Mahabharata: A Case in Leadership Succession Planning

The First Case

•King Bharata was the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant.

•Through valour and leadership Bharat conquered the whole of “modern day indian subcontinent” .•

The land was renamed as “BharatVarsha”

•King Bharat had three sons

•When the time of succession came , he did not choose any one of them.

•He instead brought in “Shantanu” who was not his lineage

•King Bharat chose Shantanu over his three sons, thus establishing an important aspect of leadership planning.

•Lesson :A leader must be selected from a larger pool than from one’s family reservoir.

The Second Case

•King Shantanu had a son named “Devavratha ” (Bhisma) with Ganga

•Devavratha is an able and a just leader and is perfectly suited for succeeding Shantanu

•King Shantanu falls in love with a fisherwoman called Satyavati

•Satyavati’s father imposes a condition that Shantanu-Satyavati’s natural son will be the heir and not Devavratha

•Devavratha pleadges his right to the future Shantanu-Satyavati’s natural son and also life long celibacy

•Shantanu even though reluctantly concedes his son’s pledge

•Lesson : A kingdom or an organization is nobody’s family fiefdom where emotions can be transacted for the benefit of each other , it plays havoc in succession planning. When planning leadership succession keep emotions out of the window, if “you” feel you deserve a leadership position for the benefit of the organization, strike your claim, no sacrifice is worth it for its not greater than the future of the organization. Recognize your ability to achieve a larger goal.

The Third Case

•Shantanu-Satyavati had two sons Chitrangada and Vichitravirya

•Chitrangada died early (before getting married)

•Vichitavirya (married to Ambika and Ambalika), died shortly after his marriage of tuberculosis.

•Vyasa (Satyavati’s son prior to being married to Santanu) was requested to beget sons from Ambika and Ambalika

•Vyasa told them that they should come alone near him.

–First did Ambika, but because of shyness and fear she closed her eyes. Vyasa told Satyavati that her child would be blind. Later this child was named Dhritarāshtra.

–Thus Satyavati sent Ambālika and warned her that she should remain calm. But Ambālika's face became pale because of fear. Vyasa told her that child would suffer from anaemia, and he would not be fit enough to rule the kingdom. Later this child was known as Pāndu.

–Then Vyasa told Satyavati to send one of them again so that a healthy child can be born. This time Ambika and Ambālika sent a maid in the place of themselves. The maid was quite calm and composed, and she got a healthy child later named asVidura

•Now when the time of succession came , Bhisma did not follow his grandafther’s (Bharata’s) tradition of “not picking a leader based out of clan but out of merit “, the ideal choice for leadership was Vidhura, technically he was also half brother of Pandu and Dhritrashatra

•Bhisma chose Pandu who in turn died early and relegated the throne to his brother Dhritrashtra

•Vidura is never considered for throne coz of his mother’s lineage even though he was a brilliant strategist and political mastermind. Author of famous political science commentary called Vidhur Neeti

•If Vidhura would have been the king this mess probbaly would never have occurred

•Lesson : Sometimes previous modus operandi of succession planning or decisions in general serve as valuable lessons , examples and benchmarks. Everytime a new thinking may not be needed. Putting on oneself in the previous leader’s shoes may help us to face current dilemmas. I am reminded of a famous decision of Lous Gestner who turned around IBM when it was about to collapse. One of the most significant decision he took was to ask the employees to “not to have a dress code”. He actually did what the founder Thomas Watson Jr had done decades Thomas Watson had imposed this dress code because customers during that time dressed that way. Gestner’, just applied the same thinking in a renewed context by not having the dress code which was the norm of his day

The Fourth and Final Succession

The crux of Mahabharta is a situation wherein Dhritrashtra is accused of not allowing Yudhistra (Pandu’s son) to become his successor. Let me put some researched facts before you . Some facts which are unknown , courtesy our televised “versions” of epics which present only one version of the story.

Duryodhana’s Case

•Duryodhana was a powerful and capable king who governed his subjects fairly (when he ruled as a crown prince of Hastinapur post kingdom division of Hastinapur and Indraprasth)

•When the argument was presented that his father was a stop gap for Pandu, Duryodhana made a strong case of argument that Pandu’s sons were not Pandu’s sons but out of Kunti and Various Devatas like Indra, Vayu etc.

•Bhim's unrestrained, brutal beatings during childhood left psychological scars on him stemming the deep hatred for Bhim

•Duryodhana was well-versed in religious knowledge

•Vidura and other elders were extremely partial towards Pandavas

Yudhistara’s Case

•Universally Respected

•Pious and able administrator

•Righteous and Virtuous

•Well versed in Dharma Shastra

The Question

•If you could time travel and we were given the chance to decide the succession of undivided Hastinapur ? Whom would you choose and why ? Remember the aftermath (war etc) happened due to the division of kingdon?

