Remembering Ratan Tata: A legacy of Leadership & Innovation

Ratan Tata, the charismatic chairman emeritus of Tata Sons and Chairman of Tata Trusts, who practiced the philosophy of “Sarve sama hitam” (beneficial to everyone) passed away at the age of 86 on October 9, 2024.

It was in 1991 that Ratan Naval Tata (RNT)—reticent and humble but always immaculately dressed in his trademark Brooks Brothers shirts—succeeded the legendary JRD Tata, who had headed the group for half a century, as the Chairman of Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata conglomerate.

His ascent to the group’s chairmanship was however not preordained. He had a difficult childhood owing to his parents’—Naval Tata and Sooni Tata—divorce. It was under the loving care of his paternal grandmother that he grew up. After schooling in Bombay, he went to Cornell University in the United States.

Tryst with Tatas begin

At his grandmother’s call, he returned from the US in 1962 and worked at a succession of Tata entities: He began his apprenticeship on the shop floor of Telco, and then moved to Tisco, perhaps shoveling coal into furnaces, like any other ordinary apprentice. 

In 1971, for the first time, he got his independent assignment—he was appointed as the Director of the sick National Radio & Electronics (Nelco) which was already in dire straits. It hardly had a 2% share of the consumer electronics market, while accumulated losses stood at 40%. He could, however, turn it around by increasing its market share from 2% to 25% and indeed became profitable. Still, the weak economy witnessed following the declaration of emergency and labor problems dragged Nelco down to near collapse again. 

Later, he was asked to turn around the sick Empress Mills. He did succeed in reviving it, but the group’s refusal to inject fresh capital of 50 lakh to make it competitive came as a major shocker, leading to its ultimate closure. 

These two failures haunted him for almost two decades. Indeed, it became more intense after JRD Tata, impressed by RNT’s growing reputation for strategic vision and scientific temper, appointed him as the Chairman of Tata Industries Ltd. in 1981. 

Foreseeing the growth in the capital market and the ease of accessing capital for new projects, RNT drafted a strategic plan for the Tata Group in 1983 that emphasized group’s foray into high-tech businesses; focused attention to select markets and products; judicious mergers and acquisitions, leveraging group’s synergies, etc. It, of course, earned him the reputation of an ideation leader. Still, he could not push it forward to its logical conclusion except to promote a few high-tech businesses in the 80s such as Tata Telecom, Tata Honeywell, Tata Elexi, Plantek, etc., as the Chairman of Tata Industries. In the rest of the group, his strategy document gathered cobwebs.

 

A stormy welcome awaits at the Bombay House

It is against this backdrop that in 1991 he walked into the corner room of the Bombay House, of course, with no knowledge of the impending storm waiting to greet him. The old satraps—Russi Mody of Tata Steel, Darbari Seth of Tata Chemicals, and Ajit Kerkar of Indian Hotels—were reluctant to accept his leadership. This trio was loud and unrestrained in their disapproval of RNT as the group head. He was ridiculed by saying that he became Chairman of Tata Sons by virtue of his surname; some even likened him to the clown in a circus. The loud and acrimonious battles, particularly of Russi Mody with RNT were all carried out in public view. 

Despite all this ruckus, RNT, the shy leader of impeccable manners, without getting distracted from his chosen path silently went ahead with his mission of reinventing the Group of Companies that were hitherto working in silos. But to get the satraps, who have been all along ruling the companies as their fiefdoms, to toe a group line and work in tandem with other companies became next to impossible. Indeed, RNT’s “first three to four years were engaged in struggles with satraps”, said RM Lala, the author of JRD’s biography. 

Sensing that the Tata Group was on its way to disintegration, RNT, finally enforced the long-dormant retirement age rule for all business heads and directors to replace the satraps with fresh talent as heads of the important group companies and thus ensured greater integration of Tata Group companies, all within about five years from his becoming the chairman. 

Realizing the pathetically low equity holding of Tata Sons in the major group companies such as Tisco, Telco, etc., RNT, capitalizing on the cash flows of the then unlisted cash cow, TCS, that flew into Tata Sons as a dividend, increased the shareholding of Tata Sons in every important company of the group. Thus, he could ring-fence the Group companies from outside interference. It was only after ensuring that the shareholding of Tata Sons in group companies had reached a level of comfort that he gave the green signal for the public listing of TCS in August 2004. 

Simultaneously, he worked towards creating a single brand image for the group. He created a single group logo under the ownership of Tata Sons, the holding company. The group companies were made to pay brand equity and sign business promotion agreements with Tata Sons as a condition precedent for using the brand name. Thus, he brought all group companies under one common logo in 1999.

As India embraced liberalization, to stay relevant to the changing times, particularly to face the onslaught of foreign competition, RNT introduced the ‘Tata Business Excellence Model’ which became Tata Group’s largest change initiative. This framework was implemented through Tata Quality Management Services, mandating it to “help Tata companies achieve their business objectives through specific processes”. Once the company signed up, it was evaluated annually on seven parameters: leadership, strategic planning, customer and market focus, information and analysis, process management, human resource focus, and business results. Using this framework, Tata transformed the group companies into much leaner and nimbler companies to improve their productive functioning. 

Paying attention to the unstructured growth with overlapping business across multiple companies, a remnant of the control-Raj period, RNT disposed of businesses that he considered no longer fit into the group’s strategy. First, he sold Tata Oil Mills Company to Hindustan Unilever in 1993. Later, swiftly exited from pharmaceuticals and textiles followed by cement business. Similarly, Lakme was sold to Hindustan Lever.

Taking Tatas global

When it comes to businesses, as John Kotter (1988) said, business leadership is essentially centered on “change” and “action”; a leader should have the courage to orchestrate a new vision and strategy as that which empowers others to work on it and exhibit their requisite strength of character to set right examples in terms of sacrifices to be made under the proposed changes. This articulation of Kotter is well reflected in what RNT did in his 21 long years of leading the Tata conglomerate. 

