 |
| Indian Army in action during an 'Ambush' Source: Google Images |
There are TWO very
simple sets of traits that I have always truly admired in a LEADER:
the first set of traits covers the personal aspect and is about genuine
humility, being truly down to earth and having absolutely no airs; the
second set covers the professional aspect and is about providing a
clear and firm direction to the team amidst a dynamic
environment, meticulously monitoring progress and tracking key
actions to closure, ability to make quick and firm decisions with
complete conviction, provide unequivocal support to the team
and earn their unwavering trust. SUCCESS is all about doing
COMMON things UNCOMMONLY well and there is no secret sauce to it. And
true leaders simply adhere to this adage. While there are many successful
leaders, I have a special and deep sense of respect and admiration for
leaders who are a rare blend of the traits that I mentioned above.
The first image that usually comes to my
mind when I think of ‘leadership’ is that of the corporate world
and CEOs who made a huge impact to the world of business in terms of either
their innovative strategies and visionary thinking; audacious or unique
leadership styles; transforming or radically realigning a firm’s core business;
complete turnaround of a sick firm and so on. Some of my top favorites over the
years include the likes of Jack Welch, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Bill
Gates, John Chambers, Dhirubhai Ambani, Ratan Tata and N R Narayana Murthy.
It is not necessary that all these leaders exactly fit the mold of the
leadership style or have all the traits that I mentioned at the beginning.
These are the leaders who inspired me for different reasons and left an
indelible mark in my mind. While I was certainly cognizant that many great
leaders also existed outside the corporate world in myriad fields such as
government, politics, military, education, economics, fundamental research,
medicine etc.; those leaders would not usually create a significant impression
on my mind perhaps owing to the way it has been conditioned over the
years.
After exploring for leadership role
models outside the corporate world for more than 2 years, Manohar
Parrikar was one man whom I finally zeroed in on. I believe that he
personifies most of the traits that I mentioned above and is indeed an
embodiment of authentic leadership. For starters, Manohar Parrikar is the Union
Minister for Defence Affairs, Government of India which means that he is at the
helm of the Indian Armed Forces and has the bottom-line for both: formulating
strategic, tactical and operational plans or policies on all defence
related matters and ensuring their effective execution by
providing leadership, essential wherewithal and support in form of legislative
measures or budgets needed for the success of the same.
Around 2 years ago when I started my
search for role models of strong leaders outside the corporate world,
an IIT graduate had just become the Chief Minister of an
Indian state, in the aftermath of an anti-corruption movement that rocked the
country following which, a new political party founded by him won the elections
in that state. This was an epochal event in Indian history which marked the
dawning of a new political era reflecting the changed mind sets and
expectations of the Indian people. It was also widely celebrated by people
across the country as well as the Indian diaspora in various countries. India
did not have a great history of well-educated men and women joining politics
and winning elections and hence this event attained a lot of
significance. I was very impressed with this profile of leadership and
believed that this has indeed sown the seeds for the future generation of
Indian political leaders.
The fact that an IIT graduate became the
Chief Minister of an Indian state created waves among the educated elite in
India and encouraged many of them to join politics. Another striking thing
about him which was widely being discussed in the media and citizens across the
country was his humility and austerity. The new Chief Minister insisted on
using his own vehicle and stayed at a modest government accommodation not
befitting a Chief Minister of an Indian state. This style of functioning was
unheard of in India, where the post of a Chief Minister brought with it all the
accompaniments of a life style filled with grandeur and royalty. No wonder the
Indian press went gaga about the Chief Minister with an IIT background who was
also an embodiment of austerity and humility. The press indeed spared no
efforts to ensure the person who had changed the history of Indian politics was
given maximum possible coverage in across all types of media spanning across
the length and breadth of the country. I was by now completely hooked on to
this new leadership style. The only thing that worried me was the lack of
administrative experience or even subject matter expertise in the fields
related to executive governance, policy making and legislative affairs. For
even the greatest strategy or plan to succeed, it needs to be supported up by
an aggressive execution engine that is well oiled with experience.
"This was a clear weak point that I
felt could one day become the Achilles heel".
At that point of time, I happened to
read an article in a remote corner of a news magazine with a contrarian
perspective vis. a vis. the view in the national media. The article expressed a
view that probably national media was placing an undue and even unwarranted
emphasis on the new Chief Minister, his educational background and for that
matter even austerity. And then it went on to talk about a person called Manohar
Parrikar. I had never heard Parrikar’s name before, wondered what he had to
do with the new Chief Minister and thus continued reading the article. I
discovered that Manohar Parrikar was the Chief Minister of a western
Indian state and was in that post for the last 7 years. He was a very
simple and down to earth person who maintained a very simple and private life
style, preferred to stay in a middle class house that he owned, never wanted
media attention and enjoyed his privacy. He was loved and respected by the
people of his state as he was not only extremely honest and sincere but also
ensured that he got things done. A lot of development on many fronts had
happened in that state which did not receive much coverage in the media as the
leader of that state genuinely wanted to maintain a simple and low profile.