•Intricate Lesson : Many a times to please or to have “best case” scenarios organizations are divided amongst two able successors ?. This creates more problems than solutions as temptation to transgress each other’s boundaries is highest in such cases. Its imperative in powerful organizations to have only one full authority successor than two organizations with two successors many a times?

•A question to ponder….

•

Deccan Herald Article

In debt we rise

By S Nagendra

As America continues to borrow from China, the rationale of economic superiority in the longer run for it would be in serious decline.

The current debt crisis in Greece reminds one of Kautilya’s perceptions about debt. He considered debt to be ‘instruments of decline’ for kings and governments alike. But modern governments seem to have come a long way and the Chanakyan prescription has truly become outdated. Today, good economics and good politics have become mutually exclusive. At least, so it seems. Sound economic policies need not necessarily yield political dividends to incumbent governments. Conversely, leaders and political parties may actually win renewed political mandates to government on the ‘strength’ of their ‘bad’ economic policies. Thus, it is no secret that modern day governments ‘stimulate’ the economy by spending more and more and earning less and less to ensure their political continuity. In this ‘debt ridden world’, according to ‘The Economist’ magazine, the total current global debt is around $32 trillion. Based on the total world population of around 7 billion, this amounts to an average debt of around $4,600 or around Rs 2 lakh on every human being on this planet. Recently the Indian government sought approval to spend an extra $6.6 billion in part to subsidise food and fertilisers and to halt the inflation. The average debt of an Indian citizen is nearly equal to his 10-month income, which on an annual basis has recently been estimated at Rs 38,000 by the Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) for a population of 115.4 crore. With the government adding about Rs 3,00,000 crore (Rs 3,000 billion) to the public debt annually in the last few years, the total public debt is estimated to zoom to a whopping Rs 34,06,322 crore (Rs 34.06 trillion) by March 2010, nearly double the amount recorded seven years ago. This initiative to spend more than planned is affecting the yields on benchmark 10-year bond. Among the top 10 local-currency debt markets in Asia last year, Indian bonds were the worst performers (except Japan), handing investors a 5.1 per cent loss, as the government spent Rs 1.86 trillion to shield the economy from the global recession. India’s current public debt to GDP ratio is 58.2 per cent — almost close to the US position of 60.8 per cent — and we have much to learn from Uncle Sam. Lessons from US debt Backed by the US Congress, President Barack Obama recently signed into law an increase in the US national debt limit to $12.4 trillion. The US government posted a record $1.4 trillion deficit in the fiscal year ending Sept 30, 2009. The US government needs to spend more or ‘stimulate’ its economy. To facilitate this spending, it needs to borrow more and more to cover its deficit. Historically, the lone super power has been living well beyond its means. Public debt in dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992, and remained at about the same level by the end of the Clinton presidency in 2000. The most important legacies of President George W Bush have been the rise in total public debt from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008. This was the quintessential lesson that the Bush Junior learned from the Bush Senior as the latter lost his re-election bid to Clinton purely due to his attempt to trim the US National Debt by increasing taxes, a far departure from his stated election promise. The trend is expected to continue as Barack Obama intends to spend more on war, health care reforms and social security, leading to a projection of total national US debt of around $20 trillion by 2015. So who is funding this enormous US debt? In May 2009, the US owed China $772 billion. It also owed substantial money to others like Japan and Saudi Arabia. In reality the money that a Chinese saves is spent by an American. This has definitely posed critical economic and political risks for the United States. As America continues to borrow more especially from the Chinese, the rationale of economic superiority in the longer run for America would be in serious decline. China doesn’t intend to fish in the troubled waters at least for now purely due to lack of substantial alternative currency to the US dollar. However, even this is changing as seen from recent increase in diversifying its non US dollar based securities by oil rich countries and also by countries like India, China and Russia. Cumulatively, this poses an enormous challenge to the US dollar in the longer run. The US has been able to withstand its national debt purely due to its economic and political dominance and the power of US dollar so far. But what about India? Obviously, the American approach cannot be blindly followed. Indeed, it is high time that our economic planners adopted a balanced approach which would require them to decrease deficits and trim our national debt. In the urge of economic prosperity we cannot go on borrow from others to spend at home, even if it means sacrificing some growth targets. Our fiscal discipline is quintessential to our long term national and economic security. Its time that we look ourselves as a post-developing nation and make sound economic choices, though that may be politically very hard to accept. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of ‘Black Swan’ recently said in a blog that “A lot of the growth (of America’s) of the past few years was fake growth from de

Deccan Herald Article

Quantity sans quality

By Prof Nagendra

Indian professors are more inclined towards teaching post-graduate students than the ones in the undergraduate level.