The first of such changes that he introduced was perhaps, launching the Tanishq jewellery brand, which over time transformed the very nature of the country’s unorganized jewellery industry by affording embedded trust in the jewellery. The second and the most notable is the launching of the Indica car—a car made in India by India with “the Zen’s size, the Ambassador’s internal dimensions and the price of a Maruti 800” in 1998. It was a major transformation for Tata Motors, a company that had been hitherto known as a manufacturer of trucks.

Of all RNT’s decisions till then, the Indica project was, perhaps, one of his greatest gambles. When he started the project, many critics opined that RNT was all set to destroy a good truck business “for the sake of an ill-conceived vanity project.” The criticism seemed justified as project costs escalated to 1,700 cr and eventually Tata Motors booked a loss of 500 cr—the biggest ever booked by any Indian company till then. It is of course a different matter that Indica later proved RNT was right by its great success but what this whole episode importantly reveals is his leadership: He never distanced himself from its initial failure. He said later in an interview: “Even within Tatas, people kept asking me to distance myself from the project so that when it failed I wouldn’t be stuck with the blame. And when I refused to do that they distanced themselves from me”.

 

This project appears to be the one that made RNT acquire global businesses, more as a strategy for risk mitigation. His vision for stability coupled with the growth of the group can be well gauzed from what he once said, “Perhaps, the most graphic moment came in 1997-98 or 2000 when we had that economic downturn and when Tata Motors at that time produced that 500-crore loss. That told me that we had to do something where we would not in the future be dependent on one economic cycle, but we had to have more irons in the fire in different economies and if one economic cycle was down, the chances are that the other might be up. That accelerated the move to go and search, not for acquisitions, but for markets in a serious way.” And that is what he precisely did subsequently: led his team standing upfront in acquiring Tetley, a UK Tea brand, for $450 mn in 2000; Corus, an Anglo-Dutch steel manufacturer, for £6.2 bn beating CSN of Brazil in 2007; and Jaguar Land Rover for $2.3 bn from Ford Motor Company and so on.

Indeed, RNT’s bid to acquire Corus—a company that is almost three times bigger than Tata Steel that made Tata Steel the world’s 5th-largest steel maker—was seen by many as “risky”. Some analysts felt that the price that Tata Steel eventually agreed to pay was above the ‘comfort zone’—a payment of £6.2 bn sounds expensive at nine times EBDITA, which in rupee terms equals a whopping 54,000 cr, almost equal to the annual budget of a medium-sized state in India—and that RNT in the process had put the company in jeopardy. “Ratan was the chief architect of the Corus deal,” said B Muthuraman, Chairman of Tata Steel. He also said, “I was worried about the magnitude and the amount of money. But he instilled confidence.” No wonder this daredevil act of RNT made the industry pundits drop their jaws: “Ye Gods, it doth amaze … / A man of such a feeble temper should / So get the start of the majestic world, / And bear the palm alone.” 

However, from RNT’s perspective—“Be bold in setting your goals and do not be afraid of taking risks”, an idea that he picked up from a study his Group carried out to understand the difference between China and India’s growth rates—the limit set on the deal was never reached. For him, the acquisition was a good business decision. It is not only that RNT was courageous but also instilled courage in the very culture of the organization as is revealed by what he once said: “When I took over as Chairman, I set some targets for various group companies; for example, doubling revenues in three years, doubling profits in four years and so on. The initial reaction was: ‘We can’t do that.’ And I said, ‘why are you looking at only organic growth as an option? No one is stopping you from acquisitions’.” And that is what he precisely did: Led his team standing upfront in acquiring Natsteel, Millennium Steel, Corus and later the marques Jaguar Land Rover.

Market pandits had, of course, talked about these big and bold moves as his ‘follies’ and some even dubbed him as a risk-taker. But RNT had dismissed them saying: “There have been certain occasions when I have been a risk taker. Perhaps more so than some and less so than certain others. It is a question of where you view that from. I have never been speculative. I have never been a real gambler in the sense that some very successful businessmen have been”. This argument compels one to infer that RNT’s ‘follies’ were decisions arrived at by prescience and not by mere gut feeling. 

Notable among his path-breaking concepts that emanated from his out-of-box thinking is the Nano, the “car heard round the world” at the 9th Auto Expo, held in Delhi on January 10, 2008. It was indeed a dream project of RNT to offer a vehicle for the masses of India that could make the travel of India’s middle class less dangerous. However, the plant that was coming up at Nandigram for the production of Nano car had faced tremendous opposition from the local farmers. Tata then did not hesitate to shift it lock, stock, and barrel from West Bengal to Gujarat, though it involved huge capital outlay—both already sunk and fresh investment. Defying all the odds, RNT finally rolled out Nano thundering, “A promise is a promise” at its launch in 2008.

Despite the initial excitement, the Tata Nano faced several challenges, notable among them was the perception of being “cheap” rather than affordable, and hence was forced to shelve it in 2018. Nevertheless, Nano stands as a symbol of RNT’s vision to innovate for the masses and improve their lives through accessible, affordable technology. It remains a significant part of his legacy, a legacy that Hemant Kothari, the investment banker who worked on many of the Tata Group acquisitions and watched RNT’s functioning from close quarters, revealed thus: “He is a very discerning person when it comes to decision-making. And once he had made up his mind, he is prepared to go all out to achieve his objectives, be it Corus or Nano”.

He also spearheaded the Group’s entry into aerospace and defense sectors. In 2007, he incorporated Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. and entered into collaboration with Sikorsky Aircraft to manufacture helicopter cabins. Later, similar collaborations were entered with Lockheed Martin, Airbus and Boeing to manufacture aircraft components.

RNT, having thus steered the behemoth of more than 140-year-old Tata group for 21 years and having transformed it into a global conglomerate, besides raising the revenues from 10,000 cr in 1991 to 475,271 cr ($100.09 bn) in 2011-12, retired on his 75th birthday, with a confident assertion, “I feel satisfied that I have done my best to do what I considered to be the right thing and that has been there throughout”, which is a no mean achievement for any corporate leader.

