The corporation is a great innovation

All innovations must be rooted in cultural soil. Indians respond to exemplary behaviour by elders and leaders, who set the tone at the top. Recall yatha raja thatha praja or how Shastriji first gave up wheat before asking the same of his countrymen.

Oversight of companies
All Indian companies have been overseen by the Companies Act and the listed ones, in addition, by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi). After 1956, a new Companies Act was enacted in 2013 with far-reaching changes, for example, the new Act explicitly acknowledges that the shareholder's interests are not supreme compared to other stakeholders. Over 40 years ago, well before this new Act, a clairvoyant J R D Tata in a groundbreaking move, amended the Articles of Association of Tata companies that "the company shall be mindful of social and moral responsibilities to consumers, employees, shareholders, society and local community." The Act also has innovations such as board appraisal, director evaluation and women directors.

India is strong on law-making but weak on law enforcement. The new rules apply to thousands of listed and unlisted companies but who has the resources to ensure implementation? Forget corporate governance, watch the glaring infarction of traffic signals every day in Mumbai by cabs and cars!

Evolution of the innovation
The new Act on companies was preceded by three innovations over a long time.

• Accounting: In 1458, double-entry accounting was innovated by Benedikt Kotruljevic in Dubrovnik, Croatia. His paper, displayed in the National Library of Malta, was the first recording of a great intellectual breakthrough. Several years later, Franciscan monk Luca Pacioli developed the idea further. These ideas allowed massive amounts of information to be organised into journals and then to produce summary financial statements.
   
• Limited-liability company: Stock was sold to high-net worth investors, who provided capital and had limited risk. The East India Company was established on December 31, 1600 to establish trading privileges in India. Some years later, the Virginia Company was created to establish settlements in the New World.
   
• Management: The corporation grew rapidly in the late 1800s and 1900s, leading to managementas a profession. To provide formal pedagogy management colleges were established. By the 1960s, management had become among the most prized professional qualifications, attracting thousands of bright students. The world has produced 35 million 'management graduates' over the last century.

In 1972, management arguably peaked when Peter Drucker's book displaced The New York Timesbest-seller, The Illustrated Joys of Sex, authored by a person coincidentally called Alex Comfort. In the half century since then, greed has repeatedly reared its ugly head. By the early 2000s, business leaders' excesses caused unprecedented social grief and financial disasters. Nowadays, management is perceived as lacking ethics, morals and discipline. Management and governance are sorely in need of innovation.

Governance innovation
So, how do you embed innovations in company governance? For culturally sensitive innovations, India might respond better to principles rather than rules. Increasingly anyway, companies need to prepare their accounts on principles-based standards in which a simple set of key objectives is set out with common examples as a guidance.

Indian corporate policy-makers rightly looked outwards for innovations, particularly the Anglo-American practices; for example, women on boards. Here again, Tata Sons had a woman director from 1918 right up until 1966. Contrarily and interestingly, Professor Sucheta Nadkarni, Cambridge Judge Business School, has just published her research that factors other than quotas are more important for women to join and stay on boards (The New York Times, April 8, 2015). The most effective policies, she states, are the economic power of women and the governance policies of a given corporation and not legislation requiring quotas.

Conjure the dramatic effect if the Union/state Cabinets adopted an assessment process as prescribed for corporate boards. Imagine the huge impact if the Cabinet secretary were to evaluate secretaries as director evaluation has been mandated. How elevated the moral high ground would be if Sebi and public institutions recruited a woman director on their boards. Exemplary behaviour by corporate and publicly visible leaders, more than rules and laws, is a strong cultural impetus for embedding innovation.

During my college years, Bob Dylan's song "Blowin' in the Wind" posed questions about peace, war and freedom. The song's refrain was as intangible as the wind. In the same spirit, I wonder:

How many laws must we have before lawmakers can agree?
That business managers are valuable and do deliver great social good?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, the answer is blowin' in the wind.

The postmodern #leader

It is a measure of Lee Kuan Yew’s stature that he has, to use W.H. Auden’s phrase for Sigmund Freud, become a whole climate of opinion. The achievements are easy to list. Here was a leader who transformed a tiny resource-starved patch of land that was wrecked by race riots into a nation — a prosperous and relatively meritocratic economic powerhouse with a sense of order and purpose. He gave Singapore an unusual degree of civic identity, which allowed it to navigate the triple challenges of multiculturalism, transition to modernity and the treacherous shoals of international politics. Singapore, unlike many other regimes, became a sort of model that many wanted to emulate. It has punched far above its weight. The criticisms are also easy to articulate. Lee was no democrat or defender of liberty. He was impatient with democratic checks and balances, exuberance and unruliness. He often displayed a clever ruthlessness that would have done Machiavelli proud.

For all its economic dynamism and strong civic commitment, Singapore feels like an economic Sparta to many. It has the completeness of a state that has probably eschewed the complexity of human nature. Some, like The Economist, wonder what Lee would have done had fate dealt him a bigger power to lead. But equally, there is the quip, probably apocryphal, attributed to Deng Xiaoping, that Lee would have made a capable mayor of a Chinese city. What one makes of him depends partly on what one makes of the Singapore experience. But also partly on what one makes of the modern democratic experience.

Like all leaders, Lee had an unusual sense of authenticity and purpose. He created that rare thing: a sense of public purpose in the state. Singapore is famous for its economic liberalism. But behind that was the recognition that a competent economy requires a deeply competent state. Unlike our reformers, for whom reform means delegitimising the state, Lee thought that the state needed to establish its authority through sheer achievement. But what makes him an inescapable figure is not just the important achievement of creating modern Singapore. The reason he draws so much attention is that he represents, in many ways, modernity’s unfulfilled subconscious, something that both attracts and repels at the same time.

The elements of this subconscious of modernity are plenty. Lee is often derided for creating a muscular, punitive state: harassing political opponents out of existence, equipped with strong penal traditions and a disciplinarian culture. But in a way, even the most advanced democracies have not escaped the tension between democracy and a strong state. And faced with challenges, many have opted for the latter. In an age where democracies have total surveillance, detention without trial, mass incarceration systems as in the United States, an inability to control civil society violence and deep regulation of public protest, Lee’s repression often benefits by comparison. The West loved to hate him, not because he was repressive, but because he managed to create an attractive version of soft authoritarianism. He stood his ground and, in doing so, questioned the very hypocrisy at the heart of so many established democracies.

The second element of this modernity is this: it requires lowering expectations from politics. The modern democratic project was premised on the idea that if we take controversial subjects like religion off the political agenda, we could create peaceful societies. We will disagree on redemption and all such grand claims, but we could probably agree on more mundane earthly matters like keeping the peace, security and economic wellbeing. In a sense, Singapore was a kind of radicalisation of that model. You could keep the peace by concentrating on some basic ingredients of prosperity — focus on bread and eschew the circus. Of course, just like keeping religion out of politics involves constantly policing the boundaries of what is permissible, keeping controversy and division out of the political arena also required constant policing. It is easy to say, let us focus on basic instrumental goods like prosperity. But it is harder to admit that producing a culture that believes that about itself, that is pragmatic in this sense, also requires a wholescale cultural transformation. That is exactly what Lee grasped and produced.

The third feature of modernity that he radicalised was an instrumentalism about culture itself. He used to be described as an Englishman; then he became the stand-in for Confucian values. He was probably neither. Lee was ruthlessly functional and instrumental in the elements of culture he appropriated. If English could give Singapore a common lingua franca and open it to the world, so be it. If Confucian discipline was a good brand to sell, bring it on. If Indian unruliness could be re-coded as a sign of inventiveness, why not? All of Asia has undergone a deep transition to modernity. But it is hard to think of many places that have both appropriated cultures and denuded them of any deep historical significance. More than a harbinger of Asian values, Lee was a quintessential postmodern figure. Culture was an instrument to be used, not a weight to be carried. It is perhaps not an accident that Singapore is one of the few places in Asia that is still not burdened, at least in self-conception, by the weight of its historical past. It is also perhaps not an accident that this very virtue strikes many as its weakness. The lack of historical resentment, unusual in Asia, has made it pragmatically open. On the other hand, it also projects a sense of culture that has too few layers that can be articulated, even if the individual biographies are interesting.

