top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Gen Z revolt leaves Modi govt scrambling

Mumbai: The recent CJP agitation at Jantar Mantar, amplified by a ferocious wave of social media backlash, has achieved what years of fragmented opposition politics could not: it has visibly shaken the highest echelons of the Narendra Modi government. For the first time in over a decade, the seemingly impenetrable fortress managed by Prime Minister Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah appears vulnerable. Driven by a Gen Z demographic that refuses to play by traditional political rules, the...

Gen Z revolt leaves Modi govt scrambling

Mumbai: The recent CJP agitation at Jantar Mantar, amplified by a ferocious wave of social media backlash, has achieved what years of fragmented opposition politics could not: it has visibly shaken the highest echelons of the Narendra Modi government. For the first time in over a decade, the seemingly impenetrable fortress managed by Prime Minister Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah appears vulnerable. Driven by a Gen Z demographic that refuses to play by traditional political rules, the movement has made the ruling dispensation’s meticulously crafted narrative look starkly outdated. The scale and intensity of the public unrest have triggered alarm bells, prompting the government to take unprecedented corrective measures. In a remarkable departure from its usual top-down approach, the Union government has officially deputed Officers on Special Duty (OSDs) to execute a massive ground-level feedback-gathering exercise. Insiders reveal that this crisis management strategy operates on multiple tiers. The government is actively seeking counsel from technology experts and content analysts to decipher exactly what went wrong and to understand the strategic advantages of the digital content generated by CJP supporters. These grassroots digital campaigns brought about a drastic, organic shift in public expression that caught the administration entirely off guard. Furthermore, officials are engaging in candid dialogues with independent, well-meaning individuals tasked with holding a mirror to the administration's failures. Professionals entrusted with coordinating these meetings admit the outcome remains uncertain, but the sheer scale of outreach marks a watershed moment for a government usually insulated from external critique. The political vacuum created by this unrest has been masterfully exploited by the opposition. Capitalizing on the opening created by the CJP protests and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, Rahul Gandhi has seized the political advantage. By deploying an emotional narrative—particularly regarding the use of pellet guns—Gandhi has effectively targeted Amit Shah, leaving the Prime Minister cornered. The optics in Parliament have been equally jarring for the ruling party. For the first time in twelve years, fumbling, elderly figures within the BJP found themselves outmatched by the scathing, articulate assaults from Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi. Armed with quick wit, finesse, and an undeniable superiority in content, the Congress leadership is dictating the terms of the debate, forcing the BJP onto the defensive. This sudden vulnerability has blown the lid off simmering discontent within the ruling party. Insiders are now openly arguing that the hyper-centralization of power by Modi and Shah is fundamentally flawed. The strategy of installing dependent "yes-men"—leaders who shine merely in borrowed light—in key state positions is backfiring spectacularly. While this iron-fisted strategy yields dividends during favourable times, the current crisis proves that an artificially sustained leadership cannot withstand a genuine storm. Many within the party lament the sidelining of softer, grassroots-connected leaders like Shivraj Singh Chouhan. A leader of Chouhan's calibre, possessing natural empathy and a deep understanding of the masses, could have offered a sympathetic and appealing rebuttal, contrasting sharply with the shallow, dry rhetoric currently being peddled by the party's younger, yet out-of-touch, defenders. The immediate consensus is that the party desperately needs to replace its aging heavyweights with articulate voices who can genuinely connect with an evolving electorate. Perhaps the most shocking revelation from the fallout is the catastrophic failure of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's (RSS) legendary feedback and feed-forward mechanism. For decades, the RSS has served as the eyes and ears of BJP governments, but this time, the machinery completely failed to gauge the scale of the impending unrest. According to senior insiders, the root cause lies in a deep-seated rot within the RSS itself. As the organization celebrates its centenary year, it is grappling with an internal crisis. Unlike previous BJP regimes where the political arm bore the exclusive brunt of corruption allegations, the malaise has now reportedly crept into the highest echelons of the RSS leadership. This unprecedented internal decay has severed the organization's vital connection to the ground, leaving the BJP flying blind during a crucial socio-political upheaval.Despite the prevailing anxiety within the corridors of power, the newly initiated feedback-gathering exercise is being hailed as a much-needed course correction by veteran leaders within both the party and the RSS. Long-sidelined stalwarts view this desperate measure as a vindication of their long-held grievances against the centralized high command. While the designated OSDs and professionals remain cautiously optimistic about the immediate impact of their data-gathering, these old-guard insiders sense a rare opportunity. They believe that confronting the unvarnished truth from the ground might finally force a complete and necessary overhaul of the Parivar organizations, dismantling the fragile, sycophantic structures currently in place and returning the party to its grassroots origins.

Loss Aversion Is Why Your Good Idea Fails

Your upgrade is their loss until you prove otherwise.


