LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT 76. LEADERSHIP AND EDUCATION

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

76. LEADERSHIP AND EDUCATION

Great leaders are educators- not so much in words, as by example.They don't teach formally- their lives do- naturally.

Gandhi and Adam Smith

Mahatma Gandhi taught- both by example and in words. An important aspect of his life was the volume of his writing. He wrote on many things, always clarifying the point and making his approach clear. On Swadeshi, Khadi, Swaraj, evils of drinking, nature cure, education (nayi talim) he kept on writing and educating us all his life. 

The other thing he taught us by his example was that you can really serve the society from wherever you are, even when you do not have official position or power. Just by choosing the ways you spend your money, you can enrich or impoverish your immediate society. This was his definition of Swadeshi.  He said we cannot serve the country- we are small, our capacity limited. But we can serve our neighbour- no one was too small for that. This is the real meaning of swadeshi.He gave us a practical formula for this: Recall the face of the poorest person you saw. Ask yourself whether the money you are about to spend would help him. We have learned all the words, but forgotten the formula, and neglected to follow it in practice.

Just contrast this with the wisdom propounded by Adam Smith as the foundation of a market economy: 

In civilized society he (man) stands at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons.......But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it out of their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour.... 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 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.

The Wealth of Nations: Book I, Chapter II


Today, we follow neither Adam Smith, nor the Mahatma!

After Gandhi, Rajaji!

After Gandhiji, it is only Rajaji who wrote to educate the public on matters of national importance. And he wrote over many years, week after week, till about a week before he died at 93! He came back from Delhi in 50 and retold the itihasas in Tamil for general readers . But Sri Prakasa as governor brought him back  to  active politics  to steer Madras as CM  in 1952  ( when he was 73),when Kamaraj as TNCC president had felt unequal to deal with the communists and the strong Telugu contingent. 'Malignant stars have brought me into politics again' he said. This proved prophetic as he had to resign in two years in the face of a controversy over his educational policy. Kamaraj had said that he could give up the educational policy and continue as CM, but Rajaji said that he had brought in the policy after careful thought in the interest of the people and he would not cling to the post by giving it up. I personally felt that for once, Rajaji  was not right. He could have introduced the policy, changing the name and some of the explanations he gave. He certainly did not read the signs of the times, in Madras. I wondered whether he had lost his famous foresight. C.Subramaniam, his trusted lieutenant and loyalist , said that Rajaji had also committed a strategic and tactical blunder in introducing the policy without a discussion in the cabinet! Those were the days when parliamentary procedures were respected and followed! ( not the days of Amma, when the  cabinet is a bunch of pages). I really wonder what made Rajaji do it , in that manner! After all, politics is the art of the possible. Diplomacy is necessary even for good things. As a lawyer, surely Rajaji knew that bad advocacy can spoil a good case!

But 1954 also saw the birth of another Rajaji. The man who joined the Mahatma and built up the congress in Madras now rose against it on an all-India basis. He rose against the Avadi resolution of Socialist Pattern. After writing about it individually for some years, he started the Swatantra Party in 59 when some noted all-India figures joined him. He relentlessly analysed and criticised the economic policies of Nehru, his megalomania, the political totalitarianism it was heading into, the absurd foreign policy-  every aspect of the Nehru regime. It was unfortunate that two notable figures of the time- J.P Narayan and J.B Kripalani did not understand him and join him then- it took 15 years more and the Emergency for them to realise the truth of what Rajaji had been writing. They later admitted their fault. Even Lohia the socialist once regretted that he had not joined forces with Rajaji! And it took 30 years and economic bankruptcy for the congress govt to realise the truth of the economic analysis of Rajaji!

In between, Rajaji also opposed the imposition of Hindi in Madras. Here too , there was an irony. In 37,he had himself introduced Hindi in Madras and become unpopular among the general public there, Now, 30 years later, he opposed Hindi and became unpopular in the North! He had opposed the linguistic division of states and the creation of Andhra and also the naming of Madras as its capital! He had given a formula on Pakistan which no one liked. He had opposed Quit  India and become unpopular and congressmen never forgave him for that!  To a casual reader, it would appear that he was contradicting himself and burning his politcal boats periodically! Who would have the patience to understand the evolution of his thoughts in response to changing situations? Who would understand that consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds? But he also got new boats as he burned the old. The opposition to statism, to permit-licence-quota-raj and a turn towards a free economy was the last boat he steered. This was the policy adopted in 1991 in the name of Reforms, though it is still halting and half-hearted and at times looks phoney!

Rajaji wrote regularly on all these current issues. He found time to read other serious literature and wrote about them . He wrote about world issues. He wrote about personalities. A two-volume collection of his writings under the title 'Satyameva Jayate' was brought about some years ago.It is not available now. His writing was not polemical.It was not negative- though criticism and he always made constructive suggestions. Herein lies the educational value  of his writing.