Thomas Mathew, author of RNT’s biography said that “the top line of the Tata companies had grown in dollar terms by nearly 1,742% during his tenure as chairman of Tata Sons that exceeded the record of Jack Welch of GE—a growth of 1,360% during his tenure—who was dubbed as the ‘manager of the century’ by a US business journal”. In conclusion, one must say that RNT outperformed the legendary JRD in exhibiting judicious courage in fostering path-breaking innovations such as Indica and Nano besides making Tata a multinational corporation.

Financial results aside, what speaks about the core of his leadership is: his style of identifying fresh talent, recruiting ‘non-lifers’ at a late stage of their career and taking the risk of entrusting them with board-level responsibilities, leading the talent within the group to achieve sustainable solutions to the societal expectations, of course with a firm ‘value-centric’ focus. He injected a new spirit of competitiveness into the 140-year-old Group by exhorting it to “question the unquestioned”. He had an ear for what his colleagues had to say and a mind with a quiet determination to discern how it mattered for the business.

He even lent his ear to those who criticized his business aspirations: When the environmentalist, Sunita Narian raised her campaign against the health hazards posed by diesel cars such as Tata’s Indica, though initially a messy battle crept in, once realized that it was all based on the emerging science of PM 2.5, RNT said to have accepted the contrary views of the environmentalists more in a “democratic tradition”. As a strategist, he brought cohesiveness among the group companies. He created Tata Sons as the ‘Group Center’ enriching it with fresh talent of high competency and nudged the conglomerate to work under it as a group rather than each working on its own. This gave a boost to the Group’s capabilities to wither out global competition. In short, RNT provided the new-age leadership that the group needed in the wake of economic liberalization. 

He Too Had His Failures

That said, one must also admit that as is inevitable for any leader, he too had his failures and shortfalls from his known standards. His efforts to build a mobile telecom business not only failed inflicting huge losses but also landed him in controversies, particularly Radia’s tapes episode questioning his judgement about people. His biggest acquisition, Corus, became a winner’s curse for the Group. Though it never faced an existential threat, the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 did cause more financial stress leading to the selling of select acquired steel assets in Europe.

The most challenging task for any long-serving and highly successful CEO is finding a successor and passing on the baton, for it may turn great or the transition may wind up in disaster. Secondly, however sure a CEO is of his/her departure date, the closer one gets to the date, “the more tempting it will be to postpone it”, said Nitin Nohria, former Dean of Harvard Business School. But RNT appointed a selection committee to search for an ideal successor for him much ahead of his announced retirement date such that there is enough handover time. Perhaps to make the selection more scientific, RNT stayed out of the selection panel to afford more comfort and confidence to the aspirants from within the group that the selection is based on the recommendation of the panel and “not on account of the Chairman’s preference”. On turning 75 in 2012, RNT made way for the selected candidate, Cyrus Mistry as Chairman of Tata Sons.

However, in a couple of years, the relations turned sore and Mistry was ousted with a terse statement: “In its collective wisdom and on the recommendation of the principal shareholders and in the long-term interest of the Tata group and Tata Sons the Board has resolved to replace Cyrus Mistry as Chairman” and RNT returned to lead the group for a brief period. This certainly dented RNT’s legacy gravely. The real reason for the fallout between Mistry and RNT will never be known but it did not fit the persona of RNT. However, he soon corrected the vacuum by appointing a professional and an insider, Chandrasekharan, as Chairman of Tata Sons.  

An Icon Forever

Nevertheless, RNT’s accomplishments and contributions to industry and the Indian economy are so huge that they made these blemishes insignificant. Indeed, the nation viewed RNT as a principled, ethical, and gentlemanly business leader. People loved his persona of grace, humility, thoughtfulness, and his value-driven decisions which became visible at once in his handling of the Tata Finance Company’s episode. When Tata Finance faced a financial crisis in 2001 owing to management’s bad acts, he announced that Tata Group would ensure that every depositor, big or small gets his/her savings back from the company. Following this announcement, he injected needed capital into Tata Finance. He also ensured that the lapses were addressed squarely and appropriately, telling the Group companies that “there is to be no cover up, and the guilty must be punished”.

As a business leader, he often exhibited a certain boldness while making decisions far beyond financial metrics. The public offering of TCS was a nice corporate story that reveals this softer side of RNT’s boldness. As the merchant bankers were grappling to get the highest price for the IPO, RNT had this to say to them: “Are we leaving something on the table for retail investors who bought into the IPO partly due to trust in the Tata name? Will we price such that the post-IPO price moves up and creates confidence in the investor?” This episode well reveals his concern for the welfare of prospective retail investors.

Staying back, as Chairman of Tata Trusts and Chairman Emeritus of Tata Sons, RNT made India’s entry into semiconductor manufacturing happen in a big way. Towards the end, he also fulfilled his last obsession: Tata Sons acquired Air India, but one has to wait and see whether Tata Sons can turn it around, vindicating what RNT once said: “Turning around a loss-making company is socially more honorable than selling it”. That aside, this man of unconventional bets left behind the Tata group with $165 bn in sales, a million employees in a hundred countries, and a market cap of $365 bn as of FY 24 through 26 public listed companies.     

His pursuit of philanthropy, as Deepak Parekh observed, “is legendary both in India and around the world. It is perhaps, in the pursuit of the “perpetual value” of Tata Trusts, that even after the Nano project was pulled out of West Bengal, he stood by his promise and invested close to $75 mn in creating a new state-of-the-art cancer care center in Kolkata. Indeed, his tenacity and resolve to contribute to the cause of the common man were such that Tata Trusts under his chairmanship created several cancer care centers and hospitals across the country.

In 1991, at the request of RNT, Rediffusion created a campaign called “The Company of Man” which depicts how the Tata Group, carrying forward the original vision of Jamshedji Tata— ‘the purpose of an enterprise was to serve the community’—helps people. One day, RNT came to the agency’s office and watched the beautifully written and art-directed campaign. As the work was read aloud to him, he had tears in his eyes. He stood up and said, “This is a great piece of work. But I will never release it.” When asked why, his reply was: “Because if you are a true healer, you do not go around telling people that you are a healer. You just heal”. Narrating the incident, V Shantakumar of Doing Think said that as a creative director, he felt “hugely disappointed, but as a human being he felt proud that he had met such a man”. That was RNT’s spirit of philanthropy.