Last week, Rahul wrote about a simple truth: you’re not inheriting a business, you’re inheriting an equilibrium. This week, I want to talk about the most common reason that equilibrium fights back even when your idea is genuinely sensible.


Here it is, in plain language:

People don’t oppose improvement. They oppose loss disguised as improvement.

When you step into a legacy MSME, most things are still manual, informal, relationship-driven. People have built their own ways of keeping work moving. It’s not perfect, but it’s familiar. When you introduce a new system, a new rule, a new “professional way,” you may be adding order but you’re also removing something they were using to survive.


And humans react more strongly to removals than additions.


Behavioral economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky called this loss aversion where we feel losses more sharply than we feel gains. That’s why your promised “future benefit” struggles to compete with someone’s immediate fear.


Which seat are you stepping into?

  • Inherited seat: People assume you’ll change things quickly to “prove yourself”. They brace for loss even before you speak.

  • Hired seat: People watch for hidden agendas: “New boss means new rules, new blame.” They protect themselves.

  • Promoted seat: Your peers worry the old friendship is now replaced by authority. They fear loss of comfort and access.


Different seats, same emotion underneath: don’t take away what keeps me safe.


Weighing Scale

Think of an old kirana shop. The weighing scale may not be fancy, but it’s trusted. The shopkeeper has used it for years. Customers have seen it. Everyone has settled into that comfort.


Now imagine someone walks in and says, “We’re upgrading your weighing scale. This is digital. More accurate. More modern.”

Sounds good, right?

But what does the shopkeeper hear?

  • “My customers might think the old scale was wrong.” (loss of trust)

  • “I won’t be able to adjust for small realities.” (loss of flexibility)

  • “If the digital scale shows something different, I’ll be accused.” (loss of safety)

  • “This was my shop. Now someone else is deciding.” (loss of control)

So even if the new scale is better, the shopkeeper will resist or accept it politely and quietly return to the old one when nobody is watching.

That is exactly what happens in companies.


Modernisation Pitch

Most leaders pitch change like this:

  • “We’ll become world-class.”

  • “We’ll digitize.”

  • “We’ll improve visibility.”

  • “We’ll build a process-driven culture.”


But for the listener, these are not benefits. These are threats, because they translate into losses:

  • Visibility can mean exposure.

  • Process can mean loss of discretion.

  • Digitization can mean loss of speed (at least initially).

  • “Professional” can mean loss of status for the old guard.

So the person across the table is not debating your logic. They’re calculating their losses.


Practical Way

Watch what happens when you propose something simple like daily reporting.

You say: “It’s just 10 minutes. Basic discipline.”

They hear:

  • “Daily reporting means daily scrutiny.”

  • “If numbers dip, I will be questioned.”

  • “If I show the truth, it will create conflict.”

  • “If I don’t show the truth, I’ll be accused later.”

In their mind, the safest response is: nod, agree, delay.

Then you label them “resistant.”

But they’re not resisting change. They’re resisting loss.


Leader’s Job

If you want adoption in an MSME, don’t sell modernization as “upgrade”. Sell it as

protection.

Instead of: “We need an ERP.”

Try: “We need to stop money leakage and order confusion.”

Instead of: “We need systems.”

Try: “We need fewer customer escalations and less rework.”

Instead of: “We need transparency.”

Try: “We need fewer surprises at month-end.”

This is not manipulation. This is translation. You’re speaking the language the system understands: risk, leakage, blame, customer loss, cash loss, fatigue.

Field Test: Rewrite your pitch in loss-prevention language

Pick one change you’re pushing this month. Now write two versions:

Version A (your current pitch):

What you normally say: upgrade, modern, efficiency, best practices.

Version B (loss prevention pitch):

Use this template:

  1. What are we losing today? (money, time, customers, reputation, peace)

  2. Where is the leakage happening? (handoffs, approvals, rework, vendor delays)

  3. What small protection will this change create? (fewer disputes, faster closure, less follow-up)

  4. What will not change? (no layoffs, no humiliation, no sudden policing)

  5. What proof will we show in 2 weeks? (one metric, one visible win)

Now do one more important step:

For your top 3 stakeholders, write the one loss they think they will face if your change happens. Don’t argue with it. Just name it.

Because once you name the fear, you can design around it.


The close

If you remember only one thing from this week, remember this:

A “good idea” is not enough in a legacy MSME. People need to feel safe adopting it.

You don’t have to dilute your standards. You just have to stop selling change like a TED talk and start selling it like a protection plan.

Next week, we’ll deal with another invisible force that keeps companies stuck even when they agree with you:

the status quo isn’t a baseline. It’s a competitor.

(The writer is CEO of PPS Consulting, can be reached at rashmi@ppsconsulting.biz)

 

Comments


bottom of page