But one caution is necessary. Once, delivering an address in Pune, he said that just as a coal miner did not understand the chemical properties of coal, Gandhian workers had not understood the real value of Gandhian thought! In his own case the thought is there but times have changed. Free enterprise is not today what it was in his days! Market economy does not function on the basis of competition. Technology is such that small and medium enterprises cannot survive today. Govt.-big business nexus is the reality of economic life. Economic independence of nations has been swallowed by the new world economic order. The mega forces controlling the world economy are invisible,not fully understood and beyond the control of national govts. So, even the most ardent admirer of Rajaji cannot advocate an unconditional adoption of his recommendations now, just as many ideas of Gandhi himself are outdated. But we can certainly learn from them. 

Knowledge and responsibility

 Knowledge imposes a burden- of responsibility. In the 70s, the official khadi establishment came up with "polyvastra"- a blend of polyester with cotton, woven in the khadi channels. I had long been a student of Gandhi, and knew his basic definition of Khadi: hand-spun and hand-woven natural cotton (or woollen) fabric. How could the synthetic polyester be brought under  the khadi name? I was in Ahmedabad then, visiting Gandhi's Sabarmati Ashram every alternate day. I could not stomach this. I wrote to Navjivan Trust, and the KVIC that this was a misuse of the khadi name, that they were doing injustice to Gandhiji. Some reply I got from one of them,saying khadi was not getting popular, that it had to be promoted, that polyester was being increasingly used by people and so, using it with cotton under khadi would promote its use! I said that   khadi  had been defined by Gandhiji and we could not fool around with it;he would certainly not have approved of polyester, as it was a chemical product, not a natural fibre, hand spun, as defined by Gandhi. There was no response from them!

Gandhiji had created the entire Khadi movement as a voluntary private initiative of free individuals,without official patronage or support; after Independence, it became a govt. outfit and lost its orientation! We failed to learn from Gandhiji.

Learning on the job

In 35 years of service, I attended many training programs, seminars,workshops, etc on motivation, leadership and so on. I heard so many people speak, some eloquently. But I did not meet managers or bosses or executives who actually were leaders and exhibited leadership qualities- either in the govt or in the PSUs- except two individuals.

Both of them were my bosses- ten years apart. Both of them were not given much to talking. But each action of theirs and interaction with them was a learning situation. The message went in, quietly. They lived their principles.

One was about to retire in a few months. He was only an old matriculate, but with sound knowledge and language. He taught me to treat the employees fairly, never to take advantage of their weakness, never to use office position to settle personal scores,never to use flowery language when simple things would do, be simple and direct in notings.He taught me the meaning of 'effective communication'.

It came about this way.

His youngest son was in the 10th or or standard and daily he would visit him in the office. The boss would give him some work and keep him busy. One day he came with an assignment to write an essay on some subject to submit to school. The boss asked me to write something to help the boy. I took it as an opportunity to impress the boss, and wrote a big essay, giving all the quotations I could bring in, using the choicest language. The boss read it and said: 'you were asked to write something to help a boy in the 10th std, but you tried to show what you knew.. Will the boy understand? What is the point in writing something when the person for whom it is intended cannot understand? Do not use a big or difficult word, when a simple one would do. Address the person and his needs.Do not exhibit your knowledge unnecessarily.' I learned what communication meant. Never again did I repeat the mistake.

This boss  taught me the importance of following correct procedures under all circumstances. Once an employee was found to have committed a grave error. He was a good worker with a clean record of 20 years. His department head wanted to help him and so did not want to report the matter in writing. I was handling personnel matters and so told me his position. I saw the service file of the employee and agreed with the  officer that the employee had good track record and deserved sympathy. We both went to the boss and reported the matter. He did not agree and asked the officer to record the incident and submit the report as required under the rules. After he left, he told me: 'You are young and inexperienced. You are right in pleading for an employee with a good record, over an honest error. But you should do it in the proper manner. Follow the procedure, go through the disciplinary proceedings. But since I am the final authority, submit to me for lenient treatment in the light of past record. On the contrary, if  the matter is not reported, it would set a precedent and even serious cases may be suppressed. It would be cited by the union in other cases, even where leniency was not justified. You would also be compromising your position and become vulnerable.' Over the next 30 years of service I realised the truth of this.There are enough ways to do good and render justice, even while following the rules!

