Apr 222014
 

My column, in last week’s DNA

In the last three days there have been two instances of suppression of expression due to ‘hurt’ sentiments and political beliefs. The first was the independent publisher Navayana that is focused on literary works based on caste from an anti-caste perspective. They decided not to publish the English translation of Tamizh writer Joe D’Cruz’s book Aazhi Soozh Ulagu (The Ocean Ringed World). Considered by many to be a modern epic, the novel tells the story of Parathavar fishermen in Tamil Nadu. On the face of it, a story based on the lives of fishermen that delves into their history and culture would be an ideal topic for a publishing house that gives a platform for fiction, poetry, non fiction and graphic novels by anti-caste voices. However, Joe D’Cruz came out in support of BJP prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, and that was enough for the translator, V Geetha, to withdraw consent for her translation to be published. In her letter to the publishing house she states “given D’ Cruz’s insistent and clear-cut support for Narendra Modi, I cannot bring myself to allow my translation to be published.” And so, a novel that should find a wider audience is sacrificed at the altar of personal sentiments. The second incident is that of the newspaper The Hindu that put out an internal circular instructing its employees not to consume non-vegetarian food in the office canteen as it causes ‘discomfort to the majority of the employees who are vegetarian’. In both cases it can be argued, that private organisations have the right to choose who they publish, what they decide as dress code and what they allow into their canteen. However, this is less about private organisations and more about the society and the increasing intolerance towards diversity in tastes, views and political leanings.

James Madison, the fourth President of the United States of America, had a very interesting observation about free speech and its curtailment. He said “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” And, that is precisely what has been taking place in India. Be it non vegetarian food or books that ‘cause offense’, be it women’s rights in terms of wearing western clothes, or carrying a mobile, wearing a veil or going to a pub, be it a song in a film or a play that questions sacred cows, the creeping intolerance resulting in restrictions to freedoms bodes ill for all of us.

A recently released report by the Hoot.org’s Free Speech Hub shows how censorship has crept in. The report states that in the first three months of 2014, there have been 52 instances of censorship across the length and breadth of India. The petitioners, says the report, cuts across society — “courts, student organizations, state governments, publishing houses, the Lok Sabha Secretariat, the Central Board of Film Certification, a lawyers’ association, Hindu groups including the Shiv Sena, the RSS and the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Tamil groups and individual industrialists; they all moved to exercise various forms of censorship”. What is more is that the censorship cuts across media, platforms and forms of expression — books, Facebook posts, films and plays have all been at the receiving end of offended sensibilities.There have been 52 acts of censorship in the last 90 days — a record that a democratic republic should not be proud of. In fact, if anything, we should hang our heads in shame that there have been so many instances of violations of free speech and expression — where ‘hurt sentiments’ have triumphed over freedoms.

The year started with Penguin losing its nerve and withdrawing Wendy Doniger’s book The Hindus: An Alternative History. This was in response to a court case brought by an aggrieved individual. Rather than wait for the verdict and fight for the right to express, Penguin bought peace by withdrawing the book from the market. This was followed by the Kala Ghoda arts festival in Mumbai withdrawing a play Ali J based loosely on the life of Jinnah, after threats on a right wing website. In neither case did the State ask for censorship — this was voluntary.

There are four sources of restrictions of freedoms. The first is the State — and this is the one that we get to see the most. If the State, that is supposed to guarantee our freedoms, restricts it, then there is a problem for all of us. The second form is organisational — all organisations have a code of conduct and we accept those codes as a part of our everyday life. But, if that code descends into discrimination — not employing people of a certain community and women, having a discriminatory attitude towards the LGBT community — then it is definitely a restriction of individual freedoms. The third is societal — societies own dos and don’ts. The reason there is an uproar over the actions of khap panchayats or fatwas issued by mullahs, or restrictions by building societies, is that they impinge on individual freedoms. And the last is self censorship — the fear that you may step on toes, and those toes will retaliate with violence. More often than not, it is the last that is the most worrisome. If we start curtailing our expression of the truth for fear, then it is a slippery slope from where pulling back will be very difficult.

If we have to leave a better country for future generations that fear has to go. It is as Rabindranath Tagore said “Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high…. into that haven of freedom, my father, let my country awake”. When there is a choice between the rights of the majority, and the freedom of the individual, the freedom of the individual will have to triumph. If we, as a nation, cannot guarantee that freedom, it is dark times indeed for the society and the nation.

