Why is India so Delhi-Centric?

WHY IS INDIA SO DELHI-CENTRIC?

By

VIKRAM KARVE

THE “DELHI-CENTRIC” NAVY - The NORTHERN NAVAL COMMAND

Many years ago – in the 1970’s – when I was “greenhorn Subbie” in the Navy – we had a senior who possessed a delightful sense of humour.

He would keep us regaled with his amusing observations and witty comments – sometimes laced with delicious incisive barbs and sharp satiric wit.

This witty raconteur was a true “sea-dog” – and whenever he spoke everyone listened with rapt attention.

Once during our customary make-and-mend elbow bending beer session in the wardroom he asked us: “How many commands are there in the Navy?”

“There are 3 Naval Commands – Western, Eastern and Southern Naval Commands,” we all answered in unison – referring to the 3 Naval Commands – Western, Eastern and Southern Naval Commands – which were the sentinels of the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean respectively – the waters around the three seaboards surrounding the Indian peninsula.

“You are wrong – there are 4 Commands in the Navy,” the “sea-dog” said, “you have forgotten the most important Naval Command – the ‘Northern Naval Command’...”

“The ‘Northern Naval Command’...?” we asked in surprise.

“Yes. The Northern Naval Command at Delhi. You will understand what I am saying when you grow senior in service,” he said – and he suddenly downed his glass of beer down-the-hatch and walked off.

Later when I was posted to Delhi – I understood what the old “sea-dog” had meant.

Indeed there seemed to be more naval “brass” in landlocked Delhi – than on the high seas – or on the sea shores.

There were a large number of “landlubber sailors” who spent most of the naval career pushing files in Delhi – rather than sailing on the high seas.

These officers did go for sea tenures – but they just did the minimum specified sea-time required for promotion – and soon were back at their desks in Delhi.

Career-wise – these “Delhi-Centric Sailors” did much better than the true-blue sailors slogging it out at sea – or working hard in naval dockyards on the seashores. 

If you were in Delhi – you were in the “know of things” – and it was easier for you to “work” the system and get yourself promoted.

For all you know – if this “Delhi Centric” trend continues – a day may come when the number of Navy Admirals sitting in Delhi may outnumber the number of Admirals posted all over in the rest of India (Maybe this is already true – especially after the implementation of AVS Part 2 Bonanza – which created a large number of Flag Rank vacancies – most of them in Delhi)

I realized that the power centre of the Navy was in Delhi – and sailors at sea did not matter much.

As I said – if you were in Delhi you were in the “know of things”.

To me – it seemed to be a “Delhi-Centric” Navy. 

The fact that the navy is associated with the sea was almost forgotten by these “Delhi-Centric Sailors” – since the blue sea was a long way off almost two thousand kilometres away from landlocked Delhi. 

The Navy fights its wars at sea – but – in peacetime – more internal conflicts, internecine battles and turf wars are fought in the power corridors of Delhi.

Also – what we found most amazing (and amusing) was the metamorphosis in senior officers when they got posted to Delhi. 

The same formidable fearsome “Tigers” who roared at junior officers and sailors on ships acted like servile timid “sheep” in front of civilian babus and it was pathetic to see them grovelling even before section officers to get a file cleared (since their ACRs depended on it).

Soon –  I realized that this Delhi-Centrism applied not only the Navy but almost everything in India seemed to be “Delhi-Centric”.

Yes –  India is an increasingly Delhi-Centric Country even now.

Look at the electronic media, for example. 

Just switch on any mainstream news channel on your TV – and you will see how Delhi-Centric the news coverage is.

Delhi gets top priority in each and everything – sports, modernization, transportation, medical facilities, education etc – all schemes start from Delhi – whereas most of the intended beneficiaries may be located in remote areas of the hinterland.

This Delhi-Centric thinking seems to be the reason for many of our shortcomings and deficiencies.

Let us take the example of ex-servicemen (Military Veterans).

Whereas most of our soldiers come from rural areas – all Ex-Servicemen Facilities are concentrated in Delhi.

Retired Soldiers (ex-servicemen) are entitled to many benefits.

However most of these benefits remain on paper and cannot be availed of by the intended beneficiaries.

This is because most ex-servicemen live in villages and towns in rural or moffusil areas – and they have no access to the various facilities created for ex-servicemen like CSD Canteens, ECHS Hospitals, Social Amenities, Housing Schemes, Welfare Programs, Re-employment, Rehabilitation etc.

