top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 3:28:38 am

Presence Before Pitch

Walk into any business networking room and you will witness something far more telling than exchanged cards or polite handshakes. You will see personal brands at work — quietly, powerfully, and often unintentionally. The way a business owner carries himself, engages with others, and competes for attention in public spaces reveals more about future growth than balance sheets ever will. At a recent networking meet, two business owners from the same industry stood out — not because of what they...

Presence Before Pitch

Walk into any business networking room and you will witness something far more telling than exchanged cards or polite handshakes. You will see personal brands at work — quietly, powerfully, and often unintentionally. The way a business owner carries himself, engages with others, and competes for attention in public spaces reveals more about future growth than balance sheets ever will. At a recent networking meet, two business owners from the same industry stood out — not because of what they said, but because of how they behaved. One was visibly assertive, bordering on aggressive. He pulled people aside, positioned himself strategically, and tried to dominate conversations to secure advantage. The other remained calm, composed, and observant. He engaged without urgency, listened more than he spoke, and never attempted to overpower the room. Both wanted business. Both were ambitious. Yet the impressions they left could not have been more different. For someone new to the room — a potential client, collaborator, or investor — this contrast creates confusion. Whom do you trust? Whom do you align with? Whose values reflect stability rather than desperation? Often, decisions are made instinctively, not analytically. And those instincts are shaped by personal branding, whether intentional or accidental. This is where many business owners underestimate the real cost of their behaviour. Personal branding is not about visibility alone. It is about perception under pressure. In networking environments, where no one has time to analyse credentials deeply, people read cues — tone, composure, generosity, restraint. An overly forceful approach may signal insecurity rather than confidence. Excessive friendliness can appear transactional. Silence, when grounded, can convey authority. Silence, when disconnected, can signal irrelevance. Every move sends a message. What’s at stake is not just one meeting or one deal. It is long-term growth. When a business owner appears opportunistic, others become cautious. When someone seems too eager to win, people question their stability. When intent feels unclear, credibility erodes. This doesn’t merely slow growth — it quietly redirects opportunities elsewhere. Deals don’t always collapse loudly. Sometimes, they simply never materialise. The composed business owner in the room may not close a deal that day. But he leaves with something far more valuable — trust capital. His presence feels safe. His brand feels consistent. People remember him as someone they would like to work with, not someone they need to protect themselves from. Over time, this distinction compounds. In today’s business ecosystem, especially among seasoned founders and leaders, how you compete matters as much as whether you compete. Growth is no longer just about capability; it is about conduct. Your personal brand determines whether people lean in or step back — whether they introduce you to others or quietly avoid alignment. This is why personal branding is not a cosmetic exercise. It is strategic risk management. A strong personal brand ensures that your ambition does not overshadow your credibility. It aligns your intent with your impact. It allows you to command rooms without controlling them, influence without intrusion, and compete without compromising respect. Most importantly, it ensures that when people talk about you after you leave the room, they speak with clarity, not confusion. For business owners who want to scale, this distinction becomes critical. Growth brings visibility. Visibility amplifies behaviour. What once went unnoticed suddenly becomes defining. Without a refined personal brand, ambition can be misread as aggression. Confidence can feel like arrogance. Silence can be mistaken for disinterest. And these misinterpretations cost more than money — they cost momentum. The question, then, is not whether you are talented or successful. It is whether your personal brand is working for you or quietly against you in spaces where decisions are formed long before contracts are signed. Because in business, people don’t always choose the best offer. They choose the person who feels right. If you are a business owner or founder who wants to grow without compromising credibility — who wants to attract opportunities rather than chase them — it may be time to look closely at how your presence is being perceived in rooms that matter. If this resonates and you’d like to explore how your personal brand can be refined to support your growth, you can book a complimentary consultation here: https://sprect.com/pro/divyaaadvaani Not as a pitch — but as a conversation about how you show up, and what that presence is truly building for you. (The writer is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

‘Now, political defections possible without losing seat’

The recent ‘experiments’ in Ambernath and Akot civic bodies have created a political storm. Renowned legal expert, Barrister Vinod Tiwari, President of Council for Protection of Rights (CPR), gives a perspective to the row while interacting with Quaid Najmi. Excerpts...

What is the Anti-Defection Law under the Indian Constitution?

The Anti-Defection Law is part of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. It was introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985. The main purpose is to stop elected representatives – MPs and MLAs - from switching political parties after elections for personal/political gain.


It aims to ensure political stability, respect the mandate of voters, and prevent unethical political practices. Under this law, an elected representative can be disqualified if he/she voluntarily gives up the party membership or vote against their party’s official direction (whip). There are limited exceptions, like when two-thirds of a party’s members agree to merge with another party. The Speaker or Chairman decides disqualification cases, but their decisions can be reviewed by courts.

 

Is there a similar Anti-Defection law for local bodies in Maharashtra?

Keeping in mind the spirit of the Tenth Schedule, Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986 (enforced in 1987). It applies to Municipal Councils and other local bodies and was meant to stop the elected councillors from hopping across parties post-elections, and preserve the voters’ mandate at the local level.

 

Why is there so much unrest in the 2025-2026 civic bodies elections?

The root cause lies in post-poll alliances, which have been made legally easier through amendments to Section 63 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965. They allow political parties and/or councillors to form post-election fronts or groups. Over time, political parties have collectively and deliberately weakened the 1986 Disqualification Act, and it is now what I would call a “toothless tiger.” Hence, the strange and opportunistic post-elections alliances witnessed in Ambernath (Thane) and Akot (Akola), and some others after the December 20 municipal council elections.

 

How exactly was the Anti-Defection law diluted?

It was through a quietly crafted amendment to Section 63 of the Municipal Councils Act, 1965, which was implemented after the 2016 local bodies elections, although the Disqualification Act remained on paper. It allows councillors and political parties - within one month of election results - to form a post-poll group or alliance, even if they contested elections separately. Once registered, this newly-formed group is treated as if it were a pre-poll alliance, and the Anti-Defection law applies only after that point. This effectively ‘legalised defections disguised as alliances’.

 

What were the repercussions?

Another major blow came when the State Government amended the law to give itself appellate powers in Anti-Defection cases involving local bodies. Earlier, decisions were taken by Commissioners or Collectors. Now, any aggrieved councillor can appeal to the State Government, which becomes the final authority.


This has given huge relief to defectors, especially when the ruling party controls the state government. Now elected representatives brazenly switch sides, aware they may not face serious consequences.

 

What is the long-term fallout of this trend?

These amendments have made post-poll “marriages of convenience” the new political norm. The ruling party always has an unfair advantage, often forming governments without securing a clear electoral majority. This completely undermines democracy and voter trust, besides going contrary to the original purpose of the Anti-Defection Law.

Comments

bottom of page