Mar 202014
 

My column in today’s DNA

It is election season and, therefore, it must be the time for rhetoric, more rhetoric and even more rhetoric. Each party and its supporters are trying to pitch themselves to us, the voters, and each trying to get us to vote for them. While political leaders and party workers are traversing the length and breadth of India, trying to woo the masses in the blistering heat, their more privileged keyboard warriors are using their fingers to good effect, drumming up support on social media. And, it is social media, especially Twitter, with its concentration of journalists, editors, film stars, politicians, would-be politicians, policy makers, industrialists, media magnates, bankrupt tycoons, cricketers and the rest, that makes for the most entertainment. Because there is nothing as funny as serious, sanctimonious rhetoric in 140 characters, especially when you sneak some time to yourself to look at the phone on a tough working day. It is the sheer chutzpah in the pronouncements, the dauntless confidence with which people mouth inanities, the gumption with which inaccuracies and factual errors are put forward as ‘truth’ and the sheer pizzazz of the entire thing that makes you wonder if Twitter has taken its place in the sun as the provider of multiple streams of live commentary for what promises to be the greatest show on earth — the Indian elections. If only one could charge entertainment tax on the proceedings, the current account deficit would probably be wiped out.
So what are they fighting for? Politicians and political parties are fighting for power. They — especially the BJP and Congress — would prefer absolute power — 272 seats all to themselves, without their allies spoiling their party. Will they get it is anyone’s guess, but that doesn’t prevent them from projecting the confidence of being able to make that figure. But, to keep their options open, you do occasionally hear murmurs of a ‘larger NDA’ or “UPA III”.
While it is easy to figure what the politicians want, the role of their supporters on social media is slightly more complex. Their aim seems to be less about converting neutrals or voters who have not made up their mind into votes, and more on keeping the faithful gathered and motivated in the days leading up to the elections. It is a vital role that they play — the social media warriors — in terms of fact-checking, repudiating, muddying the waters, creating a ‘what if’ scenario in the mind of the public. While BJP supporters had the lead in the utilisation of social media for rallying and attacking, more recently the Congress and the AAP have joined in. As a result social media, in general, and Twitter, in particular, have become a battleground of ideas, allegations, innuendos and camaraderie. In my mind, the role of the partisans on social media is interesting because of the space that they occupy between the media and the party. They take corridor-level gossip from the party and drawing room chatter and blast them into a somewhat public space dominated by the traditional media, and when traditional media picks up this gossip, it gets carried back into social media for further conversations. Recently in a media conference, a point was made about mainstream media watching its audience (us), monitoring them via social media posts on shows and news, and using this instant feedback and chatter to fine tune content offerings But, a far more interesting phenomenon that we are observing in these elections is that a part of this audience, realising that it is being watched, are indulging in a sort of behaviour that feeds content to the media only to promote the former’s agenda. For a media professional, it’s a fairly fascinating phenomenon.

The other thing very clear in these elections is this: The mask of media neutrality has finally fallen off and is being left for dead. Journalists do not even pretend to have a lack of bias. When leading anchors don the political mantle, and prominent journalists push the agendas of political parties without joining them, then you cannot help but wonder, how much of the content that they put out is biased and how long ago did this begin? This is not about voting preferences. You can still vote for who you believe in and try and be balanced in content. It is about pushing political agendas in the name of journalism. In an ideal world the bias should impact ratings. But, as recent studies in the United States show, it is the ratings of those seemingly unbiased platforms that are falling when compared to those who take partisan views. Research also reveals that audiences are more and more looking for views that dovetail with their own. They don’t want the bland neutrality of Doordarshan. They much prefer the fire and brimstone of the evening news anchor who demands answers on behalf of the nation.

Way back in 1964, Barry Goldwater, the American Republican Party candidate for President, in a speech declared: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”. It seems that our media — mainstream and social — have taken this speech to heart. Except that liberty and justice are no longer absolutes but relative to whom they support. For example, outrage on suggested curbs of freedom of speech is not universal but defended by party supporters and opposed by detractors.

We are in for fun ride where truth is falsity, and falsity is truth. So who do we, the people, trust? The answer, surprisingly, is each other. According to a recent Zee Media Taleem Poll on the state of the nation, while 54% said that they relied on electronic media for their views and opinions, 30% still rely on friends and peer groups for ‘truth’. In a world where truth becomes an elusive commodity, it is little surprise that we are getting back to a more traditional way of making up our mind: our own personal social networks.