To conclude, here is an incredible leader—who, driven by a profound love for the country, practiced ‘wise capitalism’ with a deep concern for corporate longevity which enshrines ‘perpetual value’, “Sarve sama hitam” (beneficial for all), that ultimately benefits society at large, whose philosophy merits adaption by India Inc.

**

Leaders to Shun Ahankar and Observe Maryāda

Recently, Mr Mohan Bhagwat, Chief of Rashtriya Swaymsevak Sangh (RSS), delivered a statesman-like address at a periodic training program for RSS workers: “Jo vaastavik sevak hai …who maryada se chalta hai. Us maryada ka paalan karke jo chalta hai, who karm karta hai lekin Karmon mein lipt nahi hota. Usme ahankara nahin aata ki maine kiya” (He, who is a true worker, conducts himself with dignity. Whoever maintains propriety of conduct, he simply performs his duties; never gets attached to them; will not be overtaken by arrogance to claim the credit for the work done). Intriguingly, he also condemned the “bitterness” that was witnessed in the recent election campaign, which in his opinion can jeopardise social harmony.

In this address, which is sounding more as a sermon compelling us to ponder over, there are two keywords the import of which is far-reaching. They are: “ahankar” (arrogance) and “maryāda” (propriety of conduct), for they sound more like a model code of conduct for leaders—be they political or business leaders. 

There is, of course, ample evidence indicating that humble leaders outperform arrogant leaders, and yet we often see leaders having a hard time checking their egos at workplaces. Edgar Schein, Professor Emeritus at the Sloan School of Management, once asked a group of his students what a promotion to the rank of manager would mean to them. A pat reply was: “It means I can now tell others what to do”. It is perhaps, this “know-it-all style of leadership” that broods arrogance among leaders.

In his book, Humble Inquiry that he co-authored with Peter A Schein, Prof Edgar listed three different forms of humility. The first and the most basic form of expression that we generally adopt in social life is: “the humility that we feel around elders and dignitaries”. The second is “the humility that we feel in the presence of those who awe us with their achievements”, which indeed is a standard practice in our professional life. It is the third kind of humility, which he labeled as “here-and-now humility” that he considers as the most relevant for business leaders to achieve the mission of the organization but rarely observed. 

Now, the question is: why practicing “here-and-now humility” is so rare among leaders? Schein offers an explanation: A leader feels that his status turns inferior to the other when he asks him to perform some work for accomplishing his goal. He also feels that he is required to be humble in such situations. Hence, people often would rather prefer to give off the task than to admit their dependency on someone else. 

In Rāmāyana we come across a scene that is worth recalling here. Rāma, amidst the sound of kettle drums and couches, arrives in Lanka. Hearing the sounds, Rāvana summons his ministers to chalk out his further course of action. Malyavan, the maternal grandfather of Rāvana, a sagacious ogre, in an attempt to convince him about his folly, says: “That monarch, O King who is well-versed in the fourteen sciences and follows the path of prudence enjoys sovereignty for a long time and brings his enemies under subjection … our enemies who have embraced virtue and renounced evil are stronger than we …beholding dreadful portents, I foresee the extermination of all the ogres … Therefore, conclude peace, O Rāvana, with Rāma” (VR 6-35:7-37). 

But Rāvana, in his intoxication of power, abuses him thus: “This noxious and harsh utterance … has not caught my ears …I fear I have been told such harsh words by you either because of spitefulness to me, … or because of your predilection to the foe or because you were incited by the enemy to do so”. In that hubris, he goes on to claim, “Of whom will Rāvana entertain fear in an encounter”. Further, he proudly declares: dvidhā bhajyeyam apy evam na nameyam tu kasyacit / … (6-36:11)—I would fain break in two, but would never bend before anyone…” 

And, we all have seen how the fate of such leaders ends. It is thus evident that though ahankar gets attention, it is the modesty that gets results. Which is why, leaders in all walks of life may have to feel confident of themselves to be humble to admit that they don’t have all the answers and have to reach to people for right answers. 

It is from shunning the trait of ahankar, which emanates from self-belief, that Maryāda stems. Maryāda is a finely honed sense of rectitude in one’s behavior. This is an adjective that is often used by Vālmki to define the character of Lord Rāma and present him as the ideal role model. 

We come across a beautiful scene in Yuddhakānda that depicts the unimpeachable courtesy (Maryāda) for which Rāma is known. In the course of great fight with Rāvana, Rāma in his anxiety to stay focused on destroying Rāvana once for all, asks Mātali, the charioteer sent by Lord Indra, to advance the chariot swiftly towards the enemy’s chariot, without confusion and with steady heart and vision. Then suddenly, as if wondering how a mortal like himself could instruct Mātali, an immortal sent by Indra, lord of gods, he hurriedly says: “smāraye tvām—I am reminding you, na śikshaye—not teaching you” (6-106:13). As an occupant of the chariot, it is not wrong of Rāma to instruct the charioteer to operate the chariot in whatever way he wishes to gain advantage over the opponent. But Rāma, the Maryāda Purushottam, man embodied with a sense of honor, not mind to seek charioteer’s help humbly—“I am reminding you; not teaching you”—so that he gets the best of his attention in handling the chariot. That is the excellence of Rāma’s character. And indeed, Mātali, being extremely gratified with these words, drives the chariot as desired by Rāma (6-106:14). 

It is the maryāda sans ahankar that is the most effective and sustainable mindset which serves the leaders who aim at mighty goals in a world full of unknowns. 

** 

Bharat Ratna for PV : The PM Who ‘Empowered’ His Colleagues to Dissent

A leader’s strength reflects more in his ability to absorb the critics and march forward than in silencing them under the threat of power.