Manohar Parrikar believed that his job was only to ensure the people of his
state actually benefited from the welfare and development schemes
and did not bother much about publicity.
As I went further down, I also learnt
that Manohar Parrikar was an engineering graduate from an institute in
a neighboring state called IIT, Bombay and that another
gentleman by the name Nandan Nilekani was his classmate at that prestigious
institute. Once I finished reading that article I felt very happy to hear
about a truly humble, genuinely down to earth and a very well educated leader
who also ensured that the goods were indeed delivered. I decided to
keep a close watch on this gentleman named Manohar Parrikar.
The 2014 General Elections in India
resulted in Modi Administration being swept to power with a huge
majority. That was a time when the eyes of the entire world were on India
and how it would move ahead under the new administration. The new
Administration triggered a few tectonic shifts in the overall direction as
well as priorities of the nation. Foreign Policy and Defence Policy were
two areas that were long due for an overhaul and these were actually very
pivotal as these would play a key role albeit indirectly in: securing
the economic future of the nation, maintaining an equilibrium and stability in
South Asia, furthering ties with like-minded nations, increasing our bargaining
power in the comity of nations, enhance our visibility and gaining respect in
the international fora, encouraging foreign investment and technology transfer
in critical areas etc.
When the new administration took over in
May, 2014, the Indian Armed forces were battling on many fronts against
all odds despite challenges such as outdated equipment, inadequate financial
resources and most importantly absence of a clear direction, definitive
strategy and supporting policies from a government afflicted by severe policy
paralysis and extremely slow decision making. The new administration
wanted to make a significant impact and changes in this area and this needed a
very strong leader, with rich leadership experience in government together with
an established and proven track record in delivering results, at the helm of
the Indian Defence Ministry. Manohar Parrikar was appointed as the new
Union Minister for Defence Affairs.
Manohar Parrikar knew that as the first
step, morale of the troops on the ground had to be improved; their self-respect
and honour increased multi fold. He took quick decisions pertaining to the
financial resources and budgetary allocations needed for their welfare. Some of
the initial gestures, such as asking the officers in uniform not to clap in
response to his address as it would undermine their honour or asking the local
armed forces officers not to receive him at the Airport, had a cascading effect
down the chain. These gestures might appear symbolic but did have a
significant impact on the honour and self-esteem of the Indian armed forces.
Parrikar also took a very firm and decisive stand on the way the troops on the
border out posts should react to foreign incursions and unprovoked firing which
had been a common feature for several decades along the International Border
and Line of Control. He made it very clear that India cannot afford to
lose even a single soldier on the war front due to poor policies or weak
response or slow decision making and steps were immediately taken to shift the
locus of decision making closest to the battle field. He also assured the
troops that he was completely behind them and he would assume complete
responsibility and support them in the decisions taken by them in the interest
of the nation. This goes a long way to improve the morale of the troops on the
ground whose sacrifices over the years have kept our nation intact. I do not
recollect any leader at the helm of the Indian Defence Ministry who clearly and
firmly voiced his opinions on issues that really mattered in the battle field,
in the real line of fire and also followed them up with concrete actions.
From what I understand, the troops on
the border have had to exercise a lot of restraint when provoked by the enemy
even till today. The Border Outposts and even the Regional Army Commanders many
a time had to consult and seek the opinion of the decision makers at the
Defence Ministry in New Delhi to decide on the extent of retaliation they could
resort to even if it meant that precious lives were lost during the time taken
by the decision making process. This placed our troops at an uneven footing as
they had to abide by a very restrictive set of rigid rules and processes
whereas the enemy did not have to abide by any rules or processes whatsoever.
It was refreshing for the nation to see a lot of tweets in the last few
weeks from the Border Security Force and Indian Army officers that the
unequivocal support and quick decision making by the new administration has
greatly boosted the morale of the troops manning the border and that
this was never seen or experienced in the earlier years.
Traditionally ever since the Nehruvian
days, India has maintained a “gentlemanly” attitude towards our aggressors. India has always been very soft with
its aggressors and let them off scot-free without significant punitive actions.