Lee, opinionated, clever, insightful, frank and deeply pragmatic, was a significant figurebecause he had the power of an idea behind him. That idea holds a mirror to modern civilisation. At one level, a polity that is pragmatic, eschews historical depth, focuses on material wellbeing and individual physical security, is driven by an acute knowledge of a modern economy and keeps out debilitating dissent is a deeply attractive one. For societies burdened by too much history, too much otherworldly stuff, physical insecurity, a tendency to dissolve economics into metaphysics, and where the line between dissent and sheer rancour is never clear, such a vision is indeed attractive. Lee’s greatest achievement was to make such a vision workable and attractive. But how much of that vision will still remain attractive will depend on how Singapore endures its next, and more deepening, round of political challenges.

Mr #Buffett's great ride

Attentive readers will notice that Tesco, which last year appeared in the list of our largest common stock investments, is now absent. An attentive investor, I'm embarrassed to report, would have sold Tesco shares earlier. I made a big mistake with this investment by dawdling … In 2013, I soured somewhat on the company's then- management and sold 114 million shares, realizing a profit of $43 million. My leisurely pace in making sales would prove expensive. Charlie calls this sort of behavior 'thumb-sucking.' (Considering what my delay cost us, he is being kind.) During 2014, Tesco's problems worsened by the month ... In the world of business bad news often surfaces serially: You see a cockroach in your kitchen; as the days go by you meet his relatives." 

This delightful passage is from Warren Buffett's most recent letter to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway. It captures his wit and wisdom and ability to distil business lessons - bad business sagas often can be like a soap operatic serial - but most of all it captures Mr Buffett's capacity for self-deprecation. This is a man, after all, who has not only willed his billions to charity but to a foundation with someone else's name on it because he is convinced his friend and bridge partner Bill Gates has a better strategy to put those billions to work.

The loss in question was $444 million, only 0.2 per cent of Berkshire's net worth. But Mr Buffett is as much a teacher as an investor in these shareholder letters. Presumably, he deemed the Tesco experience worth dwelling on because he hopes others will learn from his mistake. In an accompanying letter from Berkshire's 91-year-old vice-chairman, Charlie Munger, Mr Munger says that one of Mr Buffett's aims was to "personally contribute, like [value-investing legend] Professor Ben Graham, to the spread of wisdom attained".

The 2014 letter is especially long because it commemorates 50 years since the company was founded in 1964. It has been parsed over for clues about whether his successor will be Ajit Jain or Greg Abel, both more directly mentioned in Mr Munger's accompanying letter.

The letter, however, is well worth reading and rereading for all it teaches about investing, work and ultimately, since both are building blocks to being happy, about life. Early on, there is a pretty robust defence of investing in shares: "The inescapable conclusion from the past fifty years is that it has been far safer to invest in a diversified collection of American businesses than to invest in (US) Treasuries, whose values have been tied to American currency."

This is especially relevant because with the advances in medicine, many of us face the prospect of a life expectancy that is likely to be closer to Mr Munger's 91 than the mid-70s of an earlier generation. And we need to be precise about what we define as risk. As Mr Buffett points out, "In business schools volatility is almost universally used as a proxy for risk ... It is dead wrong: Volatility is far from synonymous with risk. Popular formulas that equate the two terms lead students, investors and CEOs astray."

Another wonderful bit of advice from Mr Buffett for CEOs on an acquisition trail is to ignore bankers' typical tendency to tout the " 'customary' premiums-to-market price that are currently being paid for acquisitions - an absolutely asinine way to evaluate the attractiveness of an acquisition - or whether the deal will increase the acquirer's earnings per share". Beware of so-called synergies and focus instead on ensuring that the "intrinsic value of shares you give in an acquisition must not be greater than the intrinsic value of the business you receive".

Unusually, for letters to shareholders but not for Mr Buffett's annual missives that have been compiled into a book, there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments as you retrace the journeyBerkshire Hathaway has made over the past 50 years from being an investment company with a dud investment in textiles in the 1960s to the much admired company it is today. Famously, the annual meeting has become a pilgrimage for thousands of grateful shareholders. This year's will feature the "fourth International Newspaper Tossing Challenge". Mr Buffett estimates he tossed half a million newspapers as a teenager with a daily newspaper delivery run. "So I think I'm pretty good. Challenge me! Humiliate me ... I'll buy a Dilly bar for anyone who lands his or her throw closer to the doorstep than I do." Mr Buffett and Mr Gates will also kick off a table tennis challenge against a US 2012 Olympics woman player who we learn did not even yield a point to Mr Buffett when he played her, aged nine.

A curmudgeonly Bloomberg commentator has opined that such antics all add to the folksy aura Mr Buffett has long enjoyed and benefits Berkshire's stock price. Even if true, so what? Mr Buffett's wry account on how he goofed up in not selling out of the textile company that gave Berkshire its name has this gem. "The northern (American) textile industry is finally extinct. You need no longer panic if you hear I've been spotted wandering around New England."

This country has a few easygoing and down-to-earth corporate leaders - Harsh Mariwala, Arundhati Bhattacharya, Rajan Anandan and Nandan Nilekani among them - but self-deprecation is a trait so rarely seen in Indian public life, it might as well be un-Indian. Which is my excuse for ending on a self aggrandizing note. Years ago as a pedantic fact-checker at Fortune magazine in New York, I called Mr Buffett's office in Omaha to ask what he meant by the term "elephant-bumping affairs". Mr Buffett called back to explain that he was referring to giant leadership summits - such as World Economic Forum-styled events today. These were conferences where big egos went to meet other big egos, Mr Buffett explained. To Mr Buffett's eternal credit, he attributes much of Berkshire's success to good investment calls by Mr Munger. And somehow still finds time for newspaper throwing antics with his grateful shareholders.

Lateral entry into the #civilservice is not a good idea

There has been much sound and fury about the need for induction of talent from outside into senior positions in theGovernment of India at the level of joint secretary and above. Several articles and editorials have made the case for lateral entry, without any case being made in opposition. This article seeks to restore the balance in what has been a one-sided debate.

The Indian civil services, particularly the All India Services(AIS), provide managerial leadership for government as a whole. The civil services have knit the administrative framework of a vast and diverse country into a coherent whole and provided a strong integrating element which the country can ill-afford to tamper with. They have provided an outstanding link between the cutting edge at the field level and top policymaking positions. This bridge, while crucial to all systems, has been of strategic significance in the Indian context, given the diversity and widespread poverty of the population. The width and depth of field experience which the civil services provide is simply not available with outside talent. There is no way that external talent can bridge the gap between policymaking and ground level implementation better than career civil servants.

The proposal for lateral entry at senior decision-making levels, besides increasing the disconnect between policymaking and implementation, will also result in inequitable sharing of the benefits and burdens of government service, with permanent civil servants left to bear the burden of "humble" implementation and lateral entrants getting access to "glamorous" policymaking positions, without having roughed it out in remote and rural India in the rough and tumble of Indian democracy. While there would certainly be a beeline for lateral entrants to join top policymaking positions, there would be no such great desire to serve the country at the ground level.

While there may be exceptions, the experience of inducting private-sector managers to run public-sector enterprises is not particularly satisfactory. Whiz-kids from the private sector who ran Air India, Indian Airlines and Vayudoot proved to be failures. Clearly, performance is vitally influenced by the enabling environment and the best managerial capability cannot deliver results in an adverse operating environment. A major part of the disillusionment (if any) with civil servants can be attributed to this enabling environment where innovation and risk-taking have been at a heavy discount. The oft-cited example of the Unique ID Authority of India attributes credit to a single individual, overlooking the contribution of outstanding civil servants like the director-general of the Authority.

