess to having initially welcomed him with guarded circumspection and restrained enthusiasm, as I found the hype claustrophobic ) and the home-grown Ramalingam “Satyam” Raju story. Paradoxically enough, even Raju ultimately did say “I screwed up” without choosing the same colorful vocabulary but that was after he had sowed the seeds of India’s Himalayan financial catastrophe .
So instead of giving you blue-blooded, business school sanctified , sacrosanct gyans ( that is the rare prerogative of foreign – educated esteemed Board Members of some IT companies) , let me give you simple down to earth learning from some of the most momentous experiences of recent times:
1. BE BRUTALLY HONEST
Cut the crap! The world is short on patience and verbal jingoism, and playing silly hide and seek games in the corporate boardroom and press conferences. If you have done great work , please do shout from the roof-tops. If you haven’t, don’t sack your PR firm either ( unless you cannot afford them ) . Speak up, even if from the ground floor whose rentals are now on your piling payables. Disclose, disclose and disclose, and do so without fear.
2. SIZE DOES NOT MATTER
Companies have this mindless obsession for being the biggest and all that; it is a fruitless endeavour. Everyone wants to be on a LIST of sorts, and size seems the common denominator of CEO obsession. As the collapse of financial behemoths and others such as AIG , Citibank, Merrill Lynch, GM, Ford , Satyam prove, ultimately their size became their undoing. Sure enough cheap funding can create big scale, but what happens to the key task of managing those multi-product, geographically spread , cross-cultural and complex structures when they are simultaneously challenged? Even Tata Motors defaulted on paying suppliers, and we are not even shocked anymore. And despite the pink papers massaging egos of their advertisers by repeatedly showcasing them , please stop taking those Forbes billionaire lists too seriously. Focus on customers and quality; size will follow almost logically.
3. WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT A ” QUARTER”?
One of the principal reasons why many companies are floundering is because of this self-created pressures of providing Dalal Street a well-spread buffet meal every three months , a staple high calorie, deep fried meal . Companies I think are meant to exist for the long-term, and sometimes projections do go haywire, and unexpected shocks are inevitable. It’s not the end of the world if your stock price slumps because of short-term profit-bookings or cut-loss operations on account of unreasonable punter expectations. Instead, what you should look for are far-sighted investors, and your own business strategy over a sustainable period. I think CEOs over-react to stock analysts and media pressures. Instead, they should show them the door.
4. CUT OUT ” EXCESSIVE” SOCIAL NETWORKING
There is the new culture in town that tells you that you must be seen in EVERY conceivable networking dinner, corporate party , a ET or BT or FT or TT bash. Dump it! In any case, you meet the same old usual suspects mumbling the same ancient incoherent crap. I am not saying business socializing is not important, it is . It is also the cheapest form of brand-building ( especially in these cost sensitive times) , but if over-done, it results in diminishing returns. Why don’t you spend that saved time in mentoring your future leaders, reading the audit report, just calling on your customers, or maybe just driving home early?
5. TRUST YOUR EMPLOYEES FIRST
Good or bad news—– your employees must know about it before that Mr Patel scratching his head at his Fort office or the journalist from those TV channels. CEOs keep repeating ad nauseam-”My employees are my biggest asset”, but actually treat them like their disposable liabilities. If you can’t take your team into confidence, good or rough news, you should quit, you do not deserve to be there; instead start by giving the pink slip to yourself in a white envelope.
6. CREATE YOUR OWN GOLD STANDARD
We have an obsession with all things alien, western, esoteric, heavy-sounding — we are constantly looking for role models to ape, concepts to implement, buzzwords to crow, fads to follow. It is time we acknowledged that while being adaptive to global ideation is being smart, we are distinctive, and perhaps need to create our own case stories , business models, best practices, and performance standards. As a company, each one can have its own defining values, work culture and management principles. The best benchmark is not your competition, but where you want to be.
These days the giving away of ” Awards” is become a real joke. Essentially it is a brand-building agenda of the host, a sponsored event, which also becomes a revenue generating model, a double-edged sword. It is a farce. Satyam got the Golden Peacock ( poor bird) for corporate governance , for god’s sake? So if you are not a great place to work or truly admired, but only got the award because you filled up the forms with politically correct information before the due date expired, don’t accept it. Instead of becoming a motivational tool, it will be a long rope with which you will end up conjuring some death-defying stunts that may unfortunately succeed. Create your own standards, and reward yourself and your team. You need no external endorsement.
7. INVEST IN ETHICS AND VALUES
In the final analysis, it is your openness, transparency, goodness, the whole set of work values and business ethos that will help you through difficult times. But this must start at the top, leaders must set the pace, practise what they preach and teach ( unlike Enron which had a voluminous book on ethics) , and set exacting standards of fair-play. And don’t get frightened if you made mistakes and “screwed up”, it’s human to do so. Your journey to your destination will not end. The basics usually matter the most, they are the bed-rock of endurance.
8. AVOID THE DEADLY “E” WORDS
Many leaders sink in a cesspool because they get “emotional” about their work-place. “Ego” worsens the situation considerably. It is a deadly toxic combo. The two drive several business barons to unknown limits to either grow, maintain or salvage their enterprise. You know, one can understand the involvement, passion, sweat and toil and tears and all that, but frankly, in the end in business you do not control the outcomes, the environment, the future. It is important to let go, take things dispassionately and not be too harsh on oneself. The world forgets. More importantly, they also forgive. Better still, we move on, with the comfort of the knowledge that one did the best one could. And forget the neighbor’s new car, you may not be aware of his repayment capabilities. Clean and maintain your own jalopy like a black stallion.
