top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 3:28:38 am

The Sugar Rush Founder

There is a particular intensity that defines the new wave of young entrepreneurs. They move fast, earn fast, and scale fast — and often believe that momentum itself is the marker of success. Money becomes more than income. It becomes reassurance. Proof. Power. A scoreboard. Recently, I met a founder in his early thirties who is doing exceptionally well financially. His ambition was undeniable. He spoke about growth the way athletes speak about winning — with hunger, focus, and a constant need...

The Sugar Rush Founder

There is a particular intensity that defines the new wave of young entrepreneurs. They move fast, earn fast, and scale fast — and often believe that momentum itself is the marker of success. Money becomes more than income. It becomes reassurance. Proof. Power. A scoreboard. Recently, I met a founder in his early thirties who is doing exceptionally well financially. His ambition was undeniable. He spoke about growth the way athletes speak about winning — with hunger, focus, and a constant need to push further. I admired it. That drive is what builds companies. But what stayed with me was something quieter. He mentioned that in a year when he earned less, he wasn’t in the best place mentally. The dip was not dramatic, but the emotional impact was. It made him feel as though he had slipped backwards — not just in revenue, but in identity. And that is the hidden pressure many founders carry today. For ambitious entrepreneurs, money can begin to feel like a sugar rush: a powerful high that fuels confidence and urgency. When numbers rise, everything feels possible. When they fall, even slightly, it creates unease. The chase becomes endless — not because wanting more is wrong, but because money alone is an unstable anchor. This is where personal branding becomes not a luxury, but a necessity. Many founders assume personal branding is about visibility—posting more, being active online, and becoming “known”. But at serious levels of business, personal branding is far more strategic. It is the reputation that holds when numbers fluctuate. It is the trust that remains even when the market shifts. It is the identity people associate with you beyond a financial year. Because here is what founders eventually learn: revenue is not the only currency in the room. Influence is. In boardrooms, partnerships, investor conversations, and premium client decisions, people don’t only buy the company. They buy the founder’s clarity, credibility, and presence. They buy what your name signals before you even speak. A founder with a strong personal brand does not become fragile when income dips. Their positioning remains steady. Their value is not reduced to quarterly performance. They are trusted for how they think, how they lead, and what they consistently represent. This is what separates short-term success from long-term authority. Without personal branding, founders often fall into an exhausting pattern: constantly proving, constantly chasing, constantly needing the next win to feel secure. With it, something shifts. Opportunities begin to come through reputation, not pursuit. Clients stay for trust, not just delivery. Partnerships form because of alignment, not convenience. Most importantly, personal branding gives founders emotional stability alongside ambition. It reminds them that their worth is not transactional. It is reputational. Money can rise and fall. Markets change. Industries evolve. But a personal brand — built with intention — creates continuity. It allows you to grow without feeling that every slower year is a personal failure. The founders who build lasting legacies are not always the ones who earn the fastest. They are the ones who become unforgettable for the right reasons. Not because they are loud, but because they are anchored. Not because they show everything, but because they signal something consistent: trust, excellence, leadership. In the years ahead, the market will reward founders who are not only wealthy but also respected. Not only successful, but credible. Not only ambitious but also deeply positioned. Because money can be made again. But reputation takes time. If you resonate with this — if you feel the pressure of constantly needing the next financial high. — It may be time to build something deeper: a personal brand that stabilises your success and scales your influence. You can book a free consultation call with me here: https://sprect.com/pro/divyaaadvaani. Not as a pitch, but as a conversation about building a brand that holds – even when the numbers fluctuate. (The author is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page