Harvard Pottering with Swamy

You are probably applauding Harvard University because it has decided to junk Prof. Subramaniam Swamy’s courses in next year’s summer session for the views he expressed in a piece where he, according to the report:

 …recommended demolishing hundreds of mosques and suggested that only Muslims in India who “acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus” should be allowed to vote.

I think the Janata Party president’s role is different from the man teaching Quantitative Methods in Economics and Business and Economic Development in India and East Asia. His political views cannot and should not interfere in his academic role, and by the same token he ought not to be jusged by his stand in his other role.

If the university is trying to make a point, then it should not permit guest lectures by Bill Clinton, George Bush, Tony Blair and several others for different reasons.

There is the huge question about how much a person’s political views matter in his non-political work. I have often said it is impossible for me to like Naipaul’s writing anymore because I find his politics loathsome. In this case, he is ‘coming home’, so to speak. He is addressing the issues he feels about and I do not agree with, and there will be an opposite reaction from others. In an assignment where the topic is entirely different, I do not see the validity of such protocol.

Harvard is probably looking for an excuse to draw attention to the fissures in Indian, and subcontinental, politics. The West has courses on terrorism. India does not. Pakistan does not. Sri Lanka does not. Bangladesh does not. Nepal does not. That should tell us something.

As regards the good professor, one must always keep the salt shaker handy for Swamy’s stupidity.

Tea from Ivy League

 

I like tea. So, when I heard that a Harvard Business School graduate decided to get into the tea business, I thought we were in for a true son-of-the-soil story. Oh, I forgot. I am a cynic. I am not supposed to like all this. There has to be a niggling thought.

Right. It is a bit more than niggling. People enter these top institutes and then decide to give it all up. It is rarely simple. I have met a few who did quit cushy jobs because of conviction. Amuleek Singh Bijral tries his hand at modesty:

“There are thousands of chai wallas in this country and I’m just one of them. The beverage that I sell has a history of three and a half thousand years. I have a technology background and I sell tea. People think it’s exotic and unconventional... I don’t.”

One, he was addressing students from the Indian Institute of Management and other biggie schools on the subject of “unconventional entrepreneurs”.

Two, he is the owner of Mountain Trail Foods and his Amuleek Chai Points have ten outlets all over Bangalore.

Three, if it is not all that exotic, then why does he bring in history? Do those thousands of chaiwallas think like him?

Among his staff are IIT and IIM graduates. This is just another business enterprise. As expected, there is a tendency to believe they are better and will offer something more:

“Chai is a global phenomenon. Everywhere I go I see people cribbing about lack of good tea. I wanted to do a scalable business and one that had a big market. Chai provided both.”

Everything has to be a phenomenon. Chai is part of the imbibing habits of people across the world, just as performing morning ablutions is. It does not become a global phenomenon. Indian tea has always been in demand – whether it is Darjeeling, Assam, or the green tea from Kashmir.

The problem with the unconventional entrepreneurs is that profit-making is the sole imperative, whatever else they may say. It is fine for their benefit, but this is one more attempt – and I am not singling out this gentleman – to create a different demand. It works in tandem with the multinational ethos.

How does it alter the social consumer landscape? It could take away the business from smaller companies and most certainly from the small chaiwallas. It will not be much different from the Baristas. You make it into a corporate culture and automatically it is seen as organised, clean, efficient and of superior quality. Add to this, the man is from Harvard, so he will be better at reading tea leaves. Crystal ball gazing is big business, isn’t it?

Imagine, the locals saying, “Brake-fast at Tea-fanny”…

On a personal note, I like tea in so many different ways. There is the green tea that has to just have a touch of the fragrance; a little more and it is not green anymore.

For regular tea, I do a yoyo between the wimpy version where the flavour is left to the imagination and the several types that hit you. We call the first light tea. Who can forget Farooque Sheikh’s character in the delectable Sai Paranjpye film Katha twirling the keychain and saying that he only drinks light tea? It was an indication of being westernised.

Brewed tea can be brewed delicately, with tea leaves added to boiling water and left for a couple of minutes. Or it can be introduced at the beginning and go on and on to become ‘kadak’ (strong). Most Indians like it this way. There are some who will have tea only ‘cooked’ in milk - the famous doodh patti chai. One can add saffron to it.

I love my masala chai. I don’t care about the travesty of it. Tea without a touch of ginger and cardamom may be pure, but I like to sin.

I believe that too is a global phenomenon…

Harvard Terrorism

A tony university will naturally have its eyes on the swish. Yet, there is something unnerving about a case study at Harvard Business School on the role of the employees at the five-star Taj Hotel during the Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008.

The multimedia case study ‘Terror at Taj Bombay: Customer-Centric Leadership’ by HBS professor Rohit Deshpande documents “the bravery and resourcefulness shown by employees” during the attack.

The study focuses on why Taj employees stayed at their posts, jeopardizing their personal safety, in order to save the hotel guests. It also tries to study how that level of loyalty and dedication can be replicated elsewhere. A dozen Taj employees died trying to save the lives of the hotel guests, during the attacks. “Even senior managers couldn’t explain the behaviour of the employees,” Deshpande said.

He added, “Even though the employees knew all the exits in the hotel and could have easily fled the hotel building, some stayed back to help the guests. These people instinctively did the right thing. In the process, some of them, gave up their lives to save the guests.”

While there is no dispute over the bravery, has any study been done about the saviours at other places where these attacks took place and where several others occur on an almost daily basis? What about flight attendants who help out passengers when there is an air calamity? What about the guards who are routinely killed trying to save people? Would HBS bother about smaller establishments and countries that are quite ‘under the radar’? And what about the several problems of labour: from fighting for wages to safety measures in the work area to being unceremoniously thrown out to having to run about to claim pension?

I do not wish to sound callous, but in this particular case it was difficult to figure out what exactly was happening. It is a huge hotel and all employees do not know about all exits. Besides, given the nature of the attack – guests taken hostage and much exchange of gunfire – was there any guarantee that using any exit would save them?

Why is the management surprised? Don’t they train their employees about service? In the hospitality industry, more than anywhere else, this is an important component. They have, at best, done a job in the most humane manner possible.

The fact that this study explores the need for a replication of such loyalty and dedication begs the question about how indepth the research has been. Are there no other examples? Have you heard of caretakers of places of worship running away when there are bomb blasts? Have you known of junior employees leaving the premises of big enterprises when they are under any sort of attack? Don’t the guards at banks get killed during a heist?

I find it extremely patronising when the HBS team claims under camouflage of romanticisation:

Another key concept of the study is that in India, “there is a paternalistic equation between an employer and employee that creates kinship”.

This is merely pushing the agenda of the ruling class. The equation is feudalistic in all sectors – of benign master and slave. The kinship is one where the employee swears to do anything beyond the call of duty. It is a gentleman’s unspoken word of honour that only those in the lower hierarchy can keep because they have no choice.

The employer may most certainly look after the interests of the employees, and there may be the annual general body meeting where there is a mention of “we are one big family”. Don’t forget, this includes the shareholders who need to be reassured that the company is doing great and it has a loyal staff. Such loyalty is bought with an unwritten agreement that implies there won’t be any special sops or protection. Compensatory packages are part of the contract. The courage displayed by workers helps build the brand of the master. What loyalty are the employers showing towards their workers?

Why does it have to be a one-way street?