Raghav Bahl, Managing Director, Network 18 Group
I come from the world of doing things, I come from the world of trying to build companies out. And I think at this stage of the game it is too early for people to believe that India has lost. The flipside of the coin is that India has to work much harder to bridge this gap which has opened up. A huge gap has opened up, we can't deny that. China is four times India's size Having said that the institutional strength of India is extremely strong as well, the entrepreneurial strength of India is extremely strong as well. Where India lacks and virtually languishes frankly, is in the ability of Indian state to become entrepreneurial and take risks.
Raghav Bahl is the Managing Director of the Network 18 Group. He began his career as a management consultant with A.F. Ferguson & Co. His second corporate job was with American Express Bank, before he turned to his first love, media.
Winner of the Sanskriti Award for Journalism in 1994, Bahl has over 23 years of experience in television and journalism. He started his career in media in 1985 as a Correspondent and Anchorperson for Doordarshan. He was the Anchorperson and Production Consultant for India's first monthly video newsmagazine - Newstrack, produced by the India Today Group. From 1991 to 1993, he was Executive Director of Business India Television and produced the Business India Show and Business A.M. on Doordarshan. Bahl is also a member of the World Economic Forum (WEF). He did his Graduation in Economics from St. Stephen's College, and then did his Masters in Business Administration from the University of Delhi. He attended a doctoral programme at the Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York.
On eve of the launch of his first book titled 'Superpower?: The Amazing Race between China's Hare and India's Tortoise', the disarmingly simple and straight-talking Raghav Bahl gets candid and shares invaluable insights and more, in conversation with exchange4media Group's Editorial Director, Amit Agnihotri and correspondent, Shikha. Excerpts.
Q. How do you see India progressing over the next two decades? Where do we go from here, is it gonna be a super poor India?Q. Talking about Network 18 group, how are you placed now? Is the phase on consolidation over?
Q. And the key determinant will be quality of leadership...
Q. How do you view the trend of eminent corporate people like Nandan Nilekani joining the government and assuming a public office?
Q. Talking about economy and post Lehman brothers the fact that India could rebound at a much faster pace than rest of the world� is it a secular trend in your view and in your assessment that India is now a much robust economy in times to come?
Q. Why this theme for your book, you could have written about the fantastic journey you�ve had over the past 15 years in the world of media...
I think the media journey has still a long way to go. And I consciously chose not to write about Network 18. The recession happened in 2007-2008 and one got really very busy in coping with that. From the standpoint of our network, the recession came at a very bad time we were at the peak of making investments on lot of our properties such as Colors, In.com, Homeshop 18 and Infomedia. So a lot of energy went into dealing with that.
However, early last year we successfully put all problems behind us. India was beginning to recover and recover very sharply. But it was equally clear that crisis has a way of having a long tail before things come back to what they were before the crisis began. It was certain that it will at least take a year or year-and-a-half, and hence in that period of about 12 to 18 months, one needed to be quite patient and sort of stay in the trenches and not do anything adventurous in terms of entrepreneurship.
So I knew I had the time to write a book now than in the past few years. And someone told me that it was a good way to get back into the world of content, which is where I come from. So the book could not have been autobiographical, it had to be mainstream journalistic content. I toyed with the idea that maybe I should do a television series on this subject but also I realised that maybe I could try and do something entirely untested and entirely new. And you always have these little personal milestones human beings have and I always have that niggling doubt in my mind --- do I have it in me to really sit down and write a book? Because book writing as of now, I can say I have gone through it for a year and it is a different exercise, you require to go completely deep into a subject and come up with an argument which can sustain 250-odd pages. So to find out if I have it in me or not, there wasn't any better way to find that out than doing it by myself. That's how it all started.
As far as why this theme of China, I have been absolutely fascinated both as an entrepreneur and as a business journalist about the Chinese growth story and I didn't know much about it. On one hand it was fascination for what they have done, on the other hand I don't know much about it. Also, India is at the cusp of an opportunity which comes once in a lifetime for a country and are there lessons or contrasts that we can draw with the experience of China a country that has done a fascinating job keeping economic expansion at a high level. Combining these three to four things factored in the favour of writing a book on mainstream journalistic content, and I believe that India is at the cusp of something truly extraordinary. India and China are natural competing countries, they are neighbours, they have had a history, they are the largest countries in the world, they are fastest growing countries in the world' so there are too many parallels between the two countries. I thought it would make for a fascinating subject and frankly, once I dived into it I realised that it was.