It has generally been perceived that a secure career path has become one of the biggest shortcomings of a career-based structure. This is simply not true. There is no assurance that all civil servants will automatically reach the highest positions. In reality, there is tough competition - increased through rigorous scrutiny and weeding out of officers for empanelment at the level of joint secretary and above. In fact, the career trajectory of civil servants has become increasingly uncertain, insecure and hazardous.

The best talent can be attracted only if there is reasonable assurance of reaching top level managerial positions. This is true for government service as much as the private sector. Any dilution of the potential horizon for growth would discourage competent and motivated people. By suggesting a contract-based system for positions of joint secretary and above, the signal would be sent out that only mid-career positions would be within reach in about 15-18 years of service and there would be considerable uncertainty about career progression thereafter. Coupled with unattractive salary scales and non-entitlement to defined pension since 2004, this would become a potent trinity to deter talented persons from aspiring to civil service careers.

A good managerial system encourages and nurtures talent from within instead of seeking to induct leadership from outside. Any failure in this matter is primarily a failure of the system to identify and nurture talent at the appropriate stage. For this, the remedy lies not through lateral induction but through more rigorous performance appraisal and improved personnel management. Large-scale lateral induction would, in fact, amount to a vote of no-confidence in the government personnel management system, rather than in the highly dedicated, motivated and talented officers who have chosen to join the civil services.

It is not clear how lateral entrants would be more performance-oriented and less process-compliant than the civil service, considering that process compliance is the sine qua non for any supervisory authority. Expecting any different from lateral entrants would result in private sector lambs being led to slaughter.

The difficulty in measuring performance in government is another obstacle to be reckoned with. It is not easy to assess the performance of a secretary to the government, given the sheer complexity and amorphous nature of the job. The induction of lateral entrants would not by itself suffice for better performance orientation and enhanced accountability. It would be as difficult to measure the performance of lateral entrants as it would of career civil servants.

The real challenge before the country is the challenge of implementation. Lateral entry into top-level policymaking positions would have no impact whatsoever on field-level implementation. In that sense, the proposal for lateral entry is a red herring to the fundamental issue of weak implementation.

To sum up, while there are many shortcomings in the civil services in India, the suggestion for large-scale lateral entry into top policymaking positions is ill-considered and half-baked. Lateral entry would open the flood gates for a spoils system, drive talented people away from a civil service career, would be inequitable in terms of sharing the burdens and benefits of public service, would widen the disconnect between policymaking and implementation, and would not by itself result in improved managerial performance or enhanced accountability. Lateral entry has been an exception in the Indian civil service system and should continue to be so.

---

IAS & Decentralisation

 By ArunabhaBagchi: 

When I left India in the late Sixties, the IAS was the most coveted career option for the brightest middle class students in Calcutta. None of us knew how to get “boxwallah” jobs.  We all knew that if IFS or IAS did not work out, we might be lucky to be selected for the IPS or some other less glamorous senior central service. It was common knowledge that the UPSC examination was nerve-wrecking, followed by an even more frightening interview. It was, therefore, a big relief when the Engineering School at UCLA offered me a research position to do Ph.D. there. Once in Los Angeles, I thought that there must be an even more prestigious “steel frame” ~ an administrative Service in the United States running the mightiest and richest country on the globe. When I enquired about this from my American friends, they all admitted their ignorance, with a few adding that there might be something similar in the State Department. I forgot all this, as I had neither knowledge, nor interest, in public administration.

It all came back to me as I read in the newspapers that our PM planned to celebrate 31 October, the birth anniversary of SardarVallabbhai Patel, as National Unity Day throughout India. It is, of course, universally acknowledged that it was Sardar Patel who coerced princely states to merge with India, and even sent our armed forces to take over the Nizam’s fiefdom of Telangana. I then remembered that Sardar Patel was also instrumental in continuing the Indian Civil Service (ICS) in the new garb of the Indian Administrative Service after our Independence. The much-detested ICS was the overt face of colonial exploitation and of torture against our freedom-fighters. This proposal of Sardar Patel, therefore, was strongly challenged by many members of the Constituent Assembly. State Chief Ministers rightly construed this as a surreptitious means of controlling them from Delhi, instead of London, and argued that it was a gross violation of the basic tenets of federalism. Sardar Patel, however, prevailed in the end and the Indian Administrative Service was born. The decisive argument in his favour was the crucial role he envisioned for IAS officers in enhancing our national unity.

Although IAS officers are centrally selected, they are dispatched to the states to form the highest administrative cadre there. To achieve the goal of national unity, the cadres are deliberately mixed with one half selected from residents of the state and the other half from those outside the state. With 33 per cent IAS officers promoted from the State Civil Service members, “outsiders” actually dominate between the direct IAS recruits in each state. In reality, an overwhelming majority of new recruits prefer to be posted in their home states. Forcing them to be posted against their will to achieve national unity by just dangling the carrot of their office is weird indeed. How could the governance of a state be improved by bringing recalcitrant recruits from another state?

Another argument advanced in favour of this unusual practice was that it would reduce nepotism and local political pressure on the administration. If we extend this kind of reasoning one level higher, we should have continued to recruit a large part of our senior civil servants in Delhi from England. In fact, if an administrator does not have emotional connection or instinctive knowledge of a state, he would most likely go with the prevalent political wind there. It is also common knowledge that there is hardly any interest for the fresh recruits to join the cadre of states in the North-east or Jammu and Kashmir. These are the only challenging states in terms of national unity. If these young “idealistic” recruits shy away from this mission, it does not speak very highly in favour of maintaining a colonial system to further the cause of national unity.

Civil service in a country is broadly classified as a “career based” system, or a “position based” system. In the “career based” system, prospective candidates are picked up right from the university, or shortly thereafter, by means of a nationwide competitive examination and groomed for the career path leading to top civil service functions. India, France, Italy and Spain, among others, share this system. In the “position based” system, initial appointments of bright candidates are done through departments. At the level of senior civil service appointments recruitment is done by advertisement where potential candidates from all departments, and sometimes from outside the civil service, are allowed to apply. The United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium are some examples of countries in this category.

Both systems have their benefits and drawbacks. In the “career based” system, senior civil servants develop the   esprit de corps and have a total view of the whole administration. The disadvantage is the development of cliques and lack of specialisation in an increasingly knowledge-based environment. In the “position based” system, senior civil servants are drawn from a wider pool of candidates who might have grown in their jobs. The disadvantage is their lack of holistic picture of the administration because of limited mobility earlier. The administrative reform attempted by all OECD (Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development) countries during the last decade consisted largely in modifying their existing system by incorporating positive aspects of the other system.

In India we may be able to do much better. Barring the outlying regions, national unity has become an irrelevant issue in India today. On the other hand, our PM championed the cause of decentralisation in his election campaign. To achieve this, all IAS officers recruited for a state must know the state thoroughly and instinctively. This may be achieved easily by adding in the main examination conducted by the UPSC two state-specific papers, one on the principal language of the state and the other on general knowledge related to all aspects of the state. Based on the ranking, and leaving aside those opting for IFS, every state would recruit IAS officers it needs only from the list of candidates that chose state-specific papers of that particular state.

Many IAS officers want to move to ministries in Delhi later in their career because of abundant power and patronage there. Here is a quote from S.R. Maheshwari’s book  Public Administration in India ~ The Higher Civil Service ~ “It is only a small number of 300 officers who keep hovering around Delhi out of the total membership of 5000 and who act as gate-keepers preventing their other colleagues from getting central postings.” This resulted in Delhi becoming the worst businessman-politician-bureaucrat nexus in India generating the lion’s share of black money in our country. It also deprives our crucial central administration from the services of the most competent IAS officers available in the country. Switching over to the “position based” system for senior appointments in Delhi at the deputy secretary level or higher would solve both these problems at the same time. All suitable IAS officers would be eligible to apply for such positions, with the best candidate selected by a high-powered selection committee just as is done for hiring senior executives in big corporations.

Reforming the IAS is not easy. Attempts to make fundamental changes have turned out to be futile so far. Only Narendra Modi, with his commitment to decentralisation, is in a position to effect real changes in this archaic system.

The new servant leader

Servant-leadership is back in fashion. While Prime MinisterNarendra Modi doesn’t let go of any opportunity of projecting himself as a “Prime Sevak,” even corporate India isn’t far behind. On his first day as Infosys chief executive in August last year, Vishal Sikka quoted Rabindranath Tagore in describing himself as a servant leader and said when communication and computing technology have flattened the world and made everything accessible, to assume that some leader has more ability to solve some problem than others is nonsense.

But no one perhaps exemplifies this model of leadership more than Arvind Kejriwal. When he insists that the landslide election victory is not about him or his party but about the ordinary Delhiites, his frustrations and aspirations, Kejriwal is essentially echoing what Lao-Tzu, philosopher, wrote about servant leadership in the fifth-century BC: “The highest type of ruler is one whose followers say after the task has been accomplished, ‘We ourselves have achieved it!’” That’s precisely what the volunteers and followers of Aam Admi Party (AAP) are saying.

Servant leadership is a style that nurtures participatory leadership and encourages the talent of followers and hence is in direct contrast to the centralised, command-and-control model that most organisations follow.

In modern times, the term servant leadership is attributed to an essay written by Robert Greenleaf in 1970. In the essay titled, "The Servant as Leader", Greenleaf, who had worked in AT&T before setting up a centre for servant leadership, said such a leadership style encourages a decentralised structure that focuses on employee empowerment and encourages innovation. This means having upper management share key decision-making powers with employees who work directly with customers and hence are better aware of what is needed to serve clients. As Kejriwal has shown, servant leaders also rely on persuasion, rather than positional authority in making decisions. 

There are several other leadership insights that the business world can draw from Kejriwal. It’s the way he fought back after his 49-day chief ministership and subsequent near-decimation in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.  He learnt quickly from the mistakes, apologised in public (the main reason why people who were angry with him earlier were still willing to give him another chance) and quickly regrouped to fight another battle. The result: AAP was much better equipped organisationally this time through a distributed leadership model. 

But like all successful business leaders, Kejriwal made sure he remained focused, resilient and communicative with his core audience, as a result of which everyone knows why AAP was created. His single-minded approach to fighting corruption ensured that no business school can teach the importance of 'focus’ as well as Kejriwal.

Articulation of your mission to your team and customers is another important facet of leadership. And this is where Kejriwal and team performed brilliantly through one-to-one, direct communication through 'mohalla sabhas’ with clear ideas, all of which was force multiplied by social media usage. This is what is known in management parlance as the blue ocean strategy -- create new demand in an uncontested market space rather than compete head-to-head with your competitors. 

Kejriwal may not leave you spellbound with his carefully crafted speeches or a strong persona, but he surely knows how to connect with the hearts of his audience – the 60% of Delhi’s 17 million population – through disruptive means of communication which did not require money power.  

And he surely knows how to laugh at his own expense – a trait which endeared him to many. Which political leader in India would be willing to appear in a spoof show on Youtube where the host asks him whether he would like to have coffee or cough syrup? All this was part of a carefully cultivated smart marketing of a leader who is “normal”, resembling your friendly neighbourhood ordinary educated middle class man firmly aligned to values like justice, equality, truth and transparency. If this is not smart marketing, what is?

As he gets sworn in tomorrow, the only concern Delhi’s new Chief Minister should have is how to scale up the model. As is the case with almost every political party, AAP is also fundamentally a one-man band. He has to remove that crucial similarity with the traditional leadership model. The faster, the better.

Civil disservice

With the removal of the foreign and home secretaries, much before their two-year tenures had expired, the civil services have come into sharp focus. Yet this government had made some significant changes earlier too. The finance and revenue secretaries as well as the secretary of the financial services department were shifted out, according to some, quite suddenly. This perception of sudden movement in the higher levels of the civil service has brought with it the suspicion that there must be a sinister reason for the changes. But, while we may legitimately feel concerned by such removals, we rarely scrutinise the process of appointments for these important posts and seldom analyse the rationale for a particular person being selected for a specific job.

When the former foreign and home secretaries were appointed, nobody had questioned whether they were the best available officers. It is common sense to assume that the Union home secretary would be an officer who had been home secretary in a large state or had served for a long time at the ministry of home affairs. Similarly, the foreign secretary should have held a variety of diplomatic posts and worked in key policymaking desks at the ministry of external affairs. We take it for granted that every appointed officer deserves the post. We have, as a society, paid little attention to our civil service except to revile or criticise it. But we need to look at the ways in which civil servants are recruited, trained, deployed and disciplined if we want good service from them.

The appointment, transfer and removal of civil servants is the prerogative of the government. There are elaborate procedures, constitutionally mandated, for dismissal or termination from service. The former foreign and home secretaries were not dismissed; their terms of appointment were merely curtailed. Incidentally, both were past the retirement age of 60 and earned their maximum retirement benefits. If the government felt the performance of the incumbents fell short of expectations, it had the right to change the officers. After all, the same government had retained them for all these months, even though they had been appointed earlier. While we have a right to know why they were removed, it may not be in the interests of the individual officers and their right to privacy, or even in the larger public interest, to reveal these reasons. This moment, however, gives us an opportunity to examinhe mechanisms for managing the higher civil services and making appointments to senior posts in the Central government.

The Centre has a mechanism called the Central staffing scheme, which lays down the broad guidelines for appointing officers to senior civil posts. Through a rather long-drawn but

mostly mechanical exercise, IAS and other officers are shortlisted every year. The Centre chooses from this pool when appointing officers to vacant posts. Under the above scheme, only officers at the joint secretary level and below get a fixed tenure of service, ranging from three to seven years. There is no fixed tenure for additional secretaries and most of the secretaries. Most often, the secretaries get a tenure of two to three years, since most reach 60 by then and are due to retire. With more and more officers joining the service late, the average term of secretaries in the Central government is not more than two years these days. However, irrespective of the date of retirement, a term of two years is fixed for the cabinet secretary, the secretaries of home, defence and foreign affairs, as well as some secretary-level heads of security and intelligence for bodies like the R&AW, IB and CBI. The UPA government amended the relevant rules and extended the cabinet secretary’s term to go up to four years. It has always been a mystery why these posts have been singled out for a fixed term, that too irrespective of the date of retirement. Why should the home secretary get a fixed term and not the finance or health secretary, or the secretary of environment and forests? Why is the cabinet secretary to work for four years? And why is the director of the CBI or IB considered more deserving of a fixed two-year term than the DG of the BSF or CRPF? The fact of the matter is that the current system is very arbitrary, its rules and procedures framed to benefit individual officers rather than to serve any real public interest.

The entire process of shortlisting eligible officers, popularly known as empanelment, is seriously flawed, based as it is only on annual performance appraisal reports and no other qualitative criteria. With nearly every officer credited with outstanding ratings, almost all are found fit to be secretary, at least among the IAS officers. If not, they have only to go back to their respective states to pick up promotions. It is not very different with IPS officers or those from the foreign services. Thus, senior civil servants are not only guaranteed permanence in their jobs, but also assured promotion to the highest possible level in their respective services. Where else in the world is it expected that every recruit to a public office will continue to display uniform excellence across a career spanning nearly 35 years and be eligible to rise to the top? We are now so used to this trend that a sudden removal of a secretary, even without affecting his or her post-retirement benefits, leaves us surprised. It is as if the officers have a right to remain at their posts forever.

In normal times, civil servants are dismissed as inconsequential “babus” and forgotten, or at best taken for granted. So it is not inappropriate to reiterate the civil service’s place in the body politic. It forms the bulk of what is known as the executive, one arm of the constitutional triad. The Constitution of India creates it and legitimises it with a degree of permanence only equalled by the judiciary. The judiciary, in its autonomy and standing, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The civil services, as an integral part of the executive, may also be considered a component of the same basic structure. Rightly so, since it is the civil service that has always run the government, whatever its form. Having given so much permanence and power to civil servants, especially the senior ones, the country must expect much more from them. It must also invest much more in preparing them to deliver the best. Several Administrative Reforms Commissions later, nothing has changed in the way we manage higher appointments. It is time the government took up this limited administrative reform, framed clear rules and procedures to streamline these appointments, for the good of the civil servants but also to get the best out of them for the greater public good.

The image and the man

I am told on good authority that far from taking a swipe at India, US President Barack Obama did Narendra Modi a favour by saying "every person has the right to practise his faith without any persecution, fear or discrimination." According to this version, if the prime minister didn't actually ask the president to warn Indians of the dangers of religious fanaticism, he encouraged him to do so. Modi may have felt it might compensate for what the Delhi archdiocese chancellor, Father Mathew Koyickal, has since called his "deafening silence on recurring targeted attacks on our places of worship."

Since any US president is to some extent the prisoner of Bible-thumping and human rights lobbies, Obama's team felt it would be unwise to sweep either their concerns or the rejection of Modi's visa applications for a decade under the carpet. American credibility demanded some reference that the president could then cite at home both to justify Washington's earlier visa refusal and to prove he hadn't sold out on principles that earnest-minded children of the Pilgrim Fathers hold dear.

Apparently, when he sought to whisper a word of caution in his host's ear, Modi turned round and said something like, "Why not say it aloud? Let everyone hear your views on the subject!" Obama obliged, possibly not realising that in discharging his own domestic obligation he was also pulling Modi's chestnuts out of the fire. Indian analysts and television anchors might in their ignorance fume over such seeming impertinence. Significantly, however, there wasn't even a squeak of comment - leave alone protest - from anyone in authority in the party or government.

For all his handsome majority and control of a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) he has purged of potential critics, Modi, too, must be wary of his stalwarts. Part of the secret of his success is that he lives - nay thrives - more on perceptions than on verifiable facts. Very few people actually know the prime minister. But everyone nurses an image of the man. It's the image that inspires like and dislike.

Businessmen swear by him as the architect of growth, irrespective of tangible measures to increase GDP. The urban middle classes see him as the pioneer of civic welfare without noticing that in their eagerness to make the headlines, publicity-hungry amateurs in the Swachh Bharat crusade may leave behind more litter than they clear. Many Muslims in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan fear he is a committed foe.

Modi's relationship with religion compounds the paradox. He refuses to wear a Muslim cap and makes a big thing of worshipping Mother Ganga. But he won't oblige Hindutva champions by demolishing mosques and erecting temples to Rama. Yet, he dare not - certainly not on the eve of the Delhi elections - discipline rampaging bigots who desecrate churches, attack discos and dance halls, murder missionaries, rape nuns and force Muslims to convert. It was with their unspoken but powerful backing that he pulled off a coup and worsted BJP veterans who played by conventional rules and enjoyed the confidence even of people who didn't endorse their ideology.

This is where an obliging buddy like Obama comes in handy. As Subrahmanyam Jaishankar told the Carnegie Endowment last year when he was still India's ambassador, the India-US relationship has survived the romance of courtship and arrived, and that Indians and Americans are victims of their own success. Dizzy courtship yields to staid marital stability when partners take each other for granted. Modi's proud boasts on the Mann ki Baat programme and at Hyderabad House left listeners in no doubt he felt he was on terms of the utmost intimacy with the exalted guest whose first name he lovingly trotted out no fewer than 23 times. That being so, it would be only natural for the prime minister to explain his dilemma to Obama and explain that a few words of warning and reproof from him might not come amiss.

A Jawaharlal Nehru would have bristled indignantly at an American president's intervention. But, then, Nehru wouldn't have been so flattered at being matey with a Western leader, especially one who determinedly refused to reciprocate his aggressive familiarity. Nor could any Christian priest ever have said of Nehru, "We are sure he would not have been silent if temples were desecrated."

---

Leave aside the demeaning social one-upmanship, what matters is that a tocsin has been sounded. Modi's most ardent camp-followers now know they will be blamed if the Indo-US barque runs aground. Whether they will heed the warning is another matter

10 reasons why happy people set better goals

Understanding the importance of goal setting and knowing how to set goals for yourself is crucial to accomplishing great things in your life. 

It is an empowering way to create the life you want and desire, instead of relying on external events and circumstances. Here are 10 characteristics of happy people that help them become better goal-setters:

1. PRIORITISING HAPPINESS
Happy people know that life is more about appreciating the journey, and not worrying about getting to a destination. While they may have big plans in the works, they also take time out to appreciate the present moment and all the good things they presently possess in life. This appreciation for life in turn inspires them and gives them the positive energy to continue achieving their goals. As the saying goes, success does not bring happiness; happiness brings success.

2. SEEING BEYOND SUCCESS AND FAILURE
Happy people know that there's really no such thing as a complete failure -even when things don't go as planned, they appreciate the opportunity for self-growth, the experience gained and the lessons learnt.

3. NOT COMPROMISING SELF-WORTH
Happy people find themselves to be complete and don't measure success and self worth by the house they own, the career they've picked or any other external goals. They understand that while following their dreams is a worthwhile endeavour, it's secondary to their primary objective in life -to grow into their authentic selves, love more and cherish each day as it comes.

4. LIVING BY YOUR OWN RULES
Happy people are driven to lead a life that's true to themselves.They rise above the pressure to conform to social norms or expectations of family and friends. They understand they have a unique gift to offer to the world, and that when they design a life that agrees with their soul, and feels like a natural extension of who they believe themselves to be.

5. BEING OPTIMISTIC ABOUT GOALS
Most people know deep down what they want in life. Some don't end up pursuing it because they're convinced that it won't work and that they don't have it in them to achieve it. Happy people understand the importance of believing in their goals, and they fill their minds with all of the reasons why it can work out and why they are worthy of attaining success.

6. NOT BLAMING CIRCUMSTANCES
Happy people realise that life can change quickly and sporadically and that significant change is entirely possible. They also understand that by following their passion, the right people, circumstances and opportunities will gravitate towards them. They's not focussed on all the steps needed to achieve their goals-they're just dead sure of the end result they hope to achieve, and work towards it.

7. HAPPY TO ACCEPT HELP
Happy people embrace a level of vulnerability and openness in their lives. This also makes them more than willing to accept help and support when they need it. They accept the fact that they can't always do everything on their own, and that it's fine to own up to it.

8. BEING OPEN-MINDED
Happy people know that they want to seek fulfilment by achieving their goals. They are also well aware that this fulfilment can come to them in many ways. They may set their sights on a particular career, partner or lifestyle, but they are also open-minded enough to spot alternatives that come their way which would also provide the same feeling of fulfilment.

9. NEVER FORGETTING YOUR GOALS
Happy people know the importance of being an active creator of their life, rather than a victim of circumstance. For this reason, they prioritise their goals and use them as a compass or guide on a regular basis.

10. LIVING IN THE MOMENT
Happy people strike a healthy balance between making plans for the future and visualising their dream life, and taking action in the present moment. They understand that being focused and taking action today can improve their tomorrow.

7th Pay Commission: Should other Central services officers get an IAS salary?

THE IPS, IRS, IRTS and other Central service officers may step up their demands of getting equal pay with that of an IAS or IFS officer, as the 7th Pay Commission is now examining a pay revision that may come into effect from April 1, 2016. Satya Prasant P, an Indian Revenue Service officer who had earlier voiced his concerns about the IAS hegemony, has in his personal blog made a strong pitch for equal salary for officers belonging to all services, appealing the 7th Pay Commission to end the existing distortion. Let’s first see how much more an IAS officer gets than that of officers belonging to other services:
In a highly analytical piece written in his personal blog satyaprasantp@blogspot.in, (Full Article)  Prasant estimates that an IAS or IFS officer in a month gets Rs 4,000 to 5,000 more than officers belonging to other services after four years of service though all pass the same competitive examination. The gap goes up to Rs 15,000–16,000 per month by 14th year and Rs 18,000-20,000 per month by 17th year of service, as IAS and IFS officers are accorded additional increments at 3% each over their basic pay at three grades i.e. Senior Time Scale (STS), Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) and Non Functional Selection Grade (NFSG). “The Transport Allowance and other Allowances are calculated as a percentage of basic salary or basic salary plus DA. So it is anybody’s guess as to what will be the difference in salaries being paid to an IAS/IFS officer and other officers belonging to other Services like IPS, IRS, etc. as a result of two additional increments being granted to IAS/IFS at three levels,” he adds.
Prasant argues that this discriminatory practice has its roots in the erstwhile British colonial administration when the Indian Civil Service (ICS) was an elite cadre of officers comprising predominantly the British nationals or Europeans that occupied top administrative positions. Post-Independence, IAS took ICS’ space.
Prasant concedes that those IAS and IFS officers who got selected before 1979 could be considered of higher merit than those selected for IPS and other Central services, as the former had to clear two additional optional subjects of master’s degree standard. But examination pattern got changed since 1979.  
Based on Kothari Committee recommendations of 1976, recruitment to IAS, IFS, IPS and other Central Civil Services was being made through a common civil services examination since 1979. “However, the edge enjoyed by the IAS/IFS over the other Services in respect of salaries is being continued even after 1979 citing one or the other reason,” Prasant writes.
In fact, the question of pay parity cropped up during the earlier pay commissions as well, but the demand was set aside mainly with an argument that IAS officers are still the best talent, and they are generally posted in small places in their initial career. Also, they face frequent transfers, and the pulls and pressures that they have to stand upto early in their career are much more intense. The following is an excerpt from the 6th Pay Commission report that argued why IAS officers should get a better pay: “The role of IAS is still very important in the overall scheme of governance. They have an important coordinating, multi-functional and integrating role in the administrative framework with wide experience of working across various levels in diverse areas in Government. They hold important field level posts at the district level and at the cutting edge at the start of their careers with critical decision making and crisis management responsibilities. The leadership function, the strategic, coordinating and integrative role at this level requires the best talent available. The existing position would, therefore, need to be maintained. It will ensure that IAS officers near the beginning of their career are given slightly higher remuneration vis-à-vis other services and act as an incentive for the brightest candidates to enter this service. This is essential as the initial postings of IAS officers are generally to small places, they face frequent transfers and the pulls and pressures they have to stand upto early in their career are much more intense. The slight edge in the initial stages of their career would, to an extent, neutralize these problems. The Commission, accordingly, is of view that the existing edge for IAS in the three grades viz. Senior Time Scale, Junior Administrative Grade and Non-Functional Selection Grade needs to be retained.”
But according to Prasant, it’s a myth that IAS officers are the best talent available among the candidates selected through civil services examination. And this myth is “perpetrated by the IAS lobby to gain an unfair advantage over the other sister civil services in the country”, he adds.
Analyzing the Service Allocation lists for the civil services examinations from 2005 to 2012, Prasant sums up like this: “All those candidates who are allotted IAS in the Civil Services Examination merit list are neither the toppers of that year’s exam nor the brightest of the candidates selected in that year.”
Further, he calls the 6th Central Pay Commission’s justification of a higher pay for IAS “by citing their initial postings to small places, frequent transfers and intense pulls and pressures” as highly self-contradictory.  Prasant retorts: “Initial postings of IPS and Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers are also to small places. The pulls and pressures on IPS officers are much more than on the IAS officers.  The frequent transfers are seen more in the case of IPS than in the IAS.  IPS officers are at the forefront of combating terrorism and naxalism, which are the biggest security threats the country is facing.  IPS officers are working overtime to ensure that public order is maintained across the country.  The majority of the Central Civil Services officers belonging to Services like IRS(IT), IRS(C and CE), IDAS, IDES, IRTS and the Indian Forest Service officers are posted in the moffussil towns during their initial years of service. Some of them are posted in the remotest areas of the country like Jammu and Kashmir, North-East, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, border areas, etc.”
So, will 7th Pay Commission look into this "inequality" and give equal pay to all officers across services? What is your take? Which side you are in?

Three other foreign secretaries who quit or were sacked

Sujatha Singh's isn't the first head to roll; Jagat Mehta, A P Venkateswaran and S K Singh were three others who had to demit office before their time

Sujatha Singh is the fourth instance of a foreign secretary of India to have either been asked to quit or sacked. Singh was removed six months before her two year tenure was to end. The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, that took the decision to cut short her tenure, used the word “curtail” advisedly. For Singh, born in July 1954, was past her retirement age.

The other three instances of foreign secretaries to have been sacked or signaled to resign took place when they were yet to retire, or so claim former diplomats. Jagat Mehta in 1980, A P Venkateswaran in 1987 and S K Singh in 1990 are the three other examples of serving foreign secretaries being sacked or asked to quit before the end of their terms/reaching superannuation.



Sujatha Singh is also the third top official to be sacked by the Narendra Modi government. In the other two instances, the officials were on extended tenures.

The government removed Special Protection Group chief K Durga Prasad in end November. Prasad was on extension, his tenure having ended earlier that month. Prasad had dismissed speculation that his ouster had anything to do with Prime Minister Modi’s estranged wife Jashodaben having filed a Right to Information application about the security cover being provided to her.

In mid-January, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar removed the chief of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Avinash Chander. Parrikar said the organisation needed a younger man as its head. The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet ended Chander’s contract 16 months before it was to conclude. Chander was on a two year extension given to him by the Modi government.

Three foreign secretaries who quit/ were sacked

Jagat Mehta, 1979: Mehta, one of the most respected officers to serve in the Indian Foreign Service, was sacked months before he was to retire. Prime Minister Charan Singh, with Atal Bihari Vajpayee as his Foreign Minister, felt Mehta had brought in changes in India’s policies towards Pakistan, US and China that had hurt India’s interests. It was also felt that he damaged India’s standing at the Lusaka Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, CHOGM in 1979, by promoting his own candidature for the post of the secretary general of the Commonwealth. According to former diplomat T P Sreenivasan, Mehta took the moral responsibility for the fiasco that had more to do with “inept” handling of the issue at the political level. Mehta resigned, but was asked to stay on and later dismissed when his replacement arrived.

A P Venkateswaran, 1987: Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi literally sacked Venkateswaran during his annual press conference. Venkateswaran had publicly termed the sending of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka a mistake. When asked to respond to this by a Pakistani journalist, Gandhi famously said: Soon, you will be talking to a new foreign secretary. Venkateswaran returned to his office and resigned.

S K Singh, 1990: Singh was appointed the foreign secretary in the last months of the Rajiv Gandhi government. But life became difficult when V P Singh government took over after the Lok Sabha elections in end-1989. External Affairs Minister Inder Kumar Gujral and S K Singh hadn’t been on the best of terms when Gujral was the ambassador to Moscow in late 1970s, while S K Singh dealt with administration in Delhi. He was asked to quit months before his retirement, with Muchkund Dubey appointed the new foreign secretary.