All through its history, India has never attacked a foreign nation. And when
attacked by foreign nations, we defended our country very well and were
successful in driving away the foreign troops. However we never leveraged our
position of dominance vis. a vis. our enemy, which was usually the case towards
the last stages of the war, to teach them a lesson so that they will never
repeat their misadventures. It was our standard approach to seek UN
intervention which usually led to diplomatic discussions and negotiations to
resolve the issue on EQUAL terms and at times it even meant compromises from
our side.
“We never took advantage of our
dominant position in the war to negotiate from a position of superiority and
benefit from that. We stuck to the tenets of the international law when the
enemies were openly disregarding them even if it meant that it demoralized our
troops and placed them at an uneven footing”.
In some of the earlier wars involving
our neighbors, Indian Armed forces occupied vast swathes of enemy territory
during the war which made the enemy to ultimately surrender and raise the 'white
flag' fearing imminent defeat. Such occasions could have been utilized
for driving a hard bargain on contentious and long pending issues with
neighbors and resolving them permanently and for good. But the “gentlemen”
that we were, we usually preferred to follow all the applicable protocols laid
out by the International Law down to the last comma or semi-colon and always
sought to negotiate on equal terms.
“I am not at all trying to even
remotely suggest that war mongering is good for the country or that we should
adopt a hawkish attitude towards others”. I would never suggest that!! The
point I am trying to make here is that "we are actually at the other
extreme end and we need to swing the pendulum atleast to the middle".
Let's look at a case in point. In the
1971 war, the Indian army was in a very dominant position of strength and the
enemy was completely obliterated. India was clearly and certainly on a high
ground both morally and militarily. It was a victory like never before and no
one could even dare to question Indian superiority even for the sake of
argument. The liberation of the territories of what was then called as
East Pakistan and subsequent birth of Bangladesh was completely and
unquestionably attributable to India’s might. And India naturally wielded a
lot of power and influence over the liberated territory not only due to its
role in the war but also because of the physical presence of its armed forces
on that territory. It was a known fact that India had boundary related issues
with East Pakistan in those days and the least we could have done is to have
resolved them using our position of superiority and strength, closing them once
and for all. We never chose to go along that path in 1971. And it was only last
month that these issues got resolved after negotiations on equal terms, a good
44 years after the war for liberation of Bangladesh ended.
While we do not need to be a bully, we
also need not be humble, soft and well-mannered gentlemen who
always try to please others. Unfortunately the world only recognizes power and
might, either economic or military or both. And if we have to be respected by
the outside word, we as a nation should strongly assert our self and let
the world know by our actions in clear and no uncertain terms that we mean
business and that we will not tolerate any attempt to attack our sovereignty,
individuality or self-esteem.
“There are inextricable
linkages between fear, respect and deterrence. Fear often leads to respect or
deterrence or both”.
The world should know in unequivocal
terms that India is not a nation that anyone can take for granted or mess with
either politically or economically or even militarily. And for this to happen
we need to demonstrate by real deeds and actions on all fronts. It does not
help to merely repeat what we have been saying for years. As a nation we
need to adopt a “strategic” approach to our Defence and External Affairs.
We have been stuck in a “reactive”, “wait and watch” or even “sitting on the
fence” mode over the last several decades. This approach is at best tactical
and usually operational in nature. Unless we carry out a complete makeover
embracing the “strategic” mode in the critical areas such as Defence and
External Affairs, the future of our nation will remain uncertain on all
fronts.
Our leaders should treat our country the
way a CEO treats his firm in the corporate world and should clearly delineate
the nation's strategy covering the following aspects at the minimum=>
TOP LEVEL STRATEGY
1. What is the ‘vision’ for our nation on
Defence and External Affairs front?
2. What is the core philosophy or ideology
that drives this vision and the policies that fall out from this vision?
3. What role and influence do we envisage
for our nation on the world and regional stages?
4. Where do we aspire to see our nation
going forward on these fronts in 5 years, 10 years and 20 years?
5. What are the strategic defence plans to
address the existing threats or potential threats that could occur to us in
future? How do we prevent or neutralize their occurrence?
6. What are the various permutations and
combinations that could happen in the international defence alliance formations
in response to a threat being realized and how do we brace up for the different
scenarios or possibilities? What is our best bet and response for each
possibility?
7. How do we want the rest of the world to
perceive our nation? What should our national brand or identity reflect to the
outside world?
8. Where do we want our nation to stand
from an economic, diplomatic and military stand point vis. a vis. the comity of
nations on the world stage and regional stage?
DRILL DOWN STRATEGY
1. What is our stand regarding the
formation of strategic partnerships and deep relationships with nations whose
support we direly need to achieve our vision?