Q. You have not given a final word about who wins this race?
I don't think it is possible to say that at this stage. I know a lot of people have made that determination and have said that China is so far ahead and that the race is over. Some very very respected and extremely talent commentators and economists have said that. I just disagree with that because I come from the world of doing things, I come from the world of trying to build companies out. And I think at this stage of the game it is too early for people to believe that India has lost. The flipside of the coin is that India has to work much harder to bridge this gap which has opened up. A huge gap has opened up, we can't deny that. China is four times India's size and even if we count some of the problems that exist in that economy and the imbalances and the stabilising factors which have emerged, the fact is they are still far ahead; the gap is just too much. Having said that the institutional strength of India is extremely strong as well, the entrepreneurial strength of India is extremely strong as well. Where India lacks and virtually languishes frankly, is in the ability of Indian state to become entrepreneurial and take risks and take bolder decisions of not thinking incrementally. That to me is the delta factor in this whole thing that the Indian state can begin to become much more ambitious, much more confident and much more risk-taking in its approach and much more energetic in the way that they do things in this country. Just like Indian entrepreneurs are building up companies and Indian farmers are facing all odds and continuing to produce huge amounts. Just as India's young population is full of aspirations today.
I think there is a civil society that is building up in India which is extremely ambitious, extremely confident and extremely aspirational. The state is lagging behind in all these attributes. So therefore my sense is that the state can reform itself and become much more confident and much more of a risk taker. If that happens, this gap can be bridged. And if that doesn't happen, then I'm afraid. China has taken up the lead and the state there with all its force is extremely focused and extremely determinant.
India has often pointed out that China is not a democracy, which I think is specious argument. The fact that they are not a democracy is a weakness, the fact that we are a democracy means we will do things much better and much more organically, carrying a much larger number of people with us.
Democracy is often used as a substitute for delays, a substitute for inability to take decisions. Democracy doesn't anywhere say that you shouldn't be taking decisions. It is becoming a convenient excuse for not doing that. The most prosperous countries of the world, the strongest countries of the world are all democracies. I think we should mix the indecisiveness and weakness of the Indian state with the system of governance. The system of governance in a democracy is strongest in the world. So what is sorted out India's weakness is actually India's strength but it is therefore crisis of leadership rather than a crisis of democracy.
Q. Is entrepreneurship one of the big advantages in possession of India?
Absolutely. If you look at China, most of their big companies are state owned, most of the banks are state owned or they are owned by the communist party's top level hierarchy. So that genuine entrepreneurship which is organic is building up in China. It is not black and white that since the top hundred companies are all state owned there is no entrepreneurship in China.
In India it is the way we have been, we have had the highest incidents of private property and ownership. It is just that our state has begun to control trade and investments and industries so much in the seventies and eighties'then we saw flourishing entrepreneurship in India. So entrepreneurship is organic to India. The quality of companies that the private sector is building up, we are not seeing that today in China. You are seeing much more of state driven capitalism. But having said that, China is very good at identifying its weaknesses and then moving very fast to plug that gap. I will not be surprised if we start seeing much greater entrepreneurial ability in China. But the fact that it will yet be dominated by the state is a given, which is a weakness for China. In India, we only have legacy public sector undertakings, no new public sector undertakings have been launched in this country; everything that is happening in this country is in the private sector. There are statistics which show that the proportion of share of private sector in India's industrial activity is up from some 35 per cent before reforms to over 70 per cent. And the public sector is shrinking. This is a conscious decision as the government of India is not launching any more public sector undertakings. So entrepreneurship is the decisive advantage that India has and if we let our entrepreneurs a bit more free, I am sure this decisive advantage can be one of the critical factors in bridging this gap.
Q. And how will this innings be different from the first?
Q. Where is the problem as far as the policy and the framework is concerned? Is it to do with the bureaucracy or is it to do with politicians?
Q. How does it happen? Is it the pressure which is built from the grassroot�people on the street who will now bring about a change?
That is the hope. In a democracy clearly leadership responds to pressures from people. That is the hope but whether India's leadership will come up to the task, I don't know which is why in my assessment I am unable to come to a conclusion. Institutionally speaking, India has all the advantages but leadership is a very important thing. World over, leadership is that very indefinable thing which can make the difference in failure or success. Whether it is leadership at enterprise level or leadership at a country level. These things matter and matter one hell of a lot.
Leadership is that indefinable quality, which as I said, is very difficult to call. I am very hopeful that Indians, by the virtue of the fact that they are an intelligent race, and will throw up the required leadership for which the pressure will come from below.
Q. The fact that India has got such handful number of political parties, probably two or three or four of them...
Q. So have you sought time with the government to be able to explain to them one-on-one?