Mar 092014
 

And, my column last week for the DNA – on the UPA retrospective 

Ever been to a theatre to watch a film that on paper sounded fabulous — great director, good casting, top-of-the-line banner, great promos? But when you get inside the theatre the film simply won’t get over.
Every moment drags; every dialogue in the film has the monotony of something you have heard before, and no matter what you do, you cannot escape from the highly intrusive soundtrack. Worst of all, you cannot get out of the movie hall.  Most of us have at least watched one such film, trapped inside the theatre for, what seems like, days, unable to get out, unable to move our eyes from the screen while asking the question “what  on earth were they thinking about, when they put this together”. And, when the end credits start rolling, you clap out of the sheer relief that the film is over, and you can get into the bright lights and fresh air outside, and scrub all memory of the movie from your subconscious. Think Ram Gopal Verma ki Aag or Kites. Know the feeling? It is pretty much the way that most felt while watching the last two years of UPA II — it just dragged on, and on, and on.

As the credits roll, this column takes a look at some of the characters and scenes from UPA II:

A for Anthony: The Minister for Defence. A man who confused inaction with integrity and took the old adage ‘if you don’t get out of bed and get on the road, you won’t get run over’ seriously. Unfortunately, that is no guarantee for the ceiling falling on your bed.

B for Bills: The trouble with leaving most of your key bills to the last minute of a five-year Parliament is that nothing is thought through, the sense of dissonance is high and like a bad film, certain elements are put in just to give a sense of faux completion.

C for CWG: The Commonwealth Games that really marked the begging of the end.

D for DMK: The key ally then, fence sitter now and the hands behind the 2G scam.

E for Elections: #Elections2014 and the UPA hoping for a sequel, ie. UPA III. But when a film is such a box office dud, will you really buy a ticket for the sequel?

F for Food Security: Nobody, with a conscience, will disagree with the concept of Food Security — the principle that no individual should go hungry, but as with all concepts, the devil is in the implementation. And, implementation in this particular case is fraught with internal opposition.

G is for Gandhi: The name that ruled the Congress for the best part of the last 45 years. And, it seems that the aura is finally waning, though Sonia Gandhi still has some of that aura. But for all his earnestness, it does not seem that Rahul Gandhi has that aura — the aura of wanting to handle power.

H is for High Command: See Gandhi above. All organisations need hierarchies, and a chain of command. But, if all power is concentrated in one set of hands , then currying favour rather than competence becomes the order of the day, leading to poor decision-making

I for Indian National Congress: The grand old party. It seriously needs to introspect and reinvent itself for the new millennium.

J for Janata: That is us, the people. The voters. Just get this over with seems to be the general sentiment all around.

K for Kaajneeti: That is on hoardings across the country, with voters looking at each other and asking “what is that”?

L for Leadership: Conspicuous by its absence through the five years, especially towards the end.

M for Mani Shankar Iyer: The architect of the Chai pe Charcha campaign. Enough said. M is also for Manmohan Singh, who didn’t say enough.

N for Narendra Modi: If politicians  in the Congress spent as much time in talking about what they did right, as they did about why Modi is wrong, they may have fared better in both  perception and the ballot box.

O for Ordinance: When bills aren’t passed, the route is ordinance. But, in Parliamentary democracy, bills are meant to be debated, deliberated on and passed. It is a good job that the last few bills were not passed via an ordinance, because…

…P for Pranab Mukherjee: He put his foot down and said ‘no’. A leading character in UPA I and in the first part of UPA II, his political skills would be sorely missed, even if his economic skills were not.
Q for Questions: That the people had, for which there were no answers. In fact, part of the UPA’s problem was the fact that it rarely spoke to the people or the press, and when it did it was either so stage-managed or so full of wordplay that it alienated.

R for Robert Vadra: The son-in-law. The man who could get away with everything, or so it seemed.

S for Sheila Dikshit: The Empress of Delhi, who is now the Governor of Kerala after losing her seat to Arvind Kejriwal.

T for Telangana: The disaster of the last five years. While smaller states are not a bad idea, pandering is.

U for UPA II: Coming to an end in a few months from now

V for Voter: That is us. Are you even registered?