9. BE READY FOR THE MOST UNEXPECTED
There are volumes of work and strategies on crisis management, but when it comes to the crux, we are not just caught napping, we are usually comatose. Leaders of The modern Great Recession era ( 2007 – 2009 and still continuing in some places) need to be conservative in their projections, and realistic about its potentiality . Ceteris paribus is good just for micro-economics for higher secondary schools. Risk-assessment is not just to satisfy the audit committee, but to mitigate against unforeseen quirks of nature and some man-manufactured disasters of epic proportions. Essentially, we should not look too stunned when suddenly surprised. It is easier said than done ( which is why I am writing this piece) , but leadership is not everyone’s cup of tea or coffee, my dear friends. In calm waters, everyone is a good captain. When you see an iceberg, the end does not have to be ‘titanic’ .
10. HAVE FUN: LEADERS ARE ALLOWED A LAUGH
I think leaders take themselves too seriously ; they try hard to appear to be constantly engaged, value every second of their time as if the world will stop revolving when they take a loo break, and speak with the gravity reserved for making funeral speeches. Lighten up, folks, it’s all right to crack a smile, you hurt no one in the process. And with or without you, the business will thrive, everyone will come to work, and life will move on. Who knows, the customers may even rejoice, and your employees will break into a salsa ? Frankly if you are not having fun despite the house-car-club-bonus-PR-stocks deal, clearly you have a problem. Remember, he who laughs , lasts.
Start by being honest to yourself; that’s a great first step. Practise saying this before a mirror every day ” I screwed up, I screwed up, I ———”. Because you will. But when you do, you will not be a chicken. You will be a leader.
Oil Price Decontrol: A Bold and Strategic Move
(As Published in Deccan Herald on Sunday, July 11th 2010)
By Rajeev Gowda
Some day, the earth is going to run out of oil. It’s already getting harder to tap. That is why BP was doing risky drilling deep in the Gulf of Mexico. As oil gets scarcer, its price will go up. As China and India demand more oil, the price will go up further. Throw in political turmoil in high-risk oil producing areas and market prices can skyrocket.
Two years ago, Arjun Murti, an Indian analyst at Goldman Sachs, earned fame for his “super spike” prophecy that oil prices will hit $200 per barrel. Nowadays it’s around $70 but the spectre of $200 is enough to make governments, corporations and the rest of us worry.
Historically, we did not need to worry. Governments shielded us from the true market price of petroleum through price controls and subsidies. The logic was impeccable: Kerosene was the poor person’s fuel and must be affordable. Diesel powered freight transportation. Allowing its price to increase would trigger all-round inflation.
As global oil prices went up, governments spent thousands of crores on subsidies. Budget deficits shot up, with inflationary impacts. This money could have been better spent on development or infrastructure or education. Other perverse impacts arose: The middle and upper classes started buying diesel cars. Thus, instead of just keeping goods transportation cheap, the subsidy went to private, personal transport. Studies have showed that the richest 20% of Indians received almost half of all fuel subsidies and the poorest fifth only 10%.
Obviously, then, it is a good idea to phase out oil subsidies. The perverse subsidization of the rich would end. Market prices would send signals that would get people to use petroleum products carefully. Governments would have smaller deficits and state-owned oil companies (who partly bear the cost of the subsidies) would regain health.
In India, though, what is obviously worthwhile is not always politically viable. Decontrol of oil prices would mean that petrol, diesel and kerosene would likely see their prices increase. This would affect everyone, rich and poor, directly. The inflationary impact through higher transportation costs would affect everyone indirectly. Theoretically, prices could go down if global oil prices drop, but that is less likely over the longer term.
So, while decontrolling oil prices and ending subsidies makes good economics, it is scary politics. Any government that wants to end the populist petroleum subsidy would need to have adroit timing, skillful media management, and a booming economy that ensures that people are getting richer across the board so they do not feel the pinch.
In spite of various commissions recommending oil price decontrol, and India supposedly shining, the previous National Democratic Alliance government balked at implementing this revolutionary policy change. Coalition pressures and impending elections came in the way.
Today’s United Progressive Alliance government, though, seems ready to bite the bullet. It has learned from the nuclear deal that it can get away with bold changes in strategy. Elections are technically far away. All parties seem unprepared for early polls. Beyond a bundh or two, the government figures, the people and the country will adjust. As historically we have.
So, even though inflation (especially of food prices) is still high, the government is pushing forward with decontrol. Kerosene will likely remain subsidized and accessible to the poor through the Public Distribution System. Rural Employment Guarantee and other mega-pro-poor initiatives may have convinced the poor that the government’s heart beats firmly for them. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has the upper and middle classes firmly on his side, given his track record of liberalization and economic growth. If ever oil prices skyrocket, the government can always intervene again, and possibly gain political payoffs in the process. All these factors explain the boldness and timing of oil price decontrol.
Strategically, higher oil prices will make other sources of energy more attractive. As we focus on a fossil fuel free future, research and development will inevitably make renewables, fuel cells, etc., more competitive. Cleaner, greener fuels will become viable. India’s abundant sunlight, wind and fuel crop capacity will lead to energy independence. Thus the government’s politically bold step makes for excellent longer-term economics. It is good for us and good for our planet.
Being John Howard
I am happy that I am not John Howard. It must be hugely embarrassing to be a former Prime Minister of Australia and then be defeated in a stunning unexpected reversal for a comparatively junior position of a Vice-President in the International Cricket Council. Understandably, all hell has broken loose in the slippery terrain of cricket’s powerful albeit dubious corridors.