A great leader … and one who showed the courage of conviction in leading the nation through the right path of reforms against the heaviest odds” is what Pamulaparti Venkata Narasimha Rao (PV) was in the words of the former President of India, Pranab Mukherjee. 

Lee Hsien Loong, former Prime Minister of Singapore (2004-2020), described him as “A courageous and wise statesman who put India on the path of reform”. For Goh Chok Tong, former Prime Minister of Singapore (1990-2004), Rao was “an international statesman, a quiet but visionary leader of India” and “India is blooming today because of the foundation he laid”. 

In the words of Rao himself, as stated in his book, The Insider, he “climbed ladders and more ladders… feeling all the while that he was on level ground… from patvari to Prime Minister: A long journey from a small Indian village to the capital with no celebration at any stage”. And thus remained PV as “a modest man”, maybe consciously believing that he “has much to be modest about.”

It is destiny that he, a semi-retired politician, was all of a sudden catapulted to the PM’s seat as well as made the president of the Congress Party by the power centers led by Sonia Gandhi, of course not without a reason: His sobriety and the perceived “no threat” from him to the people who were already in commanding positions. 

Once in the saddle, he proved to be a great commander having a sound grip on the task of steering the country through turbulent times, despite inheriting a nation that was facing great threats from insurgents in Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir and economically it was on the brink of bankruptcy—“large and persistent macroeconomic imbalances, low productivity of investment, unsustainable increase in government expenditure, budgetary subsidies grown to an alarming level, excessive and often indiscriminate protection provided to the industry that has weakened the incentive to develop a vibrant export sector, growing current account deficits in the balance of payments, depleted foreign currency reserves to around $1 bn that was barely sufficient to finance two weeks of imports”, etc. 

Faced with a financial crisis of that magnitude, PV—“a courageous and wise statesman” but often dubbed as a consummate backroom politician—in an unprecedented and courageous move, appointed Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister with the responsibility of nursing and strengthening the ailing Indian economy. Through him, like Deng Xiaoping who steered China away from the Maoist policies to market economy during the early 1980s, Rao mustered the courage to gently push India away from Nehruvian economics to a path of liberalization that freed India from the shackles of socialist ideology-driven ‘inward-looking’ growth path. 

The reform process that was launched under him made far-reaching changes: Foreign trade, foreign investment and exchange rate regimes were all redefined. The financial sector was totally overhauled. Of all these reforms, the devaluation of the rupee and the shift in the very exchange rate regime were the fundamental ones, which the RBI could not have achieved but for the wholehearted support from Rao. 

In the words of C Rangarajan, the then Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Rao stood solidly behind the finance minister extending all political support needed to put India on the right economic course. As the ex-governor observed, he was not a reluctant reformer although he did not sound that enthusiastic while these path-breaking reforms were successfully executed. 

He did just what he was supposed to do—watching their implementation from a distance without poking his nose, simply as an elderly statesman. Unlike the common ilk of politicians, he did not make too much noise in implementing these reforms attracting the otherwise avoidable resentment from the staunch followers of the erstwhile regime. 

He had thrown open the door to foreign institutional investors to invest in Indian capital markets and foreign direct investments in many sectors despite strong opposition from powerful industrial houses to such initiatives. The Colas and the likes of IBM who had been banished from India earlier were welcomed back. Being fully convinced about the need for fundamental economic changes, he stood like a rock behind the various reforms that were launched and executed. However, being a wily politician, “He couched his views in such a way that it appealed to the old guard of his party.” To quote the former Governor of RBI, he “always talked of ‘continuation’ when there was really a ‘break’”. 

Rao reformed the country in such a way that he could finally reconfigure the “Hindu growth rate” and, to the surprise of everybody, it leapfrogged to 8% plus. At the same time, he never lost his concern for the poor and the vulnerable as the following lines written by him in a document reveal: “There is, however, one danger which we must recognize and guard against in the ‘opening up’ process. This could lead to wider disparities within the society. To meet this situation, we have to enable the underprivileged sections also to derive the benefit of the new opportunities. This process would naturally need some time to fructify. Until that happens, there has to be a by-pass arrangement whereby benefits reach the lowest rungs of the social pyramid directly from the State. We are doing this”.

 

He accomplished all this in a pretty subdued way, and yet, lost his job. To quote him: “I lost one job trying to implement a socialistic program” (Chief Ministership of Andhra Pradesh while implementing land reforms in the early 1970s) and “as if to balance it, I have also lost another job trying to liberalize what had tended to become insensitive somehow after the socialist process, though not because of it,” and that was the irony which even statesmen of his calibre could not escape from. 

This side of PV’s personality is of course, well-known to everyone for that was what often prized in public or private. But what our younger generation, which is attempting to whisk out of the colonial moorings, should know about PV is the “other side” of him which is unfortunately spoken of less, be it in public or private. 

To appreciate it better, let us first take a look at what the Congress Party is known as, or for that matter, the predominant tilt we as Indians have towards “mai-baap” culture, where everyone is afraid to air his feelings freely. While intervening in the debate on the resolution moved by Morarji Desai on purity and strengthening the organization at the Congress Subjects Committee meeting at Satyamurty Nagar, Avadi on January 20, 1955, and the suggestion made by Algurai Shastri that the resolution should not publicize the malpractices that had crept into the Congress since self-criticism in public simply would put the noose round the necks of Congressmen which other people might use to drag them with, Jawaharlal Nehru said: “I have been president of the Congress and I know from personal experience that there is a lot of impurity in the Congress and even some of the biggest Congressmen are a party to it. Why should we hide these things? Are we to live behind purdah and wear a veil? Algurai Shastri has himself talked to me several times about these impure trends in the Congress and expressed his regret about them. If any member wants to suggest an amendment to the resolution, by all means he can do it, but we must face our weaknesses and drawbacks and the impure trends that have crept in, truthfully and honestly.” 