But if you live in Delhi – you have the best of CSD Canteens and Top Class Medical Facilities at the most modern Military Hospitals at your disposal. 

Since the decision making is centralized in Delhi – obviously the administration will be Delhi Centric.

If you live in Delhi you can avail of various Social Amenities, Ex Servicemen’s Housing Schemes and other welfare facilities since most of these are concentrated in the Delhi National Capital Region (NCR)

Even while serving – it is better to be posted in Delhi (or belong to Delhi) because you can get many things done through the “Delhi Network”.

Let me give you one more example of Delhi-Centrism.

I am of an academic bent of mind.

Long back – around 35 years ago in the early 1980’s – when I was posted in Delhi – I became a life member of an Academic/Professional Service Institution called the United Service Institution of India (USI).

USI – located in Delhi – had an excellent library which I fully made use of since I was an avid reader – and – I also attended many lectures, seminars and academic events organised by USI in Delhi.

After that – I was never posted to Delhi again – and my only connection with this august institution is the quarterly USI journal they send me by post.

The USI organises a number of academic events, lectures, seminars and has excellent facilities for study, research and recreation – but despite being a life member – I am deprived of the same since you can enjoy these events and facilities only if you live in Delhi.

Defence Services officers – serving and retired – live all over India.

So – I wrote to the USI a number of times asking them to open regional centres and organise events in other places too.

Sadly – I got no reply – and the USI continues to be purely Delhi-Centric.

It looks like living in Delhi makes you swollen headed too – your thinking becomes so “Delhi-Centric” that you care a damn about the rest of India.

“DELHI-CENTRISM” – The Bane of India

Delhi has the best social infrastructure and excellent transport facilities like the Metro, the Best Airport and the best Railway connectivity. 

But the same cannot be said of most other cities of India.

Seeing the advantages of staying in Delhi vis-à-vis other places – I wish I had settled down in Delhi-NCR after my retirement as many of my friends and colleagues have.

This lopsided Delhi-Centric approach is having ramifications in other areas like politics too.

Centralizing and focusing on Delhi and neglecting other parts of the country has caused a sense of alienation – which has led to the rise of many regional and local political parties – and this splintering may not augur well for the unity of the nation as a whole in the long run. 

Maybe this Delhi-Centric mindset is a result of years of feudal administrative system and colonial rule which were exercised from the seat of power in Delhi.

The increasing disparity due to Delhi-Centrism is causing migration towards the relatively prosperous Delhi from impoverished rural areas and leading to increasing urbanization of India – which may not be a good thing in the long run. 

Delhi is the capital of India – and it can be understood that a capital must get priority – but the imbalance and disparity is too much and the gap is increasing day by day. 

This inequity causes alienation. 

To alleviate this problem – the rest of the country must be developed too.

What is the solution? 

Well – let me relate an anecdote which happened in the early 1980’s.

NO MORE DELHI CENTRIC PROPOSALS

Nearly 33 years ago – when I was posted in Delhi – I remember a senior bureaucrat who used to keep saying: 

“I will not entertain any ‘Delhi-Centric’ Proposals.”

He belonged to a Southern State and he was quite unhappy at being posted to Delhi – unlike most others who wanted to be in Delhi for all their lives.

Luckily – I had taken to him a project proposal which did not pertain to Delhi.

In fact – the project was in his home state.

He was delighted – and he recommended it with alacrity.

I think that is the answer to correct the imbalance:

“NO MORE DELHI-CENTRIC PROPOSALS”

Yes – let there be no more “Delhi-Centrism” – at least for the time being till those other underdeveloped parts of the country develop to a reasonable level.

Do you agree?

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:

1. This article is a spoof, satire, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.

2. All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (All Rights Reserved)

     

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

 

GROUPTHINK – Musings on Defence Management

GROUPTHINK
Musings on Defence Management
By
VIKRAM KARVE

For a change, let me delve into my “academic”, or, more precisely, “management writing” archives and post for you, once more, an abridged and updated version of an article on GROUPTHINK I had written 25 years ago, in the 1980s, for a business supplement of a newspaper and also in some journals. I have lectured on this topic too.

After the advent of the internet, my article on GROUPTHINK has been carried by many websites, and once I started blogging around 10 years ago, I have posted this article on my blogs too. 

Though I wrote this 25 years ago, I feel this article is relevant even today. 

Do tell me if you feel GROUPTHINK exists even today, especially in government and military decision-making. I look forward to your views.