It is hardly an epochal coincidence that Mr Sharad Pawar, India’s Agriculture Minister presiding over 70% of our 1.2 billion population and 700,000 villages and also former BCCI President, has assumed charge as ICC President at precisely the same sacrosanct hour when Howard has been shown the door with prodigious ceremony.
Understandably, the cantankerous Aussie media has carried its cricketers legendary sledging on the cricket field to their own much celebrated columns with remarkable vehemence. The battle-cry has been announced with loud cannon-ball shots, as global cricket enters yet another tumultuous phase of bitter power-play. This might just be the beginning of a turbulent air-pocket , unless swiftly arrested with pragmatic wisdom by skillful navigators , terms not usually associated with cricket governance. Black versus White, Old against New Order, either way, the die is cast.
In reality, of late the BCCI and ICC are actually like two spoilt twins, intertwined in permanence with their trademark incorrigible excesses. The current spat between the old Lord’s bloc and the Baramati Bullies that threatens to split world cricket was looming dangerously in close proximity for a while, and frankly, it was an uncomfortable period of forced habitation. Now the under-the-surface brewing tsunami has exploded in a massive torrential deluge.
With over three-fourths of cricket’s global revenues being contributed by India alone, it is almost natural to expect a lopsided imbalance of power. The ICC is today BCCI’s puppet on a string, a convenient moppet with a makeover. Believe me, otherwise all international cricket boards would have demanded a proportionate share in the IPL profit pudding for providing their fancied high profile players for the Indian summer extravaganza. Honestly, IPL’s real drawing power, its USP, is the multicultural global outfits representing local franchises.
Remove the overseas players, and you have a dull replica of the Challenger tournament, a damp squib anyway. Just think rational business; should not the other cricket boards be compensated for “leasing their assets” to IPL? Thus, IPL’s cash cow status is now becoming a sore point of disgruntlement with cricket boards who know they are being legally swindled in broad daylight. It is something that BCCI/IPL cannot risk unless the international boards are vertically split down the middle. Hence, Pawar’s calculated silence on Howard’s candidature contradicting his own endorsement of the man sometime ago. It suits BCCI , but remember England, Australia and New Zealand are capable of creating their own alternate business model. In a sense, the Indian cricket board is now applying the same “divide and rule” policy which the British Empire once did with cold-blooded computation.
Howard’s past utterances have indeed sounded egregiously bigoted, strident nationalism on display, and done more than niggardly damage ( pun unintended). His flip flop on South Africa’s apartheid regime was clearly opportunistic which contradicted his obdurate stance on Zimbabwe’s atrocities under Robert Mugabe’s government.. As far as his conservative immigration policies were concerned, it is the prerogative of any head of state as to how they define their own national identity.
Where India cuts an awkward, questionable figure is in the anointment of Pawar as ICC supremo when he is still convalescing from the scathing stain following his purported surreptitious indirect stake in a failed IPL franchise bid. The financial scam involving his protege Lalit Modi whom he has strangely enough vigorously supported has raised three eyebrows. Much as we may condemn Howard’s checkered past and his scurrilous opposition to multiculturalism, we cannot ignore the real issue: does Pawar have the moral authority to govern ICC? Shouldn’t pure governance have been the sole criterion in selecting the next ICC Chief-designate? And should it not be made obligatory to give an explanation for Howard’s summary rejection?
It is this peculiar irrational stone-faced silence of the opposing faction in ICC which makes the whole episode confrontationist. If Australia-New Zealand do renominate Howard again, expect a virulent exchange and more polarized positioning. But perhaps it is this particular political turf that Pawar really cherishes. As he would say, let the games begin!
I quote from my book ELEVEN: “The BCCI has with elementary ease assumed stranglehold control of the game. Sharad Pawar, India’s Agriculture Minister inherited his predecessor Jagmohan Dalmiya’s legacy and quadrupled it’s commercial valuations with deft negotiations. Rumors abound however, that the formal coronation of the Indian moolah-power will be when the ICC office itself moves to either Mumbai or better still Baramati. Talk of BCCI’s perceptible hauteur! But will the BCCI strategy of bullying ICC into such meek submission boomerang on world cricket itself as it pursues a single-minded objective of creating a cash multiplier”?
Yes, India is a trillion dollar economy, there are more Starbucks outside of US, and PetroChina is the world’s largest corporation in market capitalization. Indeed, the post-American world is changing dramatically. Yes, we command a near-monopoly of the advertising market in cricket, but nothing justifies the pathological hubris amply manifested in our antiquated unilateral style of functioning? Board-room lexicon like transparency and corporate governance sound bizarre misfits in BCCI and ICC.
On Monday, India will experience a nation-wide strike against rising food prices affecting the common man, the rural impoverished. I wonder what India’s part-time Agriculture Minister will have to say to that ? As for Howard, the message is that you got to respect the race you run.
WHY SUCH DOUBLE STANDARDS ON BHOPAL ?
By Sanjay Jha
I think the Indian media is fast becoming like the good ole paunchy khaki-clad policemen in Bollywood films; they make their predictable appearance just as the hero finally pulverizes the villain into a tomato pulp to avenge the death of his dog or whatever. And then take the credit for the handcuffs with a smug smile . Let me elaborate.