W for Win: Winning seat by seat, state by state, to take the nation. From all accounts that is a tough one.

X for X: Marks the spot where we vote, and UPA II hopes that it is for their constituents.

Y for Gen Y: The first and second-time voter who cares less for the ‘isms’ of yesterday and more for how good their tomorrow will be.

Z for Zero Loss: Made famous by Kapil Sibal when confronted with allegations of misallocation of spectrum. If only humility was in action instead of hubris, this government may not have ended up in this state of being generally disliked.

Mar 092014
 
logo2013

There are only two kinds of interviews that i had conducted in the past – the first was job interviews and the second were interviews in camera, for shows. So when i got asked if I would like to interview Rahul Sood, GM Microsfoft ventures, for @DNAi kind of went overboard on the conversation. It was done TV style without the recording on tape. I had recorded the interview on the phone, and it had to be transcribed. A half an hour conversation i s a fair number of pages of typed material :)

Large organisations give you stability, smaller organisations give you innovation. How do you combine out-of-the-box thinking and the ‘get ready to go’ mode of innovative entrepreneurship into a big company?

When I joined Microsoft, I spent 11 months figuring out what I was going to do there. As an entrepreneur, you’re always trying to find something, and that something is a problem to solve. In a company full of brilliant people where everyone is smarter than you, how are you going to find problems to solve? Also, you need to be able to inspire people and lead them in a direction they believe in.

How do you get things done? There is a lot of collaboration in big companies. You have to bring people along, get them to get behind your ideas and buy into them. The way to do that is by finding people who know how to get it done within the company. I looked for people who had been there for a long time, and was able to get them to tell me how to get things done. That’s how things started moving.

We launched the first ever incubation fund at Microsoft, which had never made investments in small companies before. And we were told Microsoft had never done something like that before, that it wouldn’t be accepted. But we were able to find a way to make it happen. We listened to people and found out why they said no. Just because they say no doesn’t mean you have to give up. Once you find out why they said no, you figure out a way to make their no a yes. You’re trying to find the quickest way to get from A to B, and there are ways of doing that within a big company. You find people who are frustrated (with the way the system is going) and know how to get things done, and you try and short circuit the problem as quickly as possible. If you short circuit it right, you and the team are going to be successful.

 

Is the reason why Microsoft is looking at ventures is because it missed the bus on Search or on Social Networking, both of which grew out of garages?

There has never been a time in the history of the tech industry where the barriers to entry have been so low, and the accelerants so high, that you can put five people in a garage and they can create something really disruptive. If you look at the types of companies being created right now, the ratio of the people in the company to its value or the revenue it generates is completely lopsided compared to what it used to be.

It used to take years and years to build a big company. Now the accelerants are much higher, so you can build a company a lot faster. With access to incubators, accelerators, VC funding, angel investors and other entrepreneurs in the ecosystem, it is easier to go out and attempt to be an entrepreneur. So we’re noticing that trend.

The other thing we’re noticing is that entrepreneurship is starting out at a much younger age. Students in grade school are thinking, “We must go out and start our own company.” This is a really interesting trend. Because of these phenomena, there has been a billion dollar company created every month for the last 84 months somewhere in the world. And most of these have been funded eventually in Silicon Valley.

When you look at these developments, you ask, what are Microsoft’s biggest strengths? Besides the fact that we are a big technology company, we’ve got amazing software, and some incredibly smart people, what is our biggest strength? It is our footprint in the Enterprise. We have so many people in the Enterprise who rely on us to be successful so that they are successful. They build on our platforms, they depend on our services, on our Cloud. They use Exchange, Office and our other products without even thinking about it. Microsoft has many, many customers in the Enterprise.

Knowing that today’s start-ups are the Enterprises of tomorrow, we need to engage them at a much earlier stage. This is not about us missing the boat on certain things, but about us helping to create the next generation of billion dollar companies. And by helping to create them, they become our partners in the long term. We are investing in ecosystems around the world, not just in Silicon Valley. We’re investing everywhere so we can help develop ecosystems, bring in entrepreneurs and create a more entrepreneurial culture inside Microsoft, and get people on the outside to think of how they will partner with us.

 

Is it also because it is easier to think out of the box, and be disruptive outside a large organisation than inside? 