GROUPTHINK – Musings on Defence Management by Vikram Karve

Where all think alike, no one thinks very much 

 ~ Walter Lippmann

When I was in the Navy I saw plenty of GROUPTHINK. 

During my interactions with the army, I saw even more Groupthink.

There was a tendency to have “unanimous” decisions.

In many cases, contrarian views were not tolerated by the top brass and senior officers wanted to force their decisions by creating a situation of “my way or the highway”.

Also, years of regimentation and discouragement of original thinking creates a “groupthink” mindset in most military officers.

I feel that Groupthink is one of the main reasons which hampers optimal decision making, especially in the defence services which have a highly regimented way of thinking. 

Here is an abridged version of one of my management articles which tells you all about GROUPTHINK in a nutshell:

GROUPTHINK

Tradition has it that conflict is bad.

Conflict is something to be avoided.

The culture of many organizations implies explicitly or implicitly that conflict should be suppressed and eliminated. 

It is common for managers to perceive intra-organizational conflict as being dysfunctional for the achievement of organizational goals.

Most of us still cling to the idea that good managers resolve conflict. 

Current thinking disputes this view.

In the absence of conflicting opinions, harmonious tranquil work groups are prone to becoming static, apathetic and unresponsive to pressures for change and innovation.

Work Groups and Teams, even Top Management,  also risk the danger of becoming so self-satisfied, that dissenting views, which may offer important alternative information, are totally shut out.

In short, they fall victims to a syndrome called “GROUPTHINK”

In a study of public policy decision fiascoes, I.L. Janis identified “GROUPTHINK” as a major cause of poor decision making. 

As he describes it:

‘GROUPTHINK’ occurs when decision makers who work closely together develop a high degree of solidarity that clouds their vision, leading them to suppress conflicting views and negative feelings about proposals, consciously or unconsciously.

A manifestation of the groupthink phenomenon is the staggering irrationality which can beset the thinking of the otherwise highly competent, intelligent, conscientious individuals when they begin acting as a group or team and this affects organisational effectiveness.


EFFECT AND SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK

The net effect on the group is that it overestimates its power and morality, it creates pressures for uniformity and conformance, and its members become close-minded, living in ivory towers. 

Some manifestations are the illusions of invulnerability and the encouragement to take great risks and to ignore the ethical or moral aspects of their decisions and actions.

This author has witnessed close-mindedness on the part of several managers which then permeated their teams.

One project manager took this to the extreme and in effect defined his environment as consisting of two kinds of people, either “friends” or “enemies”. 

This syndrome is akin to the dialogue from the classic Movie Ben Hur which I call the:

“you are either for me or you are against me” syndrome

Like this Manager I observed, many persons, especially some of my bosses, exhibit this syndrome.

Friends were people who completely agreed with his favoured solutions and supported his project. 

All others were enemies.

Soon his entire project team was echoing similar sentiments having fallen victim to “GROUPTHINK”, resulting in unbending positions, heated arguments and subsequent lack of respect for anyone who disagreed with them. The ultimate consequences can easily be guessed.

The symptoms of groupthink include:

(i) An illusion of invulnerability that becomes shared by most members of the group.

(ii) Collective attempts to ignore or rationalize away items of inconvenient information which might otherwise lead the group to reconsider shaky but cherished assumptions.

(iii) An unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, thus causing members to overlook the ethical consequences of their decisions.

(iv) Stereotyping the dissenters as either too evil for negotiation or too stupid and feeble to merit consideration.

(v) A shared illusion of unanimity in a majority viewpoint, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent.

(vi) Self-appointed “mind-guards” to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decision.

Not very surprisingly it has been suggested that individuals most susceptible to groupthink will tend to be people fearful of disapproval and rejection and who want to “conform”.

Conversely, an outspoken individualist who freely airs his views and opinions, if trapped in a groupthink situation, runs the risk of being ejected by his colleagues if he fails to hold his tongue.


GROUPTHINK SITUATIONS

THE DOMINANT LEADER

Firstly, because the CEO [or the “Boss”] dispenses all favours, his biggest problem is to avoid being treated like God. Secondly, the “Boss” must avoid thinking that he is God.

Indeed, in many organizations, it is not easy to contradict or argue too vigorously with the boss.

Even when managers feel that they know more than a superior, they may suppress doubts because of career considerations.

Fear, respect for authority, and even admiration for the boss, may make skeptics hesitate when confronted with a confident CEO or dominating superior.