The truth is that we are missing the woods for the trees all over again; seriously, what is getting Warren Andersen , the former CEO of Union Carbide Corporation in the December of his life ( almost 90 years, for heaven’s sake) into a criminal court case really going to achieve for us now ? Frankly nothing, other than the same pseudo-patriotic chest thumping we resort to in sporadic bursts to create unwarranted furor at periodic intervals . The gift of the gab also ensures the gift of the grab for TRP ratings when discussing such explosive material. Everyone happily joins the party , particularly the self-righteous Ravi Shankar Prasad of the BJP whose party has twiddled its thumbs and tickled its toes while seeking votes from the same unfortunate victims of the terrible tragedy in Bhopal. Sympathy vote, just got redefined. There is nothing more convenient to enhance viewership than to drag an assassinated former Prime Minister who personally cannot address the damning insinuations. The Congress party, tactlessly, forgets the “too many cooks spoil the broth” expression and creates an unwarranted scenario where everyone has their own personal “insight” to share. The BJP typically adds fuel to fire, blatantly politicizing what should have been a human rehabilitation story, into a manic witch-hunt. No one cares for what should be the real issue; what can and should we do now for the 15000 helpless people who died and several handicapped survivors suffering from permanent serious disablements ?
By the same common yardstick, why has the Indian media shown such a charitable disposition towards Mr Keshub Mahindra, for instance ? Just because he was a mere non-executive chairman? With the courts convicting him, should not issues of corporate governance have been the subject of late-night discussions as opposed to surreptitious trips to Long Island? Why are we not morally outraged that Mahindra ( now 85 years) is challenging the lenient court verdict despite the fact that he had a mammoth moral responsibility just like Andersen?
In fact, more than Andersen and Mahindra ( one was an overseas chief and the other an independent director) the focus should have ideally been on Vijay Gokhale who was the Managing Director and thus directly responsible for day to day operational performance of UCIL. Technically, the buck stops with Andersen for sure, but it pauses all the way to the top. For corporate crimes involving criminal negligence leading to human deaths there is rarely just one individual responsible, it is usually if not always a collective failure. Or at least a systemic one. In Bhopal’s case the catastrophic industrial malfunction was as a result of probably both.
The big question though remains unanswered ; in the light of Union Carbide and now BP oil spill , what we are doing to ensure that the liability clauses of the private sector oil companies and others in the energy sector operating in India and even PSUs ( although they will have a natural sovereign obligation despite equity dilutions) is being reassessed? Or are sufficient safeguards already built-in ? Or will be only react when the milk is spilt , sorry, or when the oil spills over? Like the silly cops in Rajneeti. I am glad though that the nuclear bill has been bought under a searching spotlight.
The fact is that if you have not experienced the event yourself , your views are bound to either myopic, self-serving , synthetic or plain jaundiced depending upon which side are you on. I believe the majority of media journalists were tiny toddlers in 1984 , barely five to ten years old and clinging to their mother’s apron strings when the deadly pernicious fumes leaked from the Union Carbide plant on the night of December 2nd-3rd 1984 in Bhopal.
I still remember how vulnerable we appeared as a nation in late 1984 ; the assault on the Golden Temple , the brutal killing of a popular national leader while in office , the Sikh killings that followed, and the advent of a young simple man at the helm who given a choice would have preferred the Indian Airlines cockpit to leading India’s elderly cabinet ministers in Parliament .Then Bhopal happened.
The US was at that time a vigorous manifestation of the powerful military-industrial-commercial complex that it inherently has been , leveraging its political clout for commercial gains as it looked for fresh markets . The IMF and World Bank was its multilateral tool for increasing its domestic leverage in susceptible Asian and Latin American economies needing short-term injections of investment . In short, US was the real money-bags Big Brother leaving Moscow , the ideological Orwellian -big bully far behind. Union Carbide in fact belonged to that era of ruthless American economic domination. Countries like India had limited elbow room to negotiate hard terms with these formidable transnational firms. They spoke the sharp language of monetary imperialism and we were considered mere “ lucky” Third World beneficiaries. Andersen’s departure must be seen from that perspective. Even if it was London and not Bhopal , he would have boarded a Concorde.
In the circumstances, the Rajiv Gandhi government did the best it could. Sure, it could have done better. But in hindsight, even I could have been a Sachin Tendulkar.
A New Deal For Youth
While we are looking back and working on our retrospective on the Congress party’s 125 years, the party’s future celebrated a quiet birthday away from the media glare. The media took note anyway and many interesting pieces surfaced focused on different facets of the AICC General Secretary and Amethi MP’s political journey. Here’s an article, by Srijana Mitra Das, appreciating Rahul Gandhi’s role in making young Indians see politics in a new, positive light.
Rahul Gandhi’s birthday,which went by last Saturday, will be followed by organisational elections within the Indian Youth Congress (IYC). Both events are significant for young Indians.Youth had all but abjured ‘politics’ completely, following the tumult of the 1980s and the temptations of the 1990s.
These decades brought political assassinations with shameful scandals, corruption scams with messy manipulations of caste and creed, the confusions of global citizenship fuelled by wealth and mobility, alongside ideas of Indian citizenship, tolerant and accommodating, taking heavy blows. A medieval mosque was torn down to make a sacred temple, the names of beloved cities changed and citizens were often hunted by manic but precise mobs, bearing lists of names, addresses and the blessings of politicians.
‘Politics’ came to represent a sphere of terrible murkiness for the average Indian youth. The word ‘politician’ represented a figure of greed and ruthlessness while ‘politics’ symbolised gross manipulations for power with violence, perpetrated via mobs directed by political leaders. Many young Indians stopped following political news, preferring to sink into the comforts of consumption and the thrills of aspiration instead of wrangling with the daily disappointments of what politics produced.