No one would perhaps disagree if I said that Nehru’s lamentation remained all along a distant dream, till at least PV landed on the Prime Ministerial gaddi. It is not known if it was to compensate for his act of nudging India away from Nehruvian economic policies that Rao wanted to push the Congressmen gently towards what Nehru desired to happen: He did grant allowances to his detractors to air their feelings, views even contrary to the party’s stance and, for that matter, even criticize the leadership without fear and hang-ups. Else, the Tiwaris, Singhs, et al., would not have had the courage to openly question the wisdom of Rao or criticize his acts from public platforms. 

PV’s grace simply radiates from the fact of his maintaining silence over such criticisms. We, however, do not know if this empowering of his colleagues to freely air their opinions which could be quite embarrassing to the power centers and maintaining stoic silence over them was by design, believing in Machiavelli’s principles: “Scorn and abuse arouse hatred against those who indulge in them without bringing them any advantage” and “Prudent Princes and Republics should be content with victory, for, when they are not content with it, they usually lose”, or by default. 

Nevertheless, he did reform the mindset of Indians. He simply emboldened the people to question the “authority” and seek answers. Whether this reform has taken roots as firmly as the economic reforms or not is a different question. What matters here is, a beginning had been made and Rao walked away with that credit. We must salute Rao for watering Nehru’s longings to germinate at least after 40 years. And that is what metamorphosed PV, a politician, into a “wise statesman”. 

PV, the “true father” of India’s nuclear program, besides the much talked about economic reforms, thus richly deserves the Bharat Ratna.

**

Jacinda Ardern, a True Leader!

It is often said that when pols lose power, they wilt and crumple. They even mourn their vanished entourage and perks. It’s of course, obvious, for they were a little while ago ruling the roost and now sitting like a lame duck in their own villa where nothing happens. Loss of power even makes them freaked out. And isn’t that what we all witnessed happening when Joe Biden won the US Presidency!

Much against this norm, on January 19 , Ms Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s Prime Minister bravely announced her resignation stating , “I am leaving because with such a privileged role, comes responsibility to know when you are the right person to lead and also when you are not… I know what this job takes and I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do justice. It is that simple.”

Holding back her tears, Ms Ardern—the world’s youngest female head of a government when she became Prime minister in 2017 at the age of 37—said that February 7 will be her last working day in Prime Minister’s office. She even declared that she would not seek re-election when New Zealand goes to the polls on October 14. That is something unheard of in the world of realpolitik. Yet, there are, of course, the usual journalistic speculations aplenty about the real reason behind her resignation.

Maybe, anticipating such speculations, she even said: “I know there will be much discussion in the aftermath of this decision as to what the so-called real reason was”. She went on saying, “The only interesting angle you will find is that after going on six years of some big challenges, that I am human. Politicians are human. We give all that we can, for as long as we can, and then it’s time. And for me, it’s time. I’m not leaving because I believe we can’t win the election, but because I believe we can and will, and we need a fresh set of shoulders for that challenge.”

Her announcement simply stunned the world. For, seldom such a decision, that too, from a pretty young politician who proved to be a successful leader, ever heard of. The Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, paid his tribute to Ms Ardern saying, she “has shown the world how to lead with intellect and strength…She has demonstrated that empathy and insight are powerful leadership qualities.”

True, Ardern was to navigate New Zealand through unprecedented times. Her response to the deadly Christchurch shootings at two mosques by a lone gunman that killed 51 people—“You may have chosen us, but we utterly reject and condemn you”—has shown a model-antidote to the right-wing populism: she went to the grieving families wearing a hijab to mourn with them. Following the attack she banned military-style semi-automatic firearms just within six days of the incident, besides passing a new law to curb hate speech.

Her calm and measured reaction to the volcanic explosive eruption in Whakaari/White Island in December 2019 which claimed 21 lives was equally praised by the world leaders. Indeed, the photos of her hugging the first responders to comfort them became iconic. Obviously, her praise for them—“They have done an incredible job under devastating circumstances” —sounded pretty true to everyone.

Similarly, her handling the Covid-19 pandemic was proved to be exemplary. She closed the boundaries before a single case was detected and also made observation of quarantine requirements very stringent. As a result, the Covid19-related death rates in New Zealand turned out to be one of the lowest in the developed world. She handled the crisis with sensitivity, empathy and concern: she freely chatted with people on Facebook and shared reliable information and extended reassurance to all those who remained under forced isolation. This made her a darling of the citizens.

She had many firsts to her credit—she was the first leader to bring her baby to the United Nations General assembly meeting just a few months after Neve was born. Addressing the UNO, she made a pragmatic appeal to the members: “If we want the Council to fulfill its purpose of maintaining international peace and security, its practices need to be updated so it is not hamstrung by the use of the veto”. Exhorting the members “to step back from the chaos and ask what we want”, she assured them that the simple concept of “kindness” can guarantee them “peace, prosperity and fairness” to all.

It is this emphasis of her on “politics of kindness” and moral vision rather than political opportunism with a pronounced feminism that made her leadership a phenomenon called “Jacindamania”.

Now, announcing her resignation, she has simply proved to the world that even pols can do the right things at the right time! That aside, her talking about burnout, gave hope to those silent sufferers to talk about burnout at work without fear of the stigma whatsoever. Some psychologists even hope that such open discussion might even help employers to establish support mechanisms in the organizations to help employees successfully overcome burnout at work.  

Burnout is defined as physical and emotional exhaustion, accompanied by decreased motivation and lowered performance at work. According to APA, burnout “results from performing at a high level until stress and tension, especially from extreme and prolonged physical or mental exertion or an overburdening workload, take their toll”.   

Here it is essential to bear in mind that burnout is not a gendered condition. It can affect anyone. Yet, instead of addressing the problem squarely, business managers/leaders have widely stigmatized

As against this reality, unfortunately, reacting to Jacinda’s remarks, misogynists are airing doubts about women’s ability to stand up to the demands of a high-profile leadership role. This is purely unscientific, for it is simply an “occupational phenomenon”.    