2. Do we completely align with one or two
leading powers fully and unambiguously on all fronts or do we have a tiered
relationship or partnership model comprising of a basket of closely knit
relationships whose nature is based on the strategic importance of each
specific nation?
3. What is the nature of support that we
will get from our partners on various fronts in the face of an external threat?
How reliable is the partner and what is his level of commitment to us?
4. Do we vocally and unambiguously stand by
our top strategic partners at the time of need and stop worrying about how the
other friendly nations would react? To what extent do we support our partners
in the event of threat?
5. Which nations should we partner with for
defence related technology in the areas such as Fighter Jets, Aircraft
Carriers, Long range Missile technology, Advanced Software Simulators and
Weapon Control Systems etc.?
6. How do we simultaneously develop the
advanced technology know-how and manufacturing capabilities within our nation
in the long term?
7. How do we ensure we do not get overly
dependent on one nation in any area and how do we ensure we always have a
few alternate options?
Today the world is increasingly
becoming more and more interdependent and no one nation is completely
self-reliant. Our national strategy should be crafted keeping in view as to
how we could leverage our strengths and offer help and support in the form of
services or goods to our partner nations. At the same time based on the above
and looking at the gaps or shortcomings that we have in our defence arsenal, we
should negotiate and obtain the goods and services from our partners to plug
these gaps. No country can survive on its own in the world of today and a 'complex
web of alliances' is the only thing that can act as a 'strong
sail to help navigate the rough high seas full of unexpected threats and
unknown dangers'.
Our political leadership should take a
clear and unequivocal stand on these areas after carrying out a well thought
out assessment of ramifications in a thread bare manner and finally arrive at a
detailed and elaborate short term and long term strategic plans for our nation.
They need to be bold and keep the long term benefits to our nation in mind
while taking critical decisions on some of the areas that I mentioned above
especially those involving a tectonic shift from our traditional or historical
stance. Forging strong ties with foreign nations on various fronts would need
our leaders to personally be involved in negotiations and discussions with
their counter parts in foreign nations. It is not very easy to forge ties and
partnerships with a nation even if we badly want to if there is a negative
historical connotation to that relationship. To be able to effect tectonic
shifts in our relationships with other nations and undo the negativity or
mistrust caused by historical events, our leaders must personally negotiate and
convince them of our genuineness of intent and change in nation’s direction or
philosophy instead of leaving the task to bureaucrats. Such discussions will
many a time need critical policy decisions to be taken or options to be chosen
on the spot.
We will also have to view the
relationships with nations especially the ones we depend on for critical
defence equipment and technology transfer from a purely long term and strategic
view point and not be carried away by the Finance and Accounting
principles based evaluation criteria. The intangible benefits that accrue
to our nation in the long run from some of the partnerships could be very
substantial and perhaps invaluable when looked at from a strategic perspective
instead of just looking at the deal price of a specific transaction in
isolation which might be on the higher side.
Manohar Parrikar has the right blend of
skills needed for: negotiating with foreign equipment suppliers or defence
ministers and take quick decisions, providing political leadership and support
needed by the armed forces, thinking strategically keeping long term in view
and forge the right partnerships, enact the legislations needed for successful
defence operations, arriving at a clear vision as to the direction in which we
need to move as a nation on the defence front and complement it by provisioning
of the requisite enabling machinery be it people, equipment, finances or
strategic alliances, coordinating with the various other ministries
and state governments etc. And being a Metallurgical Engineer
from IIT Bombay is certainly an huge value add for a person who deals
with purchase, evaluation and quality assessment of defense related
equipment, arms and ammunition.
However there is one critical
point that we all need to remember. Areas such as Defence and External
Affairs are very strategic and usually deal with extremely sensitive
information. The strategic plans or operational plans would be treated
as classified/top secret and highly confidential and only a limited
few are privy only to these. Our leaders might not be able to share
most of the details with common people like us. It may appear many a time
based on our narrow and very limited view into the overall strategy that our
leaders are taking a wrong decision/action or working against the interest of
the citizens. However the action or decision taken by them in that context
could have been the best possible one based on their complete insights and
access to 100% information available. It is therefore important that we
repose complete trust and confidence in our leaders especially in the areas
like Defence and External Affairs and provide them unwavering support needed to
carry out these crucial and strategic tasks in the best interest of our nation.
I am very optimistic that we will start seeing the outcomes or fruits
of all the hard-work being done in some form or other either directly or
indirectly in the coming years.
.
JAI HIND!
Disclaimer: "The views and opinions expressed in the article are purely the personal views of the author in his personal capacity and have nothing to do with the firm he works for".