Rahul changed this scenario. Amazingly for someone who holds the country’s most famous political surname, by reaching out through talent hunts, membership drives and student meetings, he managed to make many young Indians believe in politics as a realm that could extend beyond the narrowness of nepotism. He persuaded young Indians to imagine politics as a sphere that could offer decency, development and discourse as opposed to dadagiri, sleaze and manipulation. He even managed to induce young Indians to think of politics as a career option which would use their capacities as individuals, not deploy them as mobs for sycophancy and violence. Considering the backdrop, this is a rather extraordinary achievement.
While accomplishing this
turnabout in public perceptions, Rahul demonstrated his understanding of the importance of symbolism in politics, combined with a sharp awareness of local realities. His visits to Dalit homes and meals, his stays at peasant huts, his travels by train and his distaste for obsequiousness have managed to permeate the consciousness of young Indians, nestling there amidst images and senses of cappucinos, cricket and visas, the internet and malls, work, traffic, power cuts, mobiles, gyms, family, credit rating and dating.
In representing India to the world and vice-versa too, Rahul displayed confidence. When David Miliband, foreign secretary of the previous Labour government in Britain, visited India in 2009, Rahul took him to rural Uttar Pradesh, making the dapper David spend a night in a cold village hut, observing the mists spreading over the vast, flat land as well as the telecommunications linking such villages to the world. When the Indo-US nuclear Bill came up for its stormy passage through Parliament, Rahul argued for it with a conviction that mirrored the belief many young Indians hold, of India’s capacity to withstand foreign domination and negotiate the best for itself on the global stage.
It is now important for Rahul to ensure his message does not become overwhelmed by mediums alone. The substance to his work, based in communities and confidence, should emerge clearly and consistently; an example is his raising the case of Kalawati, a Vidarbha villager who would benefit from the electricity produced by nuclear energy. There were reports thereafter of Kalawati seeking to stand in local elections but being browbeaten by unnamed groups to withdraw. Rahul’s team needs to follow up on such instances and make sure the issues of access and development his work highlights reach ideal ends instead of becoming loose and vaguely-disturbing threads.
Another strategy that needs consistent follow-through is Rahul’s encouragement of activists arising from genuine political engagement. The young leader should continue supporting the political rise of Real Young Turks as opposed to Privileged Young Jerks who even accept lynch mob diktats to protect their own seats.
This June, Rahul turned a youthful 40, and the Indian electorate should also celebrate its own maturity. Although he has been the most refreshing arrival on the political block since decades, the Indian media has not displayed an obsession with Rahul’s private life. This relates to the lack of public demand for details of politicians’ personal lives. Despite everything, the Indian electorate believes politicians are public functionaries appointed to develop the nation and, unless their private lives grossly hamper public interest, there is little need to probe. This wisdom stands in marked contrast to the tabloid investigations and feverish readership of the West.
Rahul appears to appreciate these aspects of the Indian public. Perhaps this appreciation drives his desire to institutionalise an identity card system for Youth Congress members, beginning with the IYC elections. The massive undertaking emphasises system and order, recognising the distinct identity of each member, treating activists as individuals, not a mob.
It is a strange irony that the ‘people’s prince’ is today encouraging the people to challenge established ideas and shake up set notions about politics and politicians. Following the New Deal slowly emerging between Rahul and the young electorate of India, as both mature and progress – and learning what this politician truly stands for – grows increasingly intriguing and essential.
Courtesy- Times of India
How They Got Here !
We located a piece in ‘The Caravan’, written by historian Dr. Ramachandra Guha, about the historic journey of the congress party. Dr Guha in his own masterly ways, highlights the chief contributions of the party and points out some of the crucial mistakes made by the party during its tenure. Here’s more on that…
|
|
|||
A secret meeting and a sting
By Sanjay Jha
A secret rendezvous for damage-control was recently held amongst Shashank Manohar (BCCI President), N Srinivasan (Secretary ), K Srikanth (Chief Selector ) and the former IPL Commissioner Just Suspended (Lalit Modi) at a luxury resort in exotic sun-kissed beaches of Goa. Here is the transcript of their discreet exchange in our exclusive sting operation .
Srinivasan: I don’t like this venue for our clandestine meetings, it is a straight give-away .Which idiot chose it?
Modi ( with a sadistic smile): I did.
The venue was called The Lalit.
Manohar: Good morning, everyone! I am glad ..
Modi (interrupts, sarcastically uttering with a wicked smile): It is 5 minutes past 12. It should be Good afternoon.
A thick impenetrable silence pervaded the chic conference room where a large glittering chandelier swung precariously from the ceiling, shaking like Shakira doing a Waka Waka from left to right.
Srikanth looked disconcertingly upwards and sneezed. Srinivisan gave him a dirty look for the bad omen, whispering in tandem: Om Shanti Om!
The atmosphere reeked of restrained animosity from all its venerable occupants. A stage set for a dramatic confrontation.
Manohar: Whenever you are around, everything is chaotic. Tense. Anyway Lalit, why are you washing all our dirty underwear in public?
Modi: Linen Shash, linen-that’s the apposite expression in the Victorian language! You know why? Because we are all VIPs remember? I am also planning to get the underwear brand to be our next sponsors after DLF. Imagine it will be called VIP IPL. That will be the wow factor! We can even sponsor streakers as a new revenue stream wearing VIP frenchies to protect Indian sensibilities. They will literally take the pants off the cheerleaders also.
Manohar: But why wash our dirty VIP linen…
Modi: Actually, I have a habit of cleaning things up, Shash. Completely. I am a man of high ethics and valuations.
Srinivasan: You mean values.
Manohar: And stop calling me Shash.
Modi: Coolio, if that’s the way you want it, Mr Shashank Manohar President-Not-Yet-Suspended of BCCI.
Srikanth sneezed, and the chandelier was now swinging rather dangerously. For the first time, even Manohar and Srinivasan looked at it suspiciously. Modi looked unfazed and seemed to be chuckling at their discomfiture.
Srininvasan: Lalit, I hope you have no foul intentions.
Modi: You guys are paranoid. I am no Phantom of the Opera. If I have to knock you guys out, I will not waste that awesome glass-piece on your thick-heads. It may not work on you all.
(Exasperated, Modi looked at his watch.)
Modi: Anyway, move on. We have just 10 minutes. Time is money.
Manohar: Why are you so sensationalistic? Always leaking news to the media?
Modi pointed to his see-through black shirt. Because I wear my transparency on my chest. They don’t call me a perfect show-man to the T for nothing. In fact, I accuse you of leaking away all the time.
Srikanth sneezed and with his little finger indicated he was taking a bio-break.
Srinivasan: (hollered back at Modi I make cement, Lalit. Breaking news is against our corporate philosophy. No leaks have ever emanated from me. Ever.
Manohar: Lalit, you have clear conflict of interest issues.
Modi: Wrong! I have no conflict of interest. I only have interest in conflicts.
Manohar seemed to have liked that confession. He nodded in acquiescence.
Modi: I am a patriotic fellow. The Americans called cricket like a game of baseball on valium. So I just changed it to Viagra. I am a genius.
Srinivasan: Creative destruction, I have to say.
Srikanth returned from the rest room and let out a loud sneeze to herald his arrival..
Srinivasan: Om Shanti Om!
Modi: Funny fellow! They call him Cheekha but he only sneezes.
Manohar: Thanks to you Lalit, we have become a laughing stock of the nation because of your shenanigans.
Modi: You are welcome! At least, I have made you a stock. Given you some value.
Srinivasan: But this stock will never see any appreciation, Mr Modi, all because of your vested interests.
Modi: Remember what Pawar saab said, we are like one big family. That’s why all of us have crossholdings. I can’t understand why you all are getting so cross about it.
Manohar: But why are only builders involved in all controversial stakes? .
Modi: Because we are still building the IPL brand. It is work-in-progress. We need specialists, for DLF’s sake, to make it all work brick by brick.
The chandelier swing had mysteriously subsided.
Modi: In fact, a perceptive company is planning a movie on my illustrated career.
Srinivasan: Illustrious, you mean.
Modi: That’s the problem with you Srini—. Exactitude. With rare exceptions like bank guarantees lapsing, of course . Ha Ha!
Srinivasan gulped a glass full of coconut water.
Modi: I am planning to give all of you roles in that film. You will play yourselves. But Shash, you will have to lose some weight. And Cheekha, you will have to stop sneezing and start shouting.
Srikanth: Cheeka, Sir! Really Sir? You are a good selector, Lalit Modi Ji.
Srikanth uttered his first and last words of the afternoon. And he did not sneeze.
Sush—-, whispered Srinivasan. I hear sounds. I suspect the media has sniffed us out. I suspect a sting operation. Be careful. I suggest we sneak out quietly.
Modi: Srini, stop Sush—ing. I don’t like you making things personal. Keep her out of it.
Srinivasan: She? Who? Where? What? Why? Whom? How?
Manohar (screamed like a vuvuzela in a South African football stadium): Enough! This farce is now suspended. Until our next farce, errr, I mean our next meeting.
Everyone dispersed using separate exit doors. As Srikanth departed using the kitchen’s spiral stair-case, a sneeze was audible.
Modi used the main door and walked out to a large battalion of press-and TV photographers shoving microphones into his wide mouth .
“Sir , what happened sir. Please tell us your Breaking News, sir.”
Modi started out by clearing his throat: This is brought to you by Vicks, a Proctor and Gamble company’s product.
Modi continued: At the end of the day……( Then he suddenly remembered the gag order of BCCI).
“Yes, sir, please sir. At the end of the day?”
Modi: At the end of the day…………….there is night.
Rajneeti, London and IPL
By Sanjay Jha
The moment you land back in India, even before you have crossed the immigration counters, you will inevitably hear some intense animated chatter about Indian cricket from fellow passengers. Occasionally, I even apprehend a fist-fight emerging out of those passionate acrimonious exchanges. Last night, one young man was exceedingly agitated about India being knocked out of the tri-series in the Zimbabwe tour. He looked like an inflammatory can of petrol. I prudently enough allowed him free access to the place ahead of me in the queue. Royalty demands reverence, you know.
A fortnight earlier I had woken up in London, my first morning of a long-planned and eagerly awaited summer break, to see the picturesque Kensington gardens, its quaint charming interminable stretch interspersed by well-arranged trees and immaculately trimmed rose bushes. And of course, an impenetrable silence. My coveted moments of blissful tranquility was to be, however, very transitory.
As I opened the sports section of the Daily Telegraph, a familiar smug countenance stared back at me, as if with a deliberate sadistic design. It was our good ole peripatetic IPL Commissioner currently in “suspended” animation giving one of his characteristic bombastic interviews.
Elsewhere, the BCCI had callously if not altogether contemptuously dropped plans of sending an Indian team to the Asian games. And of course, a certain Mr Aniruddha Deshpande, a real-estate builder from Pune had become the latest albatross round the neck of former BCCI chief and Union Minister Sharad Pawar.