Indeed, the bold assertion of Jacinda should help people to freely talk about the impact of burnout and come to terms with the fact that leaders are never meant to be “invincible, and emotionless”. Let us fondly hope that her bold leadership traits would become contagious …

S V Ramamurthy ICS: The Civil Servant Behind the Establishment of Bapatla Agricultural College

Late Sonti Venkata Ramamurthy was born on 1st August 1888 in Visakhapatnam.    He had his early education from the London Mission High School, Visakhapatnam. He was influenced by the Head Master, Daniel Lazarus, who taught him to pay meticulous attention to concrete details of whatever he was attending to. No wonder if it was said that, “as a boy, he was so punctual, that neighbours could set their watches when he left for school.” His father had instilled in him interest for mathematics. He stood first in the Matriculation examination of Madras in 1903.

After finishing his college education from Madras University, he went to Cambridge in 1909 on government scholarship. He did his Masters at the Trinity College, Cambridge. He passed the Indian Civil Service (ICS) examination in 1911. He wanted to appear for the Smith’s Prize in mathematics at Cambridge but as the then Secretary of State could not spare his services, he joined the Indian Civil Service in Madras at the end of 1912. 

Right from the day one of his civil service he evinced active interest in developmental activities. After two years as Development Secretary, he took over the Directorship of Agriculture. He said that it was  the most enjoyable job he held in his entire career. For, agriculture, to him, is a creative activity and believed that man can also take part in its creation. 

As Director of Agriculture of Composite Madras State, he took active interest in agricultural sciences, for he found that it is essential for the development of Indian resources. He was forthright in his observation that British administration took “interest in agricultural research pertaining to only crops such as cotton, jute, groundnut and perhaps sugarcane, which were of high economic value for it”, while neglecting food crops that matter most for Indians. Driven by this belief he focused his attention on the development of agricultural research that catered to local needs. 

As a member of the Advisory Board of the ICAR, he could get sanctioned several research schemes dealing with paddy, cotton, sugarcane, groundnut and millets. He, with ICAR grants to a tune of about Rs 30 lakhs, claimed to have opened several new Research Stations in Madras for conducting research in paddy, cotton, fruit trees, oil seeds and dry farming. How true he was when he said, “selection of a site for a research farm was like selecting a bride or bridegroom”. 

With an eye to find an alternative to Batavia oranges that were popular in coastal Andhra but were found deteriorating and to identify mango varieties that yield two crops in a year, he established a Fruit Station at Kodur in Cuddapah District under the charge of Naik, whom he picked up from Lyallpur Research Station, Punjab. The research farm could evolve improved orange varieties but failed to fulfil Ramamurthy’s wish for a mango variety that could yield regularly two crops a year. It is interesting to note what Ramamurthy said in this regard: “My membership of the Imperial Council of Agricultural Research helped me to do this [research on crops that mattered most to the locals] to an extent which the State Government would not have enabled me to do.” 

Thinking that it would be economically valuable if one could get bottle gourds as long as snake gourds, he asked a research farm to carry out an experiment of crossing the bottle gourd which is short with the snake gourd that is long. The first such cross appeared to have resulted in a snake gourd that was as short as a bottle gourd. Although he encouraged the research officer to pursue the experiment, on his transfer from the post of Director of Agriculture, the experiment “as usual” was discontinued. Similarly, he encouraged research officers to cross varieties of potato, tomato, tobacco and chillies to get a plant with potato as roots, tobacco as leaves, and curried tomatoes as fruit. Such was his enthusiasm for agricultural research. 

According to him, the rise in sugarcane cultivation and sugar production in India was facilitated by the evolution of thin canes at Coimbatore by Sri T.S. Venkataraman. Noticing that these varieties which require much less water have become popular in U.P. and Bihar, he, as Director of Agriculture, asked the Deputy Director of Agriculture in charge of the Anakapalli research farm to send some seed material for being grown in the Krishna district that had large irrigation facilities. But the DDA wrote him a long letter protesting against the premature spread of such canes. He then wired to him: “Obey first, protest next”. Thus, he could get the material and personally had it planted in two places in Krishna district of 10 cents each in 1930 and the results are there for everyone to see: in the next 30 years the use of Coimbatore canes in the Madras State had spread wide becoming the basis for the large expansion of the sugar industry. Such was his enthusiasm and commitment for agricultural research and its transfer to farmers’ fields. 

In 1943, as the adviser for development to the government of Composite Madras State, he delivered Convocation address at the Andhra University, in which the Governor too was present as its Chancellor. Taking advantage of his presence, he, asserting that the development in Andhra had been comparatively neglected in the administration of Madras, hoped that it would be remedied. And having got the nod of the governor, he then got the hydro-electric project scheme on the Muchkund river prepared and got it sanctioned during his tenure. He also got prepared a pilot land utilization scheme at the Araku valley. The other two big projects that he pursued vigorously for improving irrigation facilities and thereby bettering agriculture in Andhra were: construction of a reservoir called SriRamapadasagar on the Godavary at Polavarm, which incidentally he took dear to his heart but failed to get approval and two, Tungabhadra hydro-electric project. 

In his memoirs this civil servant offers a sagely advice that merits our attention: “Whenever an administrator gets trapped in a conflicting zone while making a decision, he should follow the dictates of his mind.” For, that ensures good results, though initially one might encounter some opposition. We come across some such real-life situations of him in his narration, which at times makes us wonder: How forthright he was in airing personal beliefs…! Here is one such interesting incident:“When the Andhra Province was in the offing, I opposed a proposal to have the Province without the capital being at Madras city, jointly with the Madras Province. I did not want the Province anyhow but only in a good form. I had an interview with the Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru and explained my view to him. After hearing me, he asked what Sri Prakasam’s view was. I replied that Sri Prakasam was a politician who could not refuse a Province offered anyhow. I said I was not a politician. We asked for bread. If he could give us bread, he might do so. But if he could not, I asked him not to give us a stone” (page -151).What a courage! And it is of course a different matter that Nehru gave what Ramamurthy precisely asked him not to give. 

He also said: “During the 50 years of my administrative life, food production, land

utilization and development of irrigation and hydro-electric power were my central interests.” With such a foresight and immense enthusiasm for agricultural research and with an irrepressible zeal for developmental needs of common man duly backed by honesty and candour, no wonder if he had played an active role in establishing Agricultural College at Bapatla of coastal Andhra in 1945. 