This boss also taught me what was magnanimity-forgiveness, Christian forgiveness. He was a disciplinarian and had initiated some proceedings against some employees. The union took it up and issued circulars against him, some of which were objectionable in language and content. He initiated defamation proceedings in court. The employees' lawyers knew that there was a case, and its consequences. In league with the boss's own lawyers, they managed to drag the proceedings  till the last day of his service! On that day, the judge was to deliver his verdict. In the court, he told the boss that  the charges were proved and enquired what would be the official line if the verdict was delivered. The boss said that it was a criminal case and if the employees were found guilty, they could even be dismissed from service.The lawyers knew it of course, and there was a hush . Then the boss added: 'My lord, I am retiring today. The boys are young and do not know. I don't want the boys to lose their service, but I want them not to do such a thing in future to anyone. If they apologise even now, I am prepared to withdraw the case.' The boys were brash, and adamant but the lawyers persuaded them to realise the consequences and apologise. They did. The judge allowed the case to be withdrawn, with the advice that the union should issue a circular about the apology.

The other boss taught me to groom subordinates, to delegate authority, to be innovative on the job, to exercise judgement and take decisions and face the consequences boldly. 'If you take a hundred decisions some are bound to go wrong- that is how it works; but taking decision is the only way to take correct decisions. Don't fear- the system will protect honest mistakes.' He also taught me that powers should be delegated to subordinates after ascertaining their suitability ,  but once delegated, I should not needlessly interfere and undermine their confidence or authority. He himself demonstrated this in two vital cases.  

Once a delegation of local chamber of commerce came to meet him over a matter which pertained to my dept. He was the boss and could certainly have handled them. Instead, he received them, talked to them nicely  and told them: "Gentleman, so and so is the officer handling this matter. You can meet him and have the thing sorted out'. So he sent them on to me; and before they came, he told me on the intercom about it and also advised me: ' I have sent them to you because you are handling this subject. I have no interest.Handle it your own way, take your own decision.' One can realise how much this would have enhanced my standing in the eyes of the Chamber! And how much it  enhanced by responsibility! How many bosses would do it , when they want to corner all the 'glory'?

The other occasion was when there was a labour problem in my division. The union found that I would not yield, stopped work and nothing moved in the dept. up to 4p.m. The union leaders then went to the boss. He was then leaving for Delhi for official work. The union wanted him to intervene and tell me what to do. He would have nothing of it. 'He is dealing with the matter and settle with him'. He left for the airport, but on the way, he stopped somewhere and telephoned me: 'The union boys came to me as I was leaving. But this is your subject and I do not want to interfere or influence you. You know the matter better and take your decision.' Again, how much this would have boosted my standing in the union! This also made me aware that now I had the added responsibility of the interests of the boss! Above all, while he left the decision to me, he hept his position as the final, appellate authority!

Incidentally, both these bosses were Christians- one Goan, one Mangalorean, from traditional families. They were good, practising Christians, but not  outwardly showy. In 35 years' service, I worked under many bosses, but did not meet others like them. There were many pious and outwardly religious people, but not 'leaders'. They have been my teachers and mentors.

Marrying a ghost!

There is a saying with us that if you marry a ghost, you cannot refuse to climb  the drum-stick tree! May be, we would call it occupational hazard, now.

One aspect ( or problem) of rising in the hierarchy is the duty to entertain and be entertained. It involved groups, and at times individuals.The hardest part was to entertain non-vegetarians, and also those with drinking habits. 

This was particularly hard for me. I had passed up an opportunity to join the private sector soon after college because of this very problem.

I was liked by my college teachers and principals. Once, just as the final M.A exams were over and I was preparing to leave the hostel, the principal, Fr.T.A.Mathias sent for me. As I went to his quarters, I found another person sitting there at the table, and we had tea. Then, father told him : "this is the one I was talking to you about." We then had some discussion for some time on current economic issues and developments. I was a strong advocate of free enterprise (from a theoretical angle), against planning, admirer of constitutional monarchy of the British type, liked English classical poets. I did not know who the person was, and it was impolite to ask; since I was in the presence of the principal, I had to impress him! So, I went on talking on all these subjects, at my argumentative, passionate best! About an hour later, we had another round of tea and I was granted leave to leave. The next morning , the principal sent for me again. He told me: " You idiot, you did not know who he was and went on talking! He had wanted to ask you certain things, but you did not give him much chance! Luckily, he liked the subjects, though not the vehemence and the passion with which you spoke! He is my brother Thomas, General Manager with Hindustan Lever. You may say, he sort of interviewed you! He asked you to apply for a position as executive trainee with them , as soon as your results are out. He is arranging to send you the form. He said he will get you the interview up to the GM level- beyond that will be on your performance. But learn to talk less." Well, I got the form in a few days. But as I went through, I realised I had to develop lot of 'socialising' skills. It also involved adopting certain Westernised ways.I was basically a loner, happy with books and limited company.And I was a nationalist, not withstanding my liking for English Constitution and literature! So I did not apply!I can't say who lost in the bargain- me or Hindustan Lever! It  happened  50 years ago but looks like yesterday!

So, it was now ironical that after 25-30 years, I had to develop those very social skills- partying and all that meant! I missed most parties, attended the unavoidable ones in my official role. In the process I met some remarkable men. 

