India at Crossroads

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

However much we would like to deny; the plethora of scams make it obvious that we as a nation are at crossroads. For how long can truth remain in oblivion? It is time to accept and make amends…

Call it marketing blitzkrieg; the ‘Bharat Nirman’ campaign in early 2009 did portray a picture of an India which was on the path to modernity, prosperity and power. The then general perception that India would remain largely unaffected from the global economic meltdown further pushed the case for the much hyped ‘new’ India – an economic power centre in its own right in a realigned world based on economic prowess. Despite strong anti-incumbency factor, the then ruling alliance came back to power and yes with greater mandate and newer power sharing equations. Business leaders were filled with hope that second generation of economic reforms would be set rolling. Yes, with the Left no more a part of the power equations, this was a bare minimum of an expectation from a leader credited with economic reforms in early 1990s. 

However, things turned out to be the contrary. India’s image internationally is taking a beating, international media is blatantly questioning India’s leadership (TIME suggested that India needs a reboot), the country’s ranking in global competitiveness index is sliding with each passing year, economic growth has slowed sharply, rupee has literally collapsed and there are dark clouds hovering over the economic horizon. The nation as a whole has been besieged by a plethora of corruption scandals – CWG, 2G, Coalgate is but a few of them. The ant-corruption sentiment has reached to unprecedented levels. If 2011, was the year when civil society (read Team Anna) demanded greater accountability on the part of leaders and sought to bring in a strong Ombudsman (Lokpal / Jan Lokpal) in the Parliament; the ongoing Monsoon Session of the Parliament this year has been marred by Coalgate and demands by opposition seeking the PM’s resignation. 

The credibility of the government in terms of governance and leadership is at stake. And why not; all major institutions of governance are struggling to retain their legitimacy, there are no signs of coherence in the government’s functioning with all departments working as if there are no national imperatives. Ministers’ apparently seem to run their ministries as personal fiefdom. India is facing a crisis of leadership; there is lack of true leaders with vision and unflinching national commitment. Needless to say, the credibility quotient of leaders and their leadership is at an all time low. India indeed is at crossroads entering into its own ‘new normal’ with governance crisis causing the downward shift in growth. And sadly there is not even an illusion of leadership that the government is willing to project to the people of India.

The recently concluded Monsoon session of the Parliament – a complete washout over the CAG’s allegation that faulty allotment of coal blocks caused Rs. 1.86 lakh windfall gain for several private firms, saw 80 percent of the Parliament’s work hours and crores of taxpayers’ money go in vain. With neither the treasury nor the opposition willing to back down their positions, this was one of the most unproductive sessions in India’s Parliamentary history with only 6 out of the 31 proposed bills seeing the light of the day. The brawl between two members in the Rajya Sabha in presence of the Prime Minister served the proverbial ‘the last nail in the coffin.’ No more reasons are needed to state that there is a severe dearth of probity and integrity in public life. Soon after the Parliament was adjourned sine-die (in truest of sense, the Parliament rarely functioned), the PM’s statement to the media was, “We have just ended a wasted session of Parliament. Both Houses were paralyzed because the CAG has issued a report, which rightly or wrongly, makes certain allegations about the public functionaries.” All these justify the fundamental questions that India suffers from governance and leadership crisis.

This leads us to question the very fundamentals of leadership and governance across the spectrum – political and business. What is evident is the fact that there is a lack of transparency, responsiveness and accountability in the functioning of a number of governmental authorities and institutions. For instance, aluminium giant, NALCO has been criticized for possible ‘governance deficit’ which resulted in many inadequacies including delay in its Rs.40 billion second phase capacity expansion project. It is perhaps the scale of mis-governance – CWG, 2G, Coalgate et al, that has put the focus back on governance deficit /crisis. Who do we blame for the mess? Does the onus lie solely on the centre or are the sates to be equally blamed? As we delve a little deeper, it is but clear that the top (national political leadership) must play a critical role in putting an end to the blatant plundering of resources (national) and set an example for others to follow. If leaders at the centre, cutting across party lines, can lead from the front with a clear concise, then it can serve as an example for the others as to how to address the crisis and bridge the governance crisis.