No matter how hard you try to escape desi cricket and its inimitable, fashionable faux pas, it has a knack of surfacing both with mischievous delight and with exasperating regularity. It is like a fait accompli. But I still successfully resisted my urge to do a column as I soaked in the unpredictable English summer.
As I now rummage through the evidently cataclysmic revelation about Mr Pawar’s financial stakes in a failed bid for the Pune franchise, I am compelled to reproduce a section from my just published book 11-Triumphs, Trials and Turbulence Indian cricket 2003-10, which will tell you as to why I am surprised as to how we all seem so remarkably stunned and hugely dismayed by the dingy disclosures. The writing was always on the wall, only we chose to treat it like an incomprehensible alien dialect.
So here goes and I quote:
“India has 600000 villages and even today over 70% of our billion population lives in rural areas combating drought, poverty, money-lender’s avarice, large disguised unemployment and perpetual indebtedness. Farmer suicides is a brutal reality of our country. But no media outlet has seriously debated why should India’s Agriculture Minister defocus from a compelling national priority by taking honorary charge of a cricket body? Why ? Isn’t it ridiculous that instead of resuscitating a dilapidated BJP senior party leader Arun Jaitley holds on to his DDCA position even as a mercurial Laloo Yadav joins the fray. What is the mesmerizing magnetic appeal of cricket administration for such veteran public servants? And frankly, how can one alter the complete BCCI structure to enable fresh talented recruits, transparent management, professional expertise, and an accountable institution to emerge ? I think the cricket loving public of India deserves a lot more respect.”
The early monsoon showers have thankfully arrived, but for Indian cricket, as always the heat is on.
See you soon!
The First Indian National Congress
Here’s a rare picture of the delegates at the first meeting of the Indian National Congress in Bombay, 1885.
Congress@125: With Sonia the party’s just begun!
As the Congress celebrates its 125th year, HamaraCongress takes you down memory lane to reconnect with the struggles ,sacrifices and successes of the party. In this context, here’s a piece written by Amulya Ganguli commending the remarkable role played by Sonia Gandhi in the party’s comeback in the early years of the 21st century.
As the Indian National Congress steps into its 125th year, Amulya Ganguli says that Sonia Gandhi has played a remarkable role first in the party’s comeback and then in its rise to power, her corporate pattern of governance just what the party needed at this stage in its life.
Even the Congress’s detractors would admit that the party has a remarkable capacity for rejuvenation. From the time it disproved Lord George Curzon’s prediction in 1900 that the Congress was ‘tottering to its fall’, the party has surprised those who had expected it to fade away.
While the socialists have splintered into the various regional Janata outfits after the demise of the Praja Socialist Party and the Socialist Party of India, and the Communists are following them into oblivion, the Congress has not only managed to survive, but has attained power at the Centre at a time when it does not seem to have too many credible opponents. Not even the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is running out of steam after the failure to keep its promise to build a Ram temple at Ayodhya.
It will be futile to deny that a major factor behind the Congress’s longevity is the Nehru-Gandhi family even if sizeable sections of the urban middle class are uneasy with the dynastic principle. Yet from Jawaharlal Nehru to his great grandson Rahul Gandhi, it is the party’s first family which has not only held the organisation together but has acted as a magnet for voters, particularly in the rural and mofussil areas and now also increasingly in the metropolises as well.
Rahul, of course, is still some years away from becoming prime minister, but at the moment it is his mother, Sonia, who is the driving force behind the party’s electoral success. Nothing underlines the value of the dynasty more effectively than the story of her ascendancy. As a person who was derided as a housewife by Jyoti Basu and who was reluctant to let her husband Rajiv enter politics, her role in the Congress’s revival is worthy of a bestseller.
It was the period when the family took a back seat after Rajiv’s assassination which convinced the party and its supporters about the dynasty’s indispensability. The follies and failures of the two men who ran the party during the interregnum — Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao and party chief Sitaram Kesri — ensured that the family would return to the centrestage after virtually elbowing out Kesri. As for Rao, although there is a school of thought which argues that he is a much misunderstood person because of the Babri Masjid demolition and actually deserves a better press because of his initiation of economic reforms to end Indira Gandhi’s faux socialism, it is difficult to believe that the Congress would have had a bright future under someone so devoid of charisma.
Even if the value of good looks is unlikely to be emphasised in a serious analysis of the dynasty’s success, there is little doubt about the utility of a handsome face if combined with other positive factors. In the latter’s absence, the electorate treats the party with scant respect as when Indira botched the Congress’s prospects by her recourse to dictatorial methods during the Emergency or when Rajiv squandered its vast majority by arousing suspicion about his complicity in the Bofors scam.
But the party becomes unbeatable when its good-looking, patrician leaders pursue policies with wide public acceptance, as during the Bangladesh war or when Rajiv was seen as Mr Clean.
After Rao alienated the minorities and Kesri drove the party into a cul de sac by withdrawing support from the H D Deve Gowda government for reasons which few could understand, it was only the dynasty which could rescue the Congress. Sonia Gandhi’s subsequent successes will appear all the more extraordinary in view of the fact that she took charge of the organisation at one of its darkest moments.
Not only had the party lost power at the Centre, but the BJP appeared to be on the verge of replacing the Congress as the No. 1 party on the Indian scene with its manipulation of Hindu sentiments.
The fact that Sonia Gandhi had to read out her speeches in halting Hindi, and claimed to have majority support in Parliament in 1999 when she didn’t, seemingly confirmed Jyoti Basu’s derisive assessment. While her speeches lacked both fire and substance, she appeared to be returning to her mother-in-law’s fake socialism, an inclination which made the party promise reservations in the private sector a few months before the 2004 election.
Not surprisingly, few expected the Congress to return to power. Yet, if it did so despite Sonia Gandhi’s stilted speeches and the absence of the kind of inspirational messages which created electoral waves in the party’s favour in 1971, 1980 and 1984, the reason was the belief among the voters that it was time for the dynasty again. It didn’t seem to matter that Sonia lacked Indira’s and Rajiv’s popular appeal. What mattered was the restoration of the kind of politics which a Statesman editorial described as the ‘return of the rose’ when Indira defeated Morarji Desai in the prime ministerial contest in 1966.
The reference was to the rose which Jawaharlal wore in his button hole. But, in political terms, it meant a return to a time of grace, sobriety and accommodation and a rejection of communal animosity and caste tension which was the National Democratic Alliance’s hallmark. If anyone understood the reason why the NDA was defeated, it was Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who blamed the Gujarat riots of 2002 for the loss. Similarly, the anti-Christian outbreak in Orissa played a substantial part in the NDA’s 2009 defeat.
Sonia Gandhi, therefore, could be said to have benefited from the faults of her opponents more than any special achievement of her own. All that she had to do was to be at the head of the Congress to provide the assurance to the voters that her party would provide the much-needed healing touch to a society which had seen the BJP adopt the tactic of breaking mosques and attacking churches as a political ploy.
But leading the Congress to an unexpected victory was not Sonia’s only moment of glory. She would receive even more accolades when she refused to become prime minister. The announcement to a stunned party and nation was the first sign of her political acuity. At one stroke, she defused the BJP’s longstanding campaign against her foreign origin, compelling Sushma Swaraj to forsake her promise to shave her head if she did so and leave the rest of the Hindutva brigade in a state of bewilderment.
Evidently, Sonia realised that assuming the prime minister’s position would create more problems than it would solve. But considering that she was still feeling her way in the turbulent waters of Indian politics after the “we have 272″ blunder only five years earlier, her act of renunciation showed both the courage of conviction and an inner belief that she wouldn’t lose ground if she conceded the top position to someone else.
True, in selecting Manmohan Singh for the post, she had chosen a man known for his integrity who wouldn’t play foul. Even then, it was a risk not many would have taken. Before her, no one had turned down the prime minister’s post anywhere in the world. She had set a precedent, therefore, which will not have too many imitators.
That was not her only act of statesmanship. Another masterstroke was the manner in which she moulded Congress politics to introduce a healthy corporate pattern of operation where there is a clear division of responsibility between the proprietor and the CEO. It was an innovation which must have been difficult to implement in a party where the propensity to grab the highest post is a major motivating factor followed by crafty manoeuvres to undercut potential rivals. No one was more adept at these tactics than Sonia’s formidable mother-in-law.
Although the Congress had tried to circumvent this problem of personal clashes by dividing the responsibility between the prime minister and the party president via the ‘one man, one post’ principle, it had rarely worked because the head of the government ensured that the head of the party would be a nonentity. For instance, when Indira split the party to get rid of the party bosses in the ‘syndicate’ such as K Kamaraj, S Nijalingappa, Atulya Ghosh, Sanjeeva Reddy and S K Patil, she chose the subservient Dev Kanta Barooah of the ‘India is Indira’ fame to be the Congress president.
Under Sonia, however, the division between the party and the government has worked remarkably well. It will not be out of place to say that she has set an example which should act as a template for all parties and governments although it will be difficult to find another party chief like her and another prime minister like Manmohan Singh.
What is important to note is the latter is not a pushover. As much was evident from the passage of the nuclear deal, which did not initially have Sonia’s approval.
Her reluctance to go along with the prime minister on this issue was evident when she endorsed the opposition of the Communists to the deal by saying that they had a point. This comment was apparently a reflection of her socialistic preferences, which had made her insist on the implementation of the rural employment scheme although the view of most economists was that it would amount to pouring money into a black hole. But if Manmohan Singh approved of the scheme despite his reservations as an economist about a populist measure which was unlikely to create any real assets and enrich only the middle men, Sonia similarly gave her assent to the nuclear deal even if she was not fully in agreement with the prime minister’s views.
Even if Rahul had played a behind-the-scene role to bring her around on the deal, its passage was a clear sign that the proprietor-CEO arrangement was working satisfactorily with neither stepping on the toes on the other, as most people had earlier expected. Their disillusionment must have since been accentuated by growing evidence of Manmohan Singh’s assertiveness on economic reforms in the welcome absence of the Left. Yet, Sonia has lost none of her authority. Whatever initiative the prime minister may take, there is little doubt that it is Sonia who is in charge.
What is more, the process of sharing of responsibility has not ended with the division between the prime minister and the party chief. It has been extended to the cabinet as well with ministers like Pranab Mukherjee and P Chidambaram exuding authority and confidence unlike other ministers before them. Although this kind of decentralisation may have led to Sonia making her first major mistake over the Telangana issue, it is still a worthwhile style of functioning. If she had held a more intensive series of consultation before the announcement, the false step could have avoided.
Despite this unexpected lapse, there is little doubt that the Congress has been fortunate enough to find a leader who has breathed new life into a party which had never been its true self after Nehru’s death. While it lurched under Indira from the glory of 1971 to the shame of 1975, and under Rajiv from the hope of 1984 to the despair of 1987, the party has been able to lift itself up by its bootstraps under Sonia’s guidance. Given the dysfunctional state of the opposition, it can look forward to a better future in the 21st century than what seemed possible in the closing years of the last century.
Courtesy:Amulya Ganguli
This article was published in rediff.com