This is less of a problem if the leader acts in the organization’s interests, possesses requisite soft skills, and has strong ethics and cognitive capabilities to make decisions.

However, if a leader does not force serious questioning, he or she will sometimes make mistakes and errors of judgement. 

Colleagues and subordinates will become “yes-men”, and groupthink will take over decision making.

And the dominant CEO may not discover his or her mistakes because fearful employees withhold information.

What can lower-level managers do about the boss who has lost touch with reality and seems to be driving the organization in the wrong direction?

You can adopt three different strategies:

1. “Exit” (Leave the organization)

2. “Voice” (attempt to force changes from within)

3. “Loyalty” (accept things the way they are)

Each individual can evaluate the risks and benefits of each strategy.

However, if the organization is really on the wrong track, true loyalty requires an attempt to communicate your reservations and concerns to the leader and you must voice your views (option 2)

Will the leader accept your views?

Or will your career suffer if you are outspoken?

Is it best to “lump” whatever your superiors say and just do as you are told?

Or does this blind obedience culture cause too much stress in you and is it best for you to quit your job and exit such an organisation afflicted by the disease of groupthink?

How can a confident, independent CEO avoid the pitfalls and temptations of absolute power?

The obvious (but difficult) answer is to make sure that power is never absolute, and surround oneself with other confident, independent people, and encourage dissension and debate on every decision.

In his autobiography ‘A Soldier’s Story’ General ON Bradley has exemplified this aspect in the decision-making style of General George C Marshall, Chief of Staff of the US Army in World War II, a dominant leader who was instrumental in the Allied Victory owing to his resolute management of the entire war effort.

After one week in office, General Marshall called all his staff officers to his office and admonished them: 

“Gentlemen, I am disappointed in you. You haven’t yet disagreed with a single decision I have made. When you carry a paper in here, I want you to give me every reason you can think of as to why I should not approve it. If, in spite of your objections, my decision is still to go ahead, then I’ll know I am right.”

General Marshall did not believe in groupthink but wanted to hear different and contrarian views before taking a decision. 

Like General Marshall, who did not encourage cronyism and groupthink; rather than search for views that might reinforce his own, a CEO should seek contrary opinions to avoid groupthink. 

Some suggest using a devil’s advocate methodology for all major decisions by assigning some individuals in all groups and teams to argue against the dominant view.


PARALLEL POWER

This is a “groupthink” situation in which individuals or groups low in the hierarchy are powerful enough to do what they want, even when contrary to organizational objectives. 

Such power may be based on specialized expertise or privileged access to information.

Parallel power can lead to groupthink in two ways.

Firstly, senior managers may accept ideas from lower-level managers that are not necessarily in the organizational interest, either because they have insufficient information to ask the right questions, or because opposition would not seem legitimate.

Secondly, top managers may make decisions without all the necessary information because subordinates do not provide it due to vested interests arising from misplaced loyalties to a limited function, department or team, rather than to the organization as a whole.

Such situations can be mitigated by ensuring that managers rotate between different units and positions.


NATURAL UNANIMITY

When everyone in power instinctively shares the same opinion on an issue, the wise manager should be wary.

Natural unanimity groupthink results in an inward-looking organization detached from its environment.

Escape from this predicament almost certainly requires a fresh perspective that can come only from outside, by hiring new managers or appointing outside consultants.

A CEO may lay overemphasis on staff – line cooperation in the belief that the easiest way to ensure implementation is to recommend only those actions that the line managers agree with.

But this is not necessarily useful to an organization and may lead to mutual admiration and, ultimately, “natural unanimity groupthink”.

The effectiveness of staff - line dichotomy depends on maintaining a certain tension between the staff and the line managers.When the tension disappears, the staff may not be doing its job.

CONCLUSION

The key element in any strategy for avoiding groupthink is to instill checks and balances into the system. 

Formally, this can be achieved through cross-functional teams, staff advisers, external consultants, or procedures like “devil’s advocacy”.

Informally, managers must learn to tolerate dissidence, criticism, contrary opinions, discussion, brainstorming and debate and encourage their colleagues to express doubts about proposals. Propositions from various parts of the organization need to be treated transparently, equitably, and consistently, to avoid groupthink.

In a nutshell, for effective decision making, and to prevent the dangers of GROUPTHINK, it is best to steer clear of yes-men, ego-massage, sycophancy and cronyism.

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:

All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the story are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:

No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (All Rights Reserved)

     

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.