There are organizational analogies for the same. If the top management that must abide by the organizational culture, the ethos, the values, the mission and vision; the same can be expected to percolate to the base level. A strong organizational culture driven by transparency and value based competitiveness has little scope for wrongdoings, while if the organizational culture is ‘weak’ there is every possibility of rules (in absence of values) being tweaked or maneuvered to suit to certain business conditions. The culture at the branch level is a mere reflection of the culture being followed in the corporate office.

It does make a case for corporate with impeccable record to question the government on how an economy that almost clocked double digit growth is losing plot amid governance deficit, corruption and policy paralysis; it makes for an equal case of self introspection. Corporate scams (a clear case of non- adherence to corporate governance rule book), not abiding by labor laws et al does point towards an unhealthy nexus. Governance and leadership crisis should not be seen merely as a failure of the political system and leaders – agreed they are largely to be blamed for it.

How did this set in?

Commentators of all hue and color concur that it all because of lack of leadership, that lack of boldness, lack of will. What else can be the reason for aloofness and silence when ministers (who report to the top leadership) ran riot with corrupt practices filling their pockets? It is but a cliché’ to say that in the current political centres of the government, one is bestowed with enormous power with no responsibility and the other with responsibility with virtually no power – and hence the lack of boldness and will. And the failure of governance (accountability and oversight) to sternly deal with ill-practices has further compounded the problem. Such is the state of affairs that when three arterial power lines in northern India failed and plunged approximately 700 million people from 21 states and UTs into total darkness, besides disrupting rail and air services; the government treated this as a usual business affair and elevated the incumbent power minister to home minister. This is indeed a reflection of the state of governance, or lack thereof.

However, the irony is that despite a clear case of leadership and governance crisis, the top leadership of the government defends all its actions and inactions using discredit-deny-divert tactics. It is a pity that the leadership at the helm of the country does not feel the need to engage with the public at large, or communicate their decisions (or their inability to take decisions) to the public, or make efforts to create and mould public opinion to help in governance. It is perhaps because of all these inadequacies that a few in India Inc., believe that the country is bereft of any leader. The inability of the political leadership to either infuse inspiration in the masse or effectively manage the myriad challenges the country is facing, does put a question on the dearth of political talent in the country. The lack of a statesman political leader, a visionary who can rise above petty party lines, who can galvanize the support of leaders (business and political) to achieve national objectives, one who does not hesitate communicating with people and articulating his / her vision for the country and one who is decisive and astute enough to tackle the compulsions of politics – is certainly a reason for the crisis of sorts. At this juncture, it seems that India’s political class appears to be considerably behind the curve and political leaders appear to be slow in figuring out how India has changed over the years. Their philosophy of governance seems to be deeply rooted to the times when common masses dare not question them.

What needs to be done…?

We are not only facing an economic crisis, there is a leadership crisis which is compounding it by the day. How long can we remain adrift? That is the question we need to answer.

First and foremost there needs to be an honest realization that we are at crossroads. If not for anyone else then at least for the political class and political leaders - the sheer size of scams and the consequent loss to the public exchequer, the regularity with which the Parliament is being adjourned, the cases of brawls well in the house of elders, should be enough to wake them from their deep slumber. Does it make sense that a few bills were introduced and passed by the Parliament amidst din and chaos without any deliberations on the same? Does this not speak of their sheer ignorance and utter disrespect for the electorate? It is time for political leaders to confront the emerging realities and fundamentally change their approach to governance.

 Articulate – Communicate – Engage

  

It is important that leaders need to articulate their vision with clarity and conviction. This clear communication goes a long way in building consensus over many critical issues, which can otherwise go in oblivion if the leader is of the view that decisions can be taken in isolation. Communicating with stakeholders (in political parlance it could mean sharing the idea /vision with leaders of different political parties and aspirations), engaging them in building an inclusive vision, asking for help and ideas as to how to take a particular matter forward, goes a long way in gaining commitment to even painful corrective measures. Leaders must not only engage with the leadership team but also with the larger base of stakeholders and communicate with them what is the problem and how does he intend to solve the same. Seeking advice even from the lowest denominator of the stakeholder would be a worthy effort. This shows that they are valued and they matter in the larger schema. Above all, a leader must lead by example and see to it that they are seen as one who is prepared to tackle crisis head-on. 

What's in a 'name'?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

There is a lot at stake when brands imitate their rivals in the guise of inspiration; plagiarism being the worst. A unique ‘name’ provides the much needed identity to help break the clutter.