Transcript of the special episode of Mann ki Baat: PM Shri Narendra Modi and US President Shri Barack Obama share their thoughts on Radio

English Rendering of Transcript of the special episode of Mann ki Baat: PM Shri Narendra Modi and US President Shri Barack Obama share their thoughts on Radio

(Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi): Today, Shri Barack Obama, President of the United States, joins us in a special programme of Mann Ki Baat. For the last few months, I have been sharing my "Mann Ki Baat" with you. But today, people from various parts of the country have asked questions. But most of the questions are connected to politics, foreign policy, economic policy. However, some questions touch the heart. And I believe if we touch those questions today, we shall be able to reach out to the common man in different parts of the country. And therefore, the questions asked in press conferences, or discussed in meetings – instead of those – if we discuss what comes from the heart, and repeat it, hum it, we get a new energy. And therefore, in my opinion, those questions are more important. Some people wonder, what does "Barack" mean? I was searching for the meaning of Barack. In Swahili language, which is spoken in parts of Africa, Barack means, one who is blessed. I believe, along with a name, his family gave him a big gift. African countries have lived by the ancient idea of ‘Ubuntu’, which alludes to the ‘oneness in humanity’. They say – “I am, because we are”. Despite the gap in centuries and borders, there is the same spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, which speak of in India. This is the great shared heritage of humanity. This unites us. When we discuss Mahatma Gandhi, we remember Henry Thoreau, from whom Mahatma Gandhi learnt disobedience. When we talk about Martin Luther King or Obama, we hear from their lips, respect for Mahatma Gandhi. These are the things that unite the world. Today, Barack Obama is with us. I will first request him to share his thoughts. Then, I and Barack will both answer the questions that have been addressed to us. I request President Barack Obama to say a few words. (Hon’ble Shri Barack Obama): Namaste! Thank you Prime Minister Modi for your kind words and for the incredible hospitality you have shown me and my wife Michelle on this visit and let me say to the people of India how honoured I am to be the first American President to join you for Republic Day; and I’m told that this is also the first ever Radio address by an Indian Prime Minister and an American President together, so we’re making a lot of history in a short time. Now to the people of India listening all across this great nation. It’s wonderful to be able to speak you directly. We just come from discussions in which we affirmed that India and the United States are natural partners, because we have so much in common. We are two great democracies, two innovative economies, two diverse societies dedicated to empowering individuals. We are linked together by millions of proud Indian Americans who still have family and carry on traditions from India. And I want to say to the Prime Minister how much I appreciate your strong personal commitment to strengthening the relationship between these two countries. People are very excited in the United States about the energy that Prime Minister Modi is bringing to efforts in this country to reduce extreme poverty and lift people up, to empower women, to provide access to electricity, and clean energy and invest in infrastructure, and the education system. And on all these issues, we want to be partners. Because many of the efforts that I am promoting inside the United States to make sure that the young people get the best education possible, to make sure that the ordinary people are properly compensated for their labour, and paid fair wages, and have job security and health care. These are the same kinds of issues that Prime Minister Modi, I know cares so deeply about here. And I think there’s a common theme in these issues. It gives us a chance to reaffirm what Gandhi ji reminded us, should be a central aim of our lives. And that is, we should endeavour to seek God through service of humanity because God is in everyone. So these shared values, these convictions, are a large part of why I am so committed to this relationship. I believe that if the United States and India join together on the world stage around these values, then not only will our peoples be better off, but I think the world will be more prosperous and more peaceful and more secure for the future. So thank you so much Mr. Prime Minister, for giving me this opportunity to be with you here today. (Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi): Barack the first question comes from Raj from Mumbai His question is, the whole world knows about your love for your daughters. How will you tell your daughters about youre experience of India? Do you plan to do some shopping for them?  (Hon’ble Shri Barack Obama): Well first of all they very much wanted to come. They are fascinated by India, Unfortunately each time that I have taken a trip here, they had school and they couldn’t leave school. And in fact, Malia, my older daughter, had exams just recently. They are fascinated by the culture, and the history of India, in part because of my influence I think, they are deeply moved by India’s movement to Independence, and the role that Gandhi played, in not only the non-violent strategies here in India, but how those ended up influencing the non-violent Civil Rights Movement in the United States. So when I go back I am going to tell them that India is as magnificent as they imagined. And I am quite sure that they are going to insist that I bring them back the next time I visit. It may not be during my Presidency, but afterwards they will definitely want to come and visit. And I will definitely do some shopping for them. Although I can’t go to the stores myself, so I have to have my team do the shopping for me. And I’ll get some advice from Michelle, because she probably has a better sense of what they would like. (Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi): Barack said he will come with his daughters. I extend an invitation to you. Whether you come as President, or thereafter, India looks forward to welcoming you and your daughters. Sanika Diwan from Pune, Maharashtra has asked me a question. She asks me, whether I have sought assistance from President Obama for the Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao Mission  Sanika you have asked a good question. There is a lot of worry because of the sex ratio in India. For every 1000 boys, the number of girls is less. And the main reason for this is that, there is a defect in our attitudes towards boys and girls. Whether or not I seek help from President Obama, his life is in itself an inspiration. The way he has brought up his two daughters, the way he is proud of his two daughters. In our country too, I meet many families who have only daughters. And they bring up their daughters with such pride, give them such respect, that is the biggest inspiration. I believe that inspiration is our strength. And in response to your question, I would like to say, to save the girl child, to educate the girl child, this is our social duty, cultural duty, and humanitarian responsibility. We should honour it. Barack, there is a question for you. The second question for President Obama comes through e-mail: Dr. Kamlesh Upadhyay, a Doctor based in Ahmedabad, Gujarat - Your wife is doing extensive work on tackling modern health challenges like obesity and diabetes. These are increasingly being faced in India as well. Would you and the First Lady like to return to India to work on these issues after your Presidency, just like Bill and Melinda Gates?  (Hon’ble Barack Obama): Well, we very much look forward to partnering with organizations, and the government and non-governmental organizations here in India, around broader Public Health issues including the issue of obesity. I am very proud of the work that Michelle has done on this issue. We’re seeing a world-wide epidemic of obesity, in many cases starting at a very young age. And a part of it has to do with increase in processed foods, not naturally prepared. Part of it is a lack of activity for too many children. And once they are on this path, it can lead to a life time of health challenges. This is an issue that we would like to work on internationally, including here in India. And it is a part of a broader set of issues around global health that we need to address. The Prime Minister and I have discussed, for example, how we can do a better job in dealing with issues like pandemic. And making sure that we have good alert systems so that if a disease like Ebola, or a deadly flu virus, or Polio appears, it is detected quickly and then treated quickly so that it doesn’t spread. The public health infrastructure around the world needs to be improved. I think the Prime Minister is doing a great job in focusing on these issues here in India. And India has a lot to teach many other countries who may not be advancing as rapidly in improving this public health sector. But it has an impact on everything, because if children are sick they can’t concentrate in school and they fall behind. It has a huge economic impact on the countries involved and so we think that there is a lot of progress to be made here and I am very excited about the possibilities of considering this work even after I leave office. (Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi): Mr. Arjun asks me a question. An interesting question. He says he has seen an old photo of me as a tourist outside the White House. He asks me what touched me when I went there last September.  It is true that when I first went to America, I was not lucky enough to visit the White House. There is an iron fence far from the White House. We stood outside the fence and took a photograph. White House is visible in the background. Now that I have become Prime Minister, that photo too has become popular. But at that time, I had never thought that sometime in my life, I would get a chance to visit the White House. But when I visited the White House, one thing touched my heart. I can never forget that. Barack gave me a book, a book that he had located after considerable effort. That book had become famous in 1894. Swami Vivekananda, the inspiration of my life, had gone to Chicago to participate in the World Religions Conference. And this book was a compilation of the speeches delivered at the World Religions Conference. That touched my heart. And not just this. He turned the pages of the book, and showed me what was written there. He had gone through the entire book! And he told me with pride, I come from the Chicago where Swami Vivekananda had come. These words touched my heart a lot. And I will treasure this throughout my life. So once, standing far from the White House and taking a photo, and then, to visit the White House, and to receive a book on someone whom I respect. You can imagine, how it would have touched my heart. Barack there is a question for you. Himani from Ludhiana, Punjab. Question is for you ……:  (Hon’ble Shri Barack Obama): Well the question is “Did you both imagine you would reach the positions that you’ve reached today?”  