Perhaps they know not … ???
…
Stanford Graduate School of Business is a funny place when
it comes to politics and controversial international issues – they are almost
never discussed. You can only ever have authentic and deep political conversations
with classmates who trust you to a flaw. At that point, they’re generally
pointless, because chances are that you’ll generally agree on what is being
discussed.
Perhaps some classmates with a burning desire to discuss
politics (like yours truly, and I know there are many others like me) are too
aggressive and uncivic. It’s mostly their fault, and they need to double down
on compressed classes like “Persuasion” and “Political Communication”, and
learn how to break through those barriers. After all, Silicon Valley is all
about taking personal responsibility (which is an inherently an apolitical way
of thinking).
Perhaps some of our classmates are super savvy and
understand where these conversations generally go and what they tend to lead to
– nowhere and nothing. They have either consciously or unconsciously taken Dale
Carnegie’s lessons to heart (Author of “How to Win Friends and Influence People”).
They don’t want to do anything to jeopardize this opportunity, which they
believe they have been blessed with, to build a strong life-long professional network.
To these individuals, nothing is more important than building a network – it’s almost
an end in of itself.
And perhaps business people are business people, and people
like yours truly should have enrolled in a Public Policy School (I am not very
fond of those schools, because they don’t ever get anything done). Apathy and
ignorance on political issues is only to be expected. Changing lives,
organizations and the world (the “MECE”ness ingrained in me in an earlier
professional organization makes me cringe every time I hear those three
changes), are inherently apolitical pursuits – and this is reinforced by the Silicon
Valley’s Libertarian bend, and its disdain for Government and the nation state.
I generally do fine here – I realize that the culture is apolitical,
and I like the fact that everyone’s trying to get along. But I must speak out
when GSB study trips visit controversial political leaders, and the controversy
surrounding them is swept under a rug – let alone discussed, explored and understood.
Narendera Modi is one such character, recently visited by a
GSB study trip – social media was flooded with pictures and articles from my
classmates celebrating this visit. And I believe he has been visited in the
past by other GSB trips as well. He is the current Chief Minister of Gujarat, having
held that office for over 10 years, and is likely to be elected the next Prime
Minister of India, unless something changes drastically between now and the Lok
Sabha Polls in May.
There are many positive things about Modi. He is largely
credited with creating a business friendly and corruption free public sector in
Gujarat, India’s 10th largest state. But many things about Modi are
also shameful. He essentially sanctioned the pogroms which took place in 2002
in Gujarat, by providing a 3 day open window to right wing religious groups to
butcher innocent civilians of other religions, while the machinery of the state simply watched (and it has
been alleged, even took part). At the very least, he scored significant
political mileage from inciting hatred along religious lines.
Yes, we only hear about Islamic extremism, but all kinds of religious
extremism is festering in South Asia. Travel authors like William Dalrymple
have documented this really well as a trend on both sides of the big border,
which cuts across all major religions. His book “Nine Lives” is an absolute
gem. You’ll hear about Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but never of the RSS (Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh) because they are not a perceived threat to any western country.
I wouldn’t say that Narendera Modi is the equivalent of an Osama Bin Laden or a
Mullah Omar, but he goes a long way in terms of his similarities with those
characters (and
by the way, the former was once dubbed “The moral equivalent of America’s
Founding Fathers” by Ronald Reagan - the goal posts keep changing, so trying to determine who is the equivalent of whom needs to be a careful exercise).
My understanding of the broader trend towards religious
extremism is that as both countries develop and lift more and more people into
the (still relatively poorly) educated middle-class, people tend to revert away
from traditional forms of religion which have long advocated peace, co-existence
and harmony, and revert to more puritanical forms of religion, which provides
them with a new identity outlet, and a new found way to express their (shoddy) educatedness.
It’s very similar to the Christian Reformation in Europe a few centuries ago.
The issue is complex and I have oversimplified it. Yet if
any man on a GSB travel itinerary has even has a blemish on his record, let
alone accusations of crimes against humanity, it ought to be discussed, explored
and understood. It shouldn’t matter that the issue is controversial or not
business related – I thought the whole point of these trips was to provide a holistic
view of a country which goes beyond just business and political correctness.
How many of my classmates on two sets of trips last year,
who met with Paul Kagame, the President of Rwanda, understand his role in
ravaging the Eastern Congo over the last decade and a half? The broader
conflict has precipitated the greatest humanitarian tragedy of our time, with
an estimated death toll of over 6 million – this is in Congo alone, and not
counting the Rwandan genocide. And Kagame continues to be a large part of the
problem there, and that too with full US backing and support, under the guilt
of US and international inaction during the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.
Some neutral international sources have described Kagame as “one
of the greatest genocidaires of our era”. Everyone must read the book “Dancing
in the Glory of Monsters” about the conflict in Congo. Again, all this is an
oversimplification, and who did what to whom in the Great Lakes Region in
Africa is extremely complex. But history is replete with examples of victims
becoming monsters, and some part of Kagame ought to be explored and scrutinized
as potentially one of those monsters.
And to be entirely fair, there are plenty of reasons to
visit Kagame. Just like Modi, Kagame is credited with turning around his
country’s public sector. The roads there are new and nice and many individuals
in that country are now enjoying prosperity. Kagame is often held up as an
example of a benevolent dictator who has achieved plenty of good.
Finally, Bibi, another victim turned monster, is all too keen to host Stanford GSB students
as well – that man is in his own league. I won’t even bother to write anything
about him, for there are too many who actually support him and his policies,
and refuse to try to understand the conflict from the other side. You can read
about him and his antics in this Haaretz article.
The bottom line is that there are many genocidaires in
prominent political positions in the world today – their support of conflict
and hatred is one of the factors that has propped them into positions of
political power. Institutions like Stanford GSB and its students can choose to
engage with them – there’s nothing wrong with engagement and understanding. But
if we choose to do so, can we do so fully and holistically? Can we acknowledge
the dark sides of some of these characters, so that we may understand currently
active and relevant conflicts better, and learn from history?
There is another option – to keep it just about business.
Sadly this is a regressive option because I don’t think you can Product Design
or NPV your way out of what are often fundamentally political problems. The resolution
of these issues involves talking to and understanding others – even if it is
really uninteresting, complicated, messy and painful. Business might be
business, but some of the more important things in life and in the world
require empathy, learning and better understanding.