Calling upon Romeo, to deny his father and refuse his name, Juliet argues, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” Going by this discourse in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, one gets the feeling that names are theoretically arbitrary. Cut this to 2012. Consider for instance two advertisements in print media dated July 4 in The Times of India, about Bennett Coleman’s Financial Times Supplement, which read as, “Business News Now Customized For Delhi NCR”; and the July 19 statement by John Ridding, CEO, Financial Times, in Mint and Business Standard, stating, “The Financial Times would like to make clear that the internationally renowned Financial Times newspaper is not in any way associated with the Indian title of the same name published by Times Publishing House.” Quiet intriguingly, the masthead font used in Bennett Coleman’s Financial Times supplement resembles the one used by the British paper Financial Times.

For once, let us put aside the legal nuances and the bitter title registration and trademark battle that the two have been engaged in for the last 18 years; and view the entire episode from the prism of ‘name’. Seen from this perspective, it is evident that names are not merely theoretically arbitrary but one which defines an individual, an organization and so on; which if not owned, we (individual, organization et al) run the risk of not owning ourselves. Name, in essence is an integral part of the BRAND – a unique marketing identity, which over the years by the very virtue of its presence and service offering conveys images of values, qualities and experiences. This is perhaps a reason as to why organizations spend millions to safeguard their brand names and on brand building measures – all for a ‘name’. Certainly, the brand value and all that it encompasses gets tarnished, when names are misused – names after all do matter.

There is no dearth of examples of such instances. Be it either imitation or plagiarism or piracy or counterfeiting – in terms of design, color, text, music, et al; the value of the ‘original’ brand does take a dip. It is quite different to be inspired and all together different to ‘copy’ and yet claim the originality of the work, design, music, creative etc. Accepted that as human beings we are seldom originalists – we are enhancers and developers, and that inspiration is a part of the game in any field of art; yet does it not make sense to copy the inspiration and not the outcome. We know, how the slur of plagiarism can dent an individual’s identity – noted columnist, Fareed Zakaria, is a case in point. Giving credit for the source would have done no harm; on the contrary it would have enhanced his (Fareed Zakaria – an individual’s ‘name’ you see) brand equity, solely on the premise of being honest.

There are cases wherein the name of the ‘brand’ of the product has been copied (with the finest of distortion in the way it spelt) and there are cases wherein the source of inspiration is apparent. For once, you would take Flair & Lovely as Fair & Lovely – well you could blame it on the persistence of vision or the lack of it. But, such counterfeit products do impact Unilever’s brand image. Yes, there are people who argue that counterfeiting such products confirm the original brand’s iconicity and it compels the original brand to innovate itself. Howsoever much I would like to buy the logic it definitely comes at a huge cost which could have otherwise been used for some other brand building exercises. Otherwise, how does one justify the emotional attributes that lead to a purchase decision?

The Financial Times vs. Financial Times episode questions the very fundamentals of ‘branding’ i.e. differentiation – emphasizing the differences and not the similarities. It is a classic case wherein the differences have been subverted and similarities highlighted. Is this blatant usurping of someone else’s brand identity just a ploy to thwart competition by creating an entry barrier of sorts? Imagine a case, law permitting, wherein all the business papers go by the name Financial Times – how would you distinguish? Probably you would argue that each one should use different font, color or may be a different ‘name’ – there you go, ‘name’. A different name in all sanity would lend a unique identity. As with individuals, organizations too love to be different and in fact they spend millions in convincing the world ‘how different are they from their peers?’ A different name, a name of its won, helps it differentiate at all levels – tactical, operational and strategic. Would it not be a mess to see competing brands with identical brand names trying to woo customers? If not anyone else, this overload of supposed brand differentiation would definitely confuse the customers. A unique name, brand name per se, would help the brand break the clutter – thus the importance of ‘name’.

Brands with unique names too have been found to copy the competitors (design, color etc., per se) – what this essentially does is to remind the end users of the competing brands. Creative inspiration is one thing while exact imitation is a different ball game all together. Brands, successful ones or even newbie, must avoid replicating the finer nuances of an existing idea. I had no clue as to how competing brands leverage an existing design and its finer details until my managing editor showed me a copy of a competing business magazine. I leave it upon you to guess the ‘name’. Thank God, they at least have a different ‘name’ – an identity that they can certainly call theirs.  I rest my case, and yes, I do have a name, and I go by the name –Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap.