Public speaking

 

The Polyester Prince ~ Hamish McDonald (1 of 26)

The Polyester Prince chronicles Dhirubhai Ambani's life from childhood to founder of RIL following India's independence in 1947, and highlights how India's post-independence industry development was achieved by both fair and foul means.

The first section of the book explores the events of Ambani's young adult life that influenced his understanding of business and developed his skillset that later went on to help him found RIL. This section explores how the mixture of Ambani's working experience as a young adult at trading companies along with post-independence India's changing business landscape lead to Ambani's debut in the wealthy social circles of India and rise in his power.

 Dhirubhai was never simply an  industrialist, a trader, a financial juggler or a political manipulator, but all four in one. He knew how to take calculated risks.If he starts an acquaintance with someone he will 

continue it. His philosophy was to cultivate everybody from the doorkeeper up. ‘I am willing to salaam [bow down to] anyone,’ he told a magazine interviewer in 1985, in a statement that shocked many readers for its bluntness

Dhirubhai also played on the perception that he was an outsider and ‘upstart’ who deserved help to break through the glass ceilings of vested interest and privilege in the business community. 

That there was an inner circle in the ‘licence Raj’ the  allocation by New Delhi of licences to set up factories and expand production  capacity-was evidenced in 1967 with a report by a Bombay University economist, R.  K. Hazare, to the Planning Commission which revealed that the Birla group of companies had received 20 per cent of the licensed industrial investment approved by the government between 1957 and 1966.Former colleagues say Dhirubhai resisted any temptation to smuggle in supplies.  ‘Everyone knew smuggling was there, but Dhirubhai would not want to get involved,’ one former Reliance manager said. ‘Government support meant too much to him

In an interview with the magazine Business India in April 1980, Dhirubhai said Reliance Commercial Corp accounted for more than 60 per cent of the exports made under the Higher Unit Value Scheme. ‘he schemes were open to everyone,’ he said. ‘I cannot be blamed if my competitors were unenterprising or ignorant.’s Kothary remembers that several times during his turbulent climb to prosperity and influence, Dhirubhai would remark: ‘everything that I have done has been kept in the ground, and a first-class fountain has been built over it. Nobody will ever know what I have done.’

He didn't get on well with Morarji. Indira Gandhi’s return to power opened a golden period for Dhirubhai Ambani. In  1979, his company barely made it to the list of India’s 50 biggest companies, measured by annual sales, profits or assets. By 1984, Reliance was in the largest five. Dhirubhai himself had become one of the most talked and written about persons 

in India, gaining a personal following more like that of a sports or entertainment star than a businessman.

Dhirubhai shared a certain contempt for the journalist. In Paris, waiters are known to pay the proprietors of certain fashionable restaurants for the privilege of being able to wait at the tables and collect tips. In Bombay, some would-be business correspondents are willing to eschew salary altogether and even 

offer a monthly fee to the newspaper in return for being accredited as its reporter.

Krishna Kant Shah died in 1986, in the midst of a fresh controversy about the  mysterious Isle of Man companies. At a meeting in 1995, Sailash Shah maintained there had been no business connection between his father and Dhirubhai. Asked how it was that the Indian press and investigators had singled out his family as fronts, he would say only. ‘I don’t know how.’ That Dhirubhai did have a connection with the 

Isle of Man was indicated by the appearance in India during the mid-1990s of one Peter Henwood. An accountant running a company in the Isle of Man capital, Douglas, called International Trust Corp (later OCRA Ltd), Henwood had been instrumental during the 1980s in arranging layers of ownership for offshore holdings through several tax havens  Dhirubhai had become close to Henwood and his attractive wife, on whom he showered expensive gifts.Much later, Henwood tried to market his services to other Indian businessmen. Dhirubhai became alarmed, and had Hen- wood followed on his visits to India. To protect his business interests, Henwood consulted a leading firm of lawyers in India.

But could the incongruous elements of the murder conspiracy have possibly been set 

up? An alternative theory was that the plot might have been a case of a follower 

being more loyal than the king that Kirti had acted out of an excess of loyalty. The 

large sums of money paid to Babaria, surely far beyond the personal resources of a 

middle manager, would then have to be explained.

Kirti Ambani was transferred to an obscure position in Reliance Industries and has 

not appeared in the press since. Babaria continued to live in the police barracks at 

Bhendi Bazar, but could no longer travel to big-time engagements in Dubai because authorities would not restore his passport. He continued to scrape together a living by organising evenings of Bollywood musical hits, often to collect funds for a charity called the Young Social Group, of which Babaria himself was president. A pamphlet produced for one such evening in 1996 said: Prince Babaria, lately the most 

controversial international figure for his connection with big industrialists and others, 

has gained a lot of publicity in the press and TV, locally and internationally.

Both Dhirubhai and key figures in the V P Singh government saw it as a desperate 

fight to the death. ‘There was hardly a day when we did not spend several hours pondering how we might bring down V P Singh,’ recalled one senior Reliance executive, about  1990. And I suppose that in his office there were people who spent as much time plotting how to do the same to US.’ Gurumurthy had become a close adviser to the BJP leader, Lal Krishna Advani, while Arun Shourie, the editor of the Indian Express, was vehemently opposed to the new 

reservations.

As the Singh government was weakened, Dhirubhai’s fortunes revived. The turn 

could even be plotted on a graph of the Reliance share price, which began rising  steadily from July 1990. The government was distracted by its numerous splits and battles.

Wadia had a call from Rajiv early in the week, asking for a meeting. Wadia was busy 

preparing for an important business trip overseas the following Saturday, but Rajiv 

insisted. So, after completing his work, Wadia few up to Delhi on the Friday evening,

arriving at Rajiv’s heavily guarded bungalow on janpath about 11 pm. It was their 

first meeting since the Fairfax affair, and both men were edgy. Rajiv opened up by 

complaining about the Indian Express sniping which continued against him. Wadia 

exploded. This was nothing compared to what Gurumurthy and he had suffered: 

arrest, harassment by the bureaucracy, constant inspections, his passport and visa 

problems, and finally the murder conspiracy. Wadia asked Rajiv why he had refused 

to see him.

Narasimha Rao installed as finance minister the career government economist Manmohan Singh, who had reached the bureaucratic pinnacles of the ministry as Finance Secretary and then central bank governor in the 1980s. The Cambridge-educated Singh had spent much of his earlier career helping to construct 

the edifice of government planned investment. But then a spell making a comparative study of the world’s less-developed economics for the South Commission, a body representing many developing nations, had crystallised some 

doubts and begun a Pauline conversion in him towards market-based allocation of 

resources. Singh was soon backed by the elevation of Montek Singh Ahluwalia, (the 

economist who wrote the 1990 reform paper) as Finance Secretary. 

Within the BJP leadership, Dhirubhai became distrusted for the split he helped engineer in the party’s Gujarat branch soon after it took power in the March 1995 state elections. Dhirubhai backed a lower-caste BJP leader called Shankersinh Waghla in disputes with the newly elected chief minister, Keshubhai Patel. In 

September 1995, the two openly split, and Dhirubhai few Waghela’s faction of state 

MPs to the central Indian resort of Khajuraho, famed for its erotic temple carvings, to 

keep them together. Around this time, Vajpayee was appalled to find Dhirubhai on the telephone, putting forward a solution to the Gujarat crisis: Waghla should be 

made deputy chief minister. Highly embarrassed, Vajpayee refused. A year later, 

Waghela ousted Pate…

Dhirubhai Ambani built his company through outstanding abilities and drive on many 

fronts: as an innovative financier, an inspiring manager of talent, an astute marketer 

of his products, and as a forward-looking industrialist. The energy and daring that 

showed itself in his early pranks, practical jokes and trading experiments developed 

into a boldness and willingness to live with risk that few if any other Indian corporate 

Chiefs would dare to emulate. His extraordinary talent for sustaining relationships, 

and sometimes impressing men of standing, won him vital support from both 

governments and institutions.

The dark side of his abilities was an eye for human weakness and a willingness to 

exploit it. This gained him preferential treatment o…

Over decades in India, some of 

the world’s best minds had applied themselves to building a system of government 

controls on capital-ism. Dhirubhai Ambani made a complete mockery of it-admittedly 

at a stage when the system was decaying and corrupted already. The Ministry of 

Finance and its enforcement agencies, the Reserve Bank of India, the Central Bureau 

of Investigation, the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Company Law 

Board proved timid and sometimes complicit in their handling of questionable 

episodes concerning Reliance. The public financial institutions that held large blocks 

of shares in Reliance and had seats on its board were passive and acquiescent 

spectators, rather than responsible trustees for public savings.

Throughout every crisis caused by exposure of alleged manipulations, its publicity took on a self-pitying ‘Why is everyone always picking on us?' tone. But the record 

tends to show that it was Dhirubhai and Reliance who often made the first move to 

put a spoke in a rival’s wheels, whether it was Kapal Mehra, Nusli Wadia or, latterly, 

the Ruias of the Essar group. Coincidentally with disputes with Reliance, various 

rivals were hit with government inspections, tax problems, unfavourable press 

reports, physical attacks and, in Wadia’s case, a damaging forgery, a deportation 

order and perhaps a conspiracy to murder him.

Another wild card is contained in the political hostility that Dhirubhai and Reliance 

have built up within India. Every party has its Ambani men’s but this is no guarantee 

that no government will dare to take on Reliance or make an example of it.

It is possible to draw several conclusions about India from the Reliance story There is 

the flowering of individual endeavour and entrepreneurship from a traditional, 

isolated backwater like Junagadh; the accumulated ethic of centuries of business and 

banking among the Bania castes being transferred into modern corporations; the 

amazing numeracy of Indians from the poorest street traders to the high financiers; 

the way in which the age-old trading links to the Indian Ocean rim have been 

extended into Europe and North America by the past 20 years of migration.

Indians love to tell the joke against themselves about the exporter of live frogs to 

‘The kitchens of France. He didn’t need to put a lid on the crates, because as soon as 

one Indian frog tried to escape, the others pulled him down.

What are the limits of ethical behaviour in a world full of surprise manoeuvres, 

innovation, inside connections and corruption?

modern capitalism does allow a process of redemption in the life of a corporation. 

Opium-traders, slave-owners, market cornerers, share raiders and all kinds of 

robber- barons have been able to transform themselves into establishment pillars by 

hanging on and consolidating during the system’s periodic crashes.

What are the limits of ethical behaviour in a world full of surprise manoeuvres, innovation, inside connections and corruption?

Dhirubhai was never simply an  industrialist, a trader, a financial juggler or a political manipulator, but all four in one.We know of the truffle between Gurumurthi and Dirubhai but how it started and why, the political connection and changing governments from 75 to 95 his strong influence and role, connections with the underworld, toppling down competitors, fellow business men, nothing short of a thriller fiction this is. 

Thanks for the recommendation.

Love

 

Why Even Smart Leaders Avoid Difficult Conversations ~ Junie George Varghese

 Why  even smart leaders avoid difficult converstation? Junie George Varghese

The 5th Mantra : The communication Fitness Studio. 

Perception

Problem

Cost

Cause

Way forward 

Why avoidence happen and what happens if we continue?

Know the Architucture of difficult conversation, bring focus back on clarity and timeliness. 

Perception - What really is happening?

Strength becomes weaknesses. Note down the strengths  on LHS and then discuss the weakness out of it. 

Intelligence - Overthinking_Justification

Experience - Pattern Bias, Consequences

Authority - Reputation, 

Empathy - Hesitation

Skills that build leadership is threatening when it comes to communication

Problem

Judegment Distortion - Silence confused with patence, maturity and respect, not always skill gap. 

Abstract trap - 'Radical Condor' book emphasising on clarity - Compromising clarity . Give guidemap on how to improve.

Ping-pong effect - competing version of reality, objective gap.

Power increases avoidence - filtered feedback, truth becomes expensive.

Leadership training focusing on:

What to say

How to structure feedback

Which model to use?

Question is not can you handle difficult conversations? 

Question is What has your intelligence helped you avoid?

Leadership doesn't remove fear. It just gives fear better vocabulary. 

Cost : The invisible Tax of Avoidance. 

Leadership think they are buying time, but they are buying damage at compound interest. 

The Multiplier Effect: Shadow narrative, ambiguity. Clarity is important, not just the language. 

Cultural Erosion: Standars blur, erosion of psychological safety and accountability

Innovation blockage: Echo chamber

The Human Sustainability Crises: Delegation to HR (identity & Credibility issues, 65% burnout)

Micro failure: 'Job hugging', 'quiet cracking', 'Mediocrity' accelerating turnover - (Chipko movement)

Galiups State of Global workplace 2025 report.  21% of employees are really engaged. 

Significance of lack of communication is leading to serious consequence. 

Cause - The 'why'.

The Amygdala Hijack - 'Word can change your brain' limbic system overpowers. Fight, Freeze Flight mode. Handling failure is important, but even important is handling success. Are you becoming defensive when put in a tight spot?

Cognitive Callibration - Preempt worst outcome, Decision paralysis. (People have positive and negative experience - but some pick either first. There is a pattern, without realising)

The 'Nice vs. Kind' trap: 'Crucial conversation'. Nice vs. Kind talk. Leader need to say what is needed. Truth vs. Bonds, Protect identity. 

Complex cultural, regulatory and legislative landscape: 'Saying the wrong thing'

Asynchonous Friction - Channel failure, matching complexity to richness of medium

Not mapping the conversation - Improvise vs. Architecture

Presence of AI: Pressure to be 'perfectly human'. 

Way forward - Not approches or models, but few pathways.

 Decrease your 'Conversational Latency', Rely on the structure of clarity. 

Identify a specific conversation you have been 'saving for later'.

Ask "What meaning will my silence create"

Reframe "How do I say this?' to

"Which identity am I protecting by staying silent?"

"What identity do I strengthen by speaking clearly?"\

Will you lead the conversation, or will it lead you?

"Communication is judged not by intent, but by what is understood" ~ Peter Drucker.

Dont confuse intent with impact. 

Take stand without thinking too much of what others would think. Communication begins in the mind. Our thought process, mindset, belief all of this is going to have an impact in the way we understand and impact. Communication is not just talking and listening or verbal and non verbal. 

Ratan Tata - lift story - asking let the guest take lift. He knew how to do it well withoug belitting others. 

Integrate Gen Zee and Gen Alpha. 

People want to be respected and seen. There needs to be trust. There should be human connect. 

Vulnarability, is what makes us real. We are going to come with flaws. It is a part of us. Same is the case with people in power. Bring back focus on having conversation. 

Former PM P.V. Narasimha Rao. Silence is golden. You have to know the difference between silence being a strategy, and silence being a default. 

Perception is a very dangerous game to play. You cannot go around doctoring minds. 

You should know when to keep quite and when to speak. Know when to be quite and when to be expressive. 

In a meeting everyone agree, but outside mostly disagree, real issue is misalignment.