This Civil servant of yore with an extraordinary interest in mathematics and philosophy and a much-cherished longing for developmental activities, wished for the integration “of science in respect of matter and mind with all their dualities” with that of the “unity of spirit”. He went on saying, “If our faith in God is real and solid, these dualities should be reconciled and integrated. Purna yoga in Indian tradition is not stagnant. There is scope and need to develop its fullness of contents and its dynamism. Purna Yogi is integrated man.” Equating Tielhard’s Omega point with the Indian view to a sphere of spirit, he wished for the development of “an integrated science”, for he believed that the “human prospect” lies in it. 

The befitting tribute that this august institute can pay to one of its proponents, Sir S V Ramamurthy – the first native Governor of Bombay under the British rule, who died on January 19,1964 – and his vision is, striving towards development of such an ‘integrated science’ the transmission of which to its discipulus makes them Purna Yogi[s] whereby they can effectively address the cause of farmers. 

References: 

Ven Bagamudre (2017), Extended Families: A memoir of India, Coteau Books, Canada. 

SV Ramamurthy (1964) Memoirs, Popular Prakashan, Bombay.

Political Parties & Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand’

 

The other day a reader of my blog post on Covid-19, with quite an analytical mind, remarked: “I am glad the blogger has appropriately paid compliments to the Mumbai commissioner Mr Chahal for his commendable handling of the wave… He could have dealt in more detail the two main causes for the surge of second wave one is Kumbh mela and the second reason… the lack of attention of … The US has paid advance amount to Pfizer and booked large number of Vaccine doses even in the 1^st wave itself anticipating 2^nd wave. The blogger should have emphasized on these two super spreading events.” 

True, I should have also dwelt on these missing links, but as I was more concerned about drawing the attention of readers to the excellent work done by Mr Chahal and his dedicated team in addressing the challenge posed by the 2^nd wave so effectively, and kindle a question in their minds: “How is it no other city thought of at least emulating BMC?” I made only passing remark about the issues raised by the reader.

Nevertheless, ever since I read my esteemed reader’s remark, particularly about the US paying Pfizer and BioNTech $1.95 bn as advance to produce and deliver 100 million doses of their Covid-19 vaccine if it proves to be safe and effective and on receiving regulatory approval for emergency use, I have been wondering at this offbeat act of President Donald Trump as early as in July 2020. 

Indeed, the US government had made an attempt to assemble a portfolio of vaccines under its ‘Operation Warp Speed’ programme by entering into such financial agreements with vaccine developers such as Novavax, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and AstraZeneca involving a financial outlay of about $3.70 bn.

I call this move of Mr Trump offbeat, because, a study carried out by Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health found that “errors were committed in the pandemic’s earliest stages.” The report further observed that the Trump’s administration’s initial US travel ban of January 31 was applied only to non-US travellers coming from China though the virus was “already known to be present in Italy, Iran, Spain, Germany and the UK”. It went on to say that “The evidence suggests that ineffective national policies and responses, especially as compared to those of other wealthy nations … have been driving the terrible toll of covid-19 … in the US”.

Nor did President Trump worried of the pandemic: While Dr Robert Kadlee, the top disaster response official at the Health and Human Services Department, was busy in convening the White House corona virus task force as early as on February 21 with an urgent agenda to arrest the spread of virus, President Trump was predicting that by April, “when it gets a little warmer, it [virus] miraculously goes away”. 

Noticing the disregard of the US President to corona virus, Prof. Tim Naftali, clinical associate professor of history at NYU, wrote on January 19, 2021 in The Atlantic: “in the face of a devastating pandemic, he [Trump] was grossly derelict, unable or unwilling to marshal the requisite resources to save lives while encouraging behaviour that spread the disease”. 

But this very President, surprisingly took a very right decision of paying advances to vaccine manufacturers to make the vaccines available—once they have proven their safety and efficacy and regulators have approved them—to vaccinate the citizens with no further loss of time. What a bold decision! 

Intriguingly, this timely and rightful decision of President Trump reminds us of what a Scottish philosopher and economist, Adam Smith said in his famous book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, some 240 years back: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.” 

Of course, Adam smith, introducing this as an economic thought that highlights how surprisingly “… an individual by pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it”, set out the mechanism by which he felt economic society operated.  

Now my wonder is: Are political parties and their leaders any way differently operating from this principle? Take for instance our own political climate, we often hear every political party and its leaders talking about their intent to serve people, particularly the interests of the marginalised, those oppressed and the suppressed lot of the society. Leaders establish new parties to serve dalits, minorities and the downtrodden better. Even leaders change parties—yes, even quite frequently—all in their anxiety to serve people better. But the underlying intent is obvious: winning the elections, isn't it?  

Isn’t that in their endeavour for winning the elections, political parties/leaders also do good things for the society without even knowing how much good one is doing? In other words, a leader is often “led by an 'invisible hand' (the desire for winning the next election) to promote an end which was no part of his intention”. 

That’s precisely the motive behind Mr Trump's paying advances to vaccine manufacturers for developing and supplying vaccines quickely—just three months ahead of Presidential elections. It is because of the invisibility of such underlying reasons behind leader;s action,often times we fail to understand easily why political parties and their leaders do what they do, why do and do not take certain decisions and the timing of such decisions, etc.   Sometimes their acts, of course, also prove futile to their own interests! 

In the same vein, some of their decisions go against the interests of the ruled. Hence, it is essential for leaders to always remember what Adam Smith said: “The learned [leader?] ignore the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of the ideas of their imagination". Indeed, it is expected of a leader to tolerate multifaceted truths and divergent points of view rather than "Subjection to his Empire tyrannous". And that's what commoners aspired for, since ages.  

Any way that is the game of politics, but what India needs in these Covid-days is  not quarrelling on who did what wrong and when, rather it is time for political parties of all hues to bury their differences, at least temporarily, and to come together as a monolith to focus on annihilating the corona virus from India sooner!