It certainly is easier. You can think disruptive anywhere – inside a big organisation or outside. The question is, can you actually be disruptive inside a big organisation? The whole point of being disruptive is you are disrupting what big companies do. If you are inside a big company and being disruptive, then ideas may start getting difficult. For example, if you worked for a bank, and suggested they converted all physical branches to coffee shops, it would be disruptive, but it will also be difficult to sell the idea. It is hard to be disruptive inside a big company, when you are not disrupting yourself and when you cannot think about disrupting yourself.

Microsoft is such a big company that does everything from consumer to enterprise, that everyone is disrupting us. So we need to think more disruptively. Internally, we need to think about how to disrupt our own business. Ventures is interesting because it gives us access to interesting disruptive innovations that we can potentially acquire or partner with. But, I think in any large organisation, there has to be a team whose job it is to think about how to disrupt your business.

 

One of the areas in which technology has tremendously disrupted is media. Why?

They (technology start-ups) went after things that consumers cared about instantly. Music, media consumption, reading – people care about these. They read books, newspapers, consume music. If you are able to make their experience that much better through technology, you’re going to create something disruptive, because it is driven by people, not corporations, not by government interests. It is being consumed by people, and therefore the people are creating a movement by saying they want this.

When you take a big problem space like media, you have disrupted it through digital means. Napster was possibly one of the original disrupters. Piracy was a big problem the media industry was dealing with. At the same time, making it easier for consumers to consume was a big problem space. With this perfect storm of making piracy legitimate, and making media easier to consume, people just grabbed on to it, and it became a big deal.

 

Education, which should have been disrupted, was not? Why? 

The reason education is not getting disrupted is because there is a lot of protectionism here. The government isn’t allowing people to be disruptive. Education should be free to the masses. If you could make education free to one billion people in India, and make it accessible to them in ways hitherto not possible, you could create a bigger emerging middle class. You can reduce poverty, and help bring in more than engineering thinking into the mix. Therefore, you need to do two things. First, you have to make education accessible to everyone, through MOOCs (massive open online courses), through online means where education can be accessible to people who cannot otherwise afford it. Second, you have to stop thinking engineering and producing that many engineers. We need more creative thinking and creative people here, and combine that with engineering. When you do that, you bring design thinking into the mix. We also need to teach entrepreneurship at school (college).

Here’s the thing with education, in India in particular and other markets like it. India produced 1.5 million engineers last year. That is absolutely insane because we don’t need those many engineers. There are schools (colleges) coming up with accredited programmes. Many of them prey on the poor to send their kids to these colleges so that they can get a degree. To what outcome? The outcome should be a job. Some of these colleges are promising jobs, and the jobs the graduates get are pretty much at data entry operator level. So why do they have to do a four year programme for that type of a job?

You actually said “online education is like the Wild West”. Why? It should be a no-brainer that online education should work. Yet there is a problem. Why?
It is the Wild West because there are no standards at the moment. Every market and ecosystem is different. Different markets have different types of needs. Education is the Wild West because, if you try and create something disruptive here, you can get shut down by someone else. Education is a big policy issue. You need to think about the big problem spaces in India that need to be disrupted. Education, policy, infrastructure – there are so many different areas that need disruption. But it needs government support. The government has to say enough is enough, let these entrepreneurs go out there and solve problems.

 

Does formal education itself need to be disrupted? 

Universities are dying institutions. Unless you are going to be a radiologist, a doctor or a lawyer. MBA programmes, for instance, need to change. We put our companies through a four-month accelerator programme. 850 people apply to get in, and we only accept 10-15. It is harder to get into our programme than it is to get into Harvard. And, in four months, you learn more than you do in a typical MBA course. You learn everything, from taking an idea, turning it into a prototype, doing customer validation, marketing, strategy and branding. You learn pitching, how to tell a story, how to get funding, and how to structure your company. You learn all of that in four months. So the question is, are we stuck in a 19th century mindset? Four-year programmes, eight-year programmes, get your degree, go for your masters? Absolutely, we are.

 

How does India compare to the rest of the world for start-up ecosystems? 

The top start-up ecosystem is obviously Silicon Valley. The second is Israel, and it is higher by quite a bit. When I went to Israel, I looked around to understand why it has a strong start-up ecosystem. There are only 7 million people there. In Israel, they don’t focus on local issues, because it is too small a market. They are focussed on global problems. But they are also big risk takers. Entrepreneurship is encouraged by the government, by educators, by parents, by history. And they live every day like it is their last. Husband-and-wife teams quit their jobs to start a company. So, there is the desire to be an entrepreneur and it is a badge of honour to be one. They understand the need for customer validation. Initially, when you’re creating something for a global market, you must understand the market you are creating for.