Once in a Delhi party, I was standing in a corner, with a glass of soft drink. How many  could  one have in that intensely cold AC hall? I had to hold one as long as I could, pretending to sip but not swallowing- so that they would not keep filling! I did not know, but one person had been watching me! He came over, and we fell to talking. I found out that he was also a teetotaller, and had been seeking a kindred spirit! We discovered many common interests. He was heading a management training institute and later gave me opportunities to lecture there!

The other incident was at Bhubaneswar. There was an All-India conference of some trade associations and I was asked to represent my institution. I wanted to avoid, knowing what such things involved, but my boss, who rather liked me,  and whom I respected, said: 'You fellow, you refuse to go abroad. You should at least go here. These are opportunities for you to meet people outside your own field , and also to project a proper image of the organisation. Put up with small inconveniences, but go.'

So I went. It was a grand,gala affair, in the Krishna Oberoi.  The mornings would be taken up with business matters; in the evening there would be cultural programs. One evening, there was a Hindustani flute recital. I went there , but the attendance was rather thin. I sat in a corner. I did not know anything about Hindustani music, but the artist was playing Desh raga- one of the only two or three I could identify! I was enjoying thoroughly, with all the body gestures as I was sitting unobserved- so I thought! I was wrong- some one had been observing me! He came over and started talking about music. I knew he was a delegate to the conference, but nothing more. He was surprised that a South Indian was enjoying Hindustani music.I said it was the only raga I could readily identify and so was enjoying. He then said that Hindustani music gave large scope for improvisation, whereas Carnatic music was lyric-based and restricted the scope. I did not want to leave, though I really did not know much about any music. I gave my impression. I told him, the essence of music was to experience the rasa of bhava; that there was both raga bhava and sahitya bhava; that while Hindustani rasikas could only enjoy the raga, we could enjoy both. Then I told him improvisation consisted in delineating the raga where good artists had their own styles, that even the Sahitya was not interpreted in the same way by all and these gave scope for manodharma and improvisation. Finally, I said as if I had discovered, that Hindustani music was majestic and went up in endless tiers of swara- like a temple tower. But where was the murti? I said the murti was found only in Carnatic music, with its Sahitya! If one followed the lyrics and their meaning, there certainly was a sense of completion or purnam, whereas in Hindustani music it was all swara play and it could go on endlessly, without leaving a sense of completion! He just stared at me , smiled and said I should get some acquaintance with Hindustani music to appreciate its beauty and superiority!

 It was now past dinner time and he asked why I had not gone for dinner. I told him that the food there was mostly non-vegetarian, and I found it difficult to get vegetarian items I liked and so I skipped it. He told me he too was a vegetarian and experienced the same difficulty. But he was a businessman travelling all over the world and so he would always carry something from home! He invited me to his room. There we shared some Gujarati items! All along, we had not introduced ourselves! Now at parting we exchanged cards. His read: Arvind Parikh. And the company name. 

On reaching my place, I found a packet waiting for me. It was an LP record of a Sitar recital by - Arvind Parikh, autographed by him! I got a shock! My God! He was trained Hindustani Pandit, disciple of Ustad Vilayat Khan! and I had been showing my ignorance before him! And he was also chairman of a company! But what humility and greatness on his part! He revealed neither during the conversation! The corporate world hides some great gems!

Networking

One thing is for sure. In service or business, it is good to know  and cultivate people- what is called net-working. It may look silly, but certain things like smoking, having a drink, playing cards together, etc do promote a sense of closeness. A smoker always enjoys the company of another- etiquette requires that one offers a cigarette to the other person first; moderate drinkers always enjoy company of each other. Such associations last. It is only the IAS cadre that is closely knit without any of these- because they have raw power which binds them. I often feel it works like the mafia.

This is the value of sending your children to a famous college. The education standard may be poor ( where is it high, any way?)  but it affords great opportunities to get to know people who will be somebody some day.

One middle-level manager I knew used to tell us that he was career minded, which meant boss-minded. He would manage to handle matters which brought him into frequent contact with the boss  and do things the boss liked. He was sure of himself. He left one organisation and joined another, on a rise. Later he became the chairman of a PSU. I found that he had class-mates who had joined the IAS, and they would somehow ensure that he too got a rise periodically like them! I know how bank chairmen used to cringe before Dy.Secretaries! This is not networking,though! And it used to do rounds in banking circles: those officials of banks posted to Delhi in their regional/zonal offices  as DGMs/AGMs would get selected as EDs faster! But I can say on experience that progress in career in PSU does not depend on merit. Merit cannot be objectively defined or properly assessed. It sure helps to have godfathers in the ministry- as no PSU is really autonomous even in internal matters. Only that helps, or luck or karma! The Indian insight is: Padavi Purvapunyanam! Once we understand this, we will take things in our stride, and have no regrets!