And it is interesting, Mr. Prime Minister, your talking about the first time you visited White House and being outside that iron fence. The same is true for me. When I first went to the White House, I stood outside that same fence, and looked in, and I certainly did not imagine that I would ever be visiting there, much less living there. You know, I think both of us have been blessed with an extraordinary opportunity, coming from relatively humble beginnings. And when I think about what’s best in America and what’s best in India, the notion that a tea seller or somebody who’s born to a single mother like me, could end up leading our countries, is an extraordinary example of the opportunities that exist within our countries. Now I think, a part of what motivates both you and I, is the belief that there are millions of children out there who have the same potential but may not have the same education, may not be getting exposed to opportunities in the same way, and so a part of our job, a part of government’s job is that young people who have talent, and who have drive and are willing to work for, are able to succeed. And that’s why we are emphasizing school, higher education. Making sure that children are healthy and making sure those opportunities are available to children of all backgrounds, girls and boys, people of all religious faiths and of all races in the United States is so important. Because you never know who might be the next Prime Minister of India, or who might be the next President of United States. They might not always look the part right off the bat. And they might just surprise you if you give them the chance. (Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi): Thank you Barack. Himani from Ludhiana has also asked me this question – did I ever imagine I would reach this high office?  No. I never imagined it. Because, as Barack said, I come from a very ordinary family. But for a long time, I have been telling everyone, never dream of becoming something. If you wish to dream, dream of doing something. When we do something, we get satisfaction, and also get inspiration to do something new. If we only dream of becoming something, and cannot fulfil the dream, then we only get disappointed. And therefore, I never dreamt of becoming something. Even today, I have no dream of becoming something. But I do dream of doing something. Serving Mother India, serving 125 crore Indians, there can be no greater dream than this. That is what I have to do. I am thankful to Himani. There is a question for Barack from Omprakash. Omprakash is studying Sanskrit at JNU. He belongs to Jhunjunu, Rajasthan. Om Prakash is convener of special centre for Sanskrit Studies in JNU.  (Hon’ble Shri Barack Obama): Well this is a very interesting question. His question is, the youth of the new generation is a global citizen. He is not limited by time or boundaries. In such a situation what should be the approach by our leadership, governments as well as societies at large.  I think this is a very important question. When I look at this generation that is coming up, they are exposed to the world in ways that you and I could hardly imagine. They have the world at their fingertips, literally. They can, using their mobile phone, get information and images from all around the world and that’s extraordinarily powerful. And what that means, I think is that, governments and leaders cannot simply try to govern, or rule, by a top-down strategy. But rather have to reach out to people in an inclusive way, and an open way, and a transparent way. And engage in a dialogue with citizens, about the direction of their country. And one of the great things about India and the United States is that we are both open societies. And we have confidence and faith that when citizens have information, and there is a vigorous debate, that over time even though sometimes democracy is frustrating, the best decisions and the most stable societies emerge and the most prosperous societies emerge. And new ideas are constantly being exchanged. And technology today I think facilitates that, not just within countries, but across countries. And so, I have much greater faith in India and the United States, countries that are open information societies, in being able to succeed and thrive in this New Information Age; than closed societies that try to control the information that citizens receive. Because ultimately that’s no longer possible. Information will flow inevitably, one way or the other, and we want to make sure we are fostering a healthy debate and a good conversation between all peoples. (Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi): Omprakash wants me too, to answer the question that has been asked to Barack.  Barack has given a very good answer. It is inspiring. I will only say, that once upon a time, there were people inspired primarily by the Communist ideology. They gave a call: Workers of the world, Unite. This slogan lasted for several decades. I believe, looking at the strength and reach of today`s youth, I would say, Youth, Unite the world. I believe they have the strength and they can do it. The next question is from CA Pikashoo Mutha from Mumbai, and he asks me, which American leader has inspired you  When I was young, I used to see Kennedy`s pictures in Indian newspapers. His personality was very impressive. But your question is, who has inspired me. I liked reading as a child. And I got an opportunity to read the biography of Benjamin Franklin. He lived in the eighteenth century. And he was not an American President. But his biography is so inspiring – how a person can intelligently try to change his life. If we feel excessively sleepy, how can we reduce that? If we feel like eating too much, how can we work towards eating less? If people get upset with you that cannot meet them, because of the pressure of work, then how to solve this problem? He has addressed such issues in his biography. And I tell everyone, we should read Benjamin Franklin`s biography. Even today, it inspires me. And Benjamin Franklin had a multi-dimensional personality. He was a politician, he was a political scientist, he was a social worker, he was a diplomat. And he came from an ordinary family. He could not even complete his education. But till today, his thoughts have an impact on American life. I find his life truly inspiring. And I tell you too, if you read his biography, you will find ways to transform your life too. And he has talked about simple things. So I feel you will be inspired as much as I have been. There is a question for Barack, from Monika Bhatia.  (Hon’ble Shri Barack Obama):  Well the question is “As leaders of two major economies, what inspires you and makes you smile at the end of a bad day at work?”  And that is a very good question. I say sometimes, that the only problems that come to my desk are the ones that nobody else solves. If they were easy questions, then somebody else would have solved them before they reached me. So there are days when it’s tough and frustrating. And that’s true in Foreign Affairs. That is true in Domestic Affairs. But I tell you what inspires me, and I don’t know Mr. Prime Minister if you share this view - almost every day I meet somebody who tells me, “You made a difference in my life.” So they’ll say, “The Health-Care law that you passed, saved my child who didn’t have health insurance.” And they were able to get an examination from a Physician, and they caught an early tumour, and now he is doing fine. Or they will say “You helped me save my home during the economic crisis.” Or they’ll say, “I couldn’t afford college, and the program you set up has allowed me to go to the university.” And sometimes they are thanking you for things that you did four or five years ago. Sometimes they are thanking you for things you don’t even remember, or you’re not thinking about that day. But it is a reminder of what you said earlier, which is, if you focus on getting things done as opposed to just occupying an office or maintaining power, then the satisfaction that you get is unmatched. And the good thing about service is that anybody can do it. If you are helping somebody else, the satisfaction that you can get from that, I think, exceeds anything else that you can do. And that’s usually what makes me inspired to do more, and helps get through the challenges and difficulties that we all have. Because obviously we are not the only people with bad days at work. I think everybody knows what it is like to have a bad day at work. You just have to keep on working through it. Eventually you make a difference. (Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi): Indeed Barack has spoken words from the heart (Mann Ki Baat). Whatever position we may hold, we are human too. Simple things can inspire us. I also wish to narrate an experience. For many years, I was like an ascetic. I got food at other people`s homes. Whoever invited me, used to feed me as well. Once a family invited me over for a meal, repeatedly. I would not go, because I felt they are too poor, and if I go to eat at their place, I will become a burden on them. But eventually, I had to bow to their request and love. And I went to eat a meal at their home. It was a small hut, where we sat down to eat. They offered me roti made of bajra (millet), and mik. Their young child was looking at the milk. I felt, the child has never even seen milk. So I gave that small bowl of milk to the child. And he drank it within seconds. His family members were angry with him. And I felt that perhaps that child has never had any milk, apart from his mother`s milk. And maybe, they had bought milk so that I could have a good meal. This incident inspired me a lot. A poor person living in a hut could think so much about my well-being. So I should devote my life to their service. So these are the things that serve as inspiration. And Barack has also spoken about what can touch the heart. I am thankful to Barack, he has given so much time. And I am thankful to my countrymen for listening to Mann Ki Baat. I know radio reaches every home and every lane of India. And this Mann Ki Baat, this special Mann Ki Baat will echo forever. I have an idea. I share it with you. There should be an e-book made of the talk between Barack and me today. I hope the organizers of Mann Ki Baat will release this e-book. And to you all, who have listened to Mann Ki Baat, I also say, do participate in this. And the best hundred thoughts that emerge out of this, will also be added to this e-book. And I want you to write to us on Twitter, on Facebook, or online, using the hashtag #YesWeCan. • Eliminate Poverty - #YesWeCan • Quality Healthcare to All - #YesWeCan • Youth empowered with Education - #YesWeCan • Jobs for All - #YesWeCan • End to Terrorism - #YesWeCan • Global Peace and Progress - #YesWeCan I want you to send your thoughts, experiences and feelings after listening to Mann Ki Baat. From them, we will select the best hundred, and we will add them to the book containing the talk that Barack and I have had. And I believe, this will truly become, the Mann Ki Baat of us all. Once again, a big thank you to Barack. And to all of you. Barack`s visit to India on this pious occasion of 26th January, is a matter of pride for me and for the country. Thank you very much.