In India – and here is the difference – we’re not encouraged to be entrepreneurs. Risk taking is not encouraged. Parents will not encourage you whatsoever. Educators do not encourage you, nor do they teach anything in this space. No one really knows what it means to be a start-up here, and they should. And, because of all this, we don’t like to take risks.

The other part is population. There are a billion people here. It is great market to create products that solve problems. But Indian entrepreneurs are focussed on solving problems in the US, building apps for the US, and not even thinking of solving local Indian problems. Here, many start-ups are creating engineer-led products or apps. They are focusing on markets they don’t understand. They are going after the US market v/s doing customer validation in India.

So what we did, at Microsoft Ventures, is said there is a reason why this ecosystem lags behind. And that is because you don’t understand the customer you are going after. We need to bring in a mix of entrepreneurs, we need to bring in more women because women think different from men. There are more women designers than men in India. We need to start blending these teams together. We did that and had some interesting things happen. We saw some start-ups emerge from our accelerators that are focussed on Indian problems that are actually growing. And they provide really unique value propositions. We can actually help these companies go into similar markets in Africa, Brazil, and China, and that is exciting. So, in order for India’s start-up ecosystem to evolve, they need to focus on Indian problems, and a more balanced approach. And parents, educators and the government need to encourage entrepreneurship.

 

How can technology be better used to combat social issues? 

You can really do a lot with technology like cloud computing and data collection. Today, any piece of hardware you create needs to be connected to the cloud, and that cloud needs to be intelligent and be able to gather and analyse data, and produce results that you might not think about.

 

What are the top three tech trends to watch out for? 

Security is number one. Privacy is less of an issue. As the next generation grows, privacy will be zero. Everyone will know who you are, where you live, everything about you. So, security will be everything, both in the real, physical world and online. Security companies will create an online persona that will follow you around (online) and be your guard. Security will be a huge, huge area.

Number two – education, I think, will completely change. The more we open source it, the better it will become, and the better our societies will evolve. The idea of open source education is a big trend.

Number three – wearable technology, like smart fabrics. Things like Google glass, Nike Fuel bands. In a world of connected devices, where all hardware connects to the cloud, I think you will be able to extract data about everything about us from it. As a result, our lives will be extended. We will be able to live longer lives through technology. I think people will be able to live to a hundred and fifty, with some of the technology that is coming.

 

What is the future of journalism?

The future of journalism is crowd sourced. The best writers will always rise, people will read them and follow them. People who began blogging f years ago are becoming famous now. They’re building big brands and big companies. They just started writing on their own. Look at Om Malik. He has come such a long way and Giga Om is such a big brand. That is the future. People who write well and influence people in a big way will disrupt the traditional journalism business.

 

What is your advice to young entrepreneurs? 

The first piece of advice I will give them is to figure out their motivation. You have to have the motivation to want to be an entrepreneur. Because, being an entrepreneur is hard. You are not just going to become the next Facebook or Instagram. You first need to know why you want to be an entrepreneur. If your motivation is monetary, forget about it, because if you are going to chase money, you are not going to make it. Money should be the last thing on your mind. The first thing that should be on your mind is that, as an entrepreneur, you are passionate about something, and want to solve a problem in that space.

The second thing is about brand. It is not just a logo on box. It is the outcome of building a great product, having a customer base. The customer base becomes your fans. If you want to build a community, you have to get social, write, get engaged with your community and create a vibrant community where people will give you feedback that you will share with each other. Once you do that, it becomes the soul of your company, combining with your culture. Essentially, when you have those elements, when you have a great team with a great culture, a great product, a community that is writing and evangelizing about your product, then that becomes the soul of your brand. Then the outcome is the logo and all that stuff you created around the product. You just can’t go and create a brand. Brands grow.

 

Rahul Sood is GM, Microsoft Ventures, which looks at investing in tech start-ups. Prior to that, he was founder of VoodooPC and the CTO for Hewlett Packard.

Harini Calamur is Head of Digital Content, Zee Media Corporation.