There is a striking similarity between the just-released blockbuster movie ‘3 Idiots’ and the Yashpal panel report on ‘higher education’ in the country: they speak the same language. Both the film and the report are refreshingly innovative and yet convincing in their message regarding the need for rejuvenating the entire higher education system in the country. Consider this critical paradox in higher education policy in India: much has been written and discussed on how the policy-makers have tilted public spending towards higher education at the cost of primary and secondary education; but very little is actually spent on higher education. The 10th Five Year Plan (2002-2007) had envisaged an expenditure of 65.6 per cent of the total education budget on elementary education, 9.9 per cent on secondary education; 10.7 per cent on technical education, 2.9 per cent on adult education and the planned spending for higher education was just 9.5 per cent. Even if we combine technical and higher education, the spending accounts for just about 21 per cent. Even after a big increase in the expenditure for higher education in 2007-08, the fact remained that the country continues to lag behind in terms of per student public spending on higher education, compared to its Asian counterparts. At the moment, public spending on higher education per student in India stands at Rs 18,000. According to United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) data, India had the lowest public expenditure on higher education per student among developing and developed countries. Yet, for the record, India’s higher education system is the third largest in the world, after China and the United States. As of 2009, India has 20 Central universities, 215 state universities, 100 deemed universities, five institutions established and functioning under the State Act, and 13 institutes which are of national importance. Other institutions include around 21,000 colleges, including 1,800 exclusive women’s colleges. But only three Indian universities have been listed in a recent list of the world’s top 200 universities. While we go gaga over the 8 per cent GDP growth, there is actually a crisis-like situation in the higher education sector. But it is hidden and is systemic in nature. The situation calls for serious interventions from the government. The ‘Indian growth story’ could be a bubble as the country will be unable to meet the human capital demand for a sustained transition from a developing country to a developed country. Indian universities lack multi-disciplinary approach to education and research. In fact, universities have been reduced to mere affiliating entities. The Yashpal panel has questioned the logic of granting university status to specialised entities, be it technology, management or industrial labs like CSIR. Out of the three Indian universities named among the 200 global best, two are IITs and IIMs which are super specialised entities in education and only one — Jawaharlal Nehru University — is a full-fledged university in the true sense, which means the third largest higher education system in the world has only one university of any quality! Multi-disciplinary approach The Yashpal panel emphasises the need to promote multi-disciplinary approach. It questions the logic of eliminating the need for subjects like economics, philosophy, etc in professional courses like engineering and medicine. It makes no sense to produce truck loads of engineers and doctors without any basic background in economy, society or liberal arts subjects. The US has a pre-med degree, where students opt for a variety of courses before beginning their medical education. The committee quotes a fantastic example of students pursuing mathematics opting for philosophy and vice versa. This can’t be underestimated as the whole branch of logic and induction and other epistemological subjects have been synthesis of mathematics and philosophy. University of Penn, Stanford, and New York University are some of the many top universities that boast of research and teaching in these areas. India needs to integrate such wide disciplines qualitatively in universities as opposed to merely proliferating centres of higher education and research that offer narrow areas of specialisation. A part of the problem, perhaps the most important part at that, is that Indian colleges are no more than super schools where rote learning is continued and reinforced. That is what the Yashpal report has pointed out. A very important aspect covered in the report is the role of undergraduate education. While universities stress on post-graduate education, the undergraduate is the business of ‘affiliating’ colleges. This creates a great impediment in overall quality drive in renewing and reuniting higher education. Barring some centres of excellence, Indian professors are inclined to teach only post-graduate students and not prefer to teach at the undergraduate level. The report recommends mandatory teaching for undergraduate students by professors, who have been more or less confined to post-graduate departments. Finally, the most critical, perhaps also controversial, recommendation of Yashpal committee is its prescription of subsuming entities like UGC, AICTE in one National Commission for Higher Education and Research — which will be a grand overall authority reporting directly to parliament. The report is not only critical about the functioning of higher education regulatory agencies but asks a fundamental question of the need of uniformity as against diversity. Diversity doesn’t mean decrease in standards, it means enabling of setting up of standards where universities can adhere to. Diversity will help institutions of higher learning to come up with their own syllabus, the students to opt courses of their choice, etc.