Feb 122014
 

My column in @DNA last week

My earliest memories are of growing up in Delhi, and going to school there. Amongst those memories was a line that a six-year-old had seared into her subconscious — tu kaali hai (you are dark). It wasn’t a line thrown at her by classmates on a playground, but by the teacher in the classroom. A first standard student does not really have the wherewithal to cope with race, and I guess I was no different. I cried to my parents, and they assured me that my colour was the best, and the teacher was possibly jealous and brave girls don’t run away from school or teachers but face them with confidence. My father was transferred to Mumbai the following year, and in a multicultural school with classmates from different parts of India, I never felt different.

Much later, I came to know that Mumbai was the setting for anti-South agitation before I was born, and my parents lived in fear of the violence encroaching into their lives. Then, the 1990s saw the Bombay riots targeting Muslims, and more recently the anti-North Indian agitation — the anger against the perceived ‘outsider’ played out to its logical conclusion by those who benefit by these divisions. Studying in England, I was very conscious of ethnicity and nationality. The occasional taunts of “Yo Paki, go home” were met by “I am an Indian student, and will go back when I finish my studies.”

India has always lived with flashpoints based on differences. There have been a multitude of Hindu-Muslim riots since (and even before) Independence. Through the early 1980s, there was the targeted killing of Hindus in Punjab by Khalistanis. There was the targeted killing of Sikhs in the 1984 riots. In 2002, there was the targeted killing of Hindu pilgrims in Godhra, and then there was the targeted killing of  Muslims. More recently,  in 2012, there were riots in Assam between Bodos and Bengali-speaking Muslims that combined aspects of religion, ethnicity, race and linguistic divisions to a bloody end. And towards the end of last year, we saw the Muzaffarnagar riots that were neither ethnic, nor linguistic but based on religious ‘otherness’. We have seen violence against South Indians (Madrasis) in Bombay, against Tamil speakers in Bangalore, against North Indians (bhaiyyas and Biharis) in Mumbai and more. And, I am not even counting the violence in the name of caste in this list.

Every time there is a riot or violence, we blame the political class and reassure ourselves, “We have lived in peace for generations, they fanned the flames.” This is an argument that has been bandied about and accepted. As a result, we have never really examined our own individual biases towards the other — religion, race, ethnicity, linguistic. We live with the myth that we are tolerant towards others, liberal about different ways of life, respectful of diversity. The fact remains that we are not. We may pay lip service towards values of tolerance, wring our hands when there is a breach of peace, shed tears at violence — but the reality is that, as individuals, we are not very tolerant of those not like us. The most recent manifestation of this has been the violence towards Ugandan women and the killing of Arunachal Pradesh student Nido Taniam. These, as much the riots, highlight the deep intolerance and fear of the other.

There can be many steps taken to address this. The first is at home. Our values are formed by what we learn at home. What is it that we teach our children? Our concepts of sharing, mingling, forming bonds with others are shaped here. So when we tell children not to ‘play with others not like us’ what is it that we are teaching? The second is at school. Unity in diversity is not just a phrase; it is real. Do we teach children about heroes from other states, do we let them understand the beauty and vastness of India beyond data points? Maybe at the 9th and 10th standard level, we relook at civics to examine diversity and differences and how those who are not like us are also like us.

The third is the media. How much of diversity is reflected in the images that we see and consume? How many of us even know about the lives and lifestyles of people not like us beyond the stereotypes? Hollywood adopted positive role models of African-Americans long before Barack Obama became the President, way back in the 1960s. Where is the diversity on our screens? The fourth is society. How welcoming are we of people not like us? Do we rent accommodation to them? Do we hire them? Do we make friends with them? And lastly, it is the state. What is the kind of mechanism put in place to make people who are immigrants feel at home? Much as we complain about the racism in the west, go to any government office there and there are multilingual forms available as are translators. If you, a Hindi speaker, went to a Chennai police station (or vice versa) to fill a report, would you even understand what was being said? How do you assimilate if you are not made to feel part of the system?

Race, religion, ethnicity and language — factors that unite us but also mark us as being separate from others. This sense of ‘otherness’, unless dealt with, can and has become a flashpoint for violence and hatred. The solution is not being separate and guarding what is perceived by some as uniqueness; rather, it is accepting and living with diversity. There are many ideas of India, possibly 1.2 billion of them  — and each of these is just as beautiful and as wondrous and as Indian and as real  as your or my idea of India is. Maybe it is time that we recognised and accepted that.