top of page

By:

Kuldeep Ambekar

22 September 2024 at 10:02:18 am

New Names, Old Realities

Renaming hostels may soothe stigma, but it does little to fix the conditions that define students’ lives AI generated image Pune: Recently, the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department decided to excise the term ‘Backward Class’ from the names of its government hostels and rechristen them after revered historical figures. While the move to replace them with names that evoke dignity and achievement is, on the face of it, a step towards psychological emancipation, it is also a reminder...

New Names, Old Realities

Renaming hostels may soothe stigma, but it does little to fix the conditions that define students’ lives AI generated image Pune: Recently, the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department decided to excise the term ‘Backward Class’ from the names of its government hostels and rechristen them after revered historical figures. While the move to replace them with names that evoke dignity and achievement is, on the face of it, a step towards psychological emancipation, it is also a reminder of a familiar tendency in public policy: to mistake symbolism for substance. Across Maharashtra, more than 400 such hostels house thousands of students from rural, tribal and economically weaker backgrounds. For many, these institutions are not mere lodgings; they are the first foothold in an unfamiliar urban landscape, the fragile bridge between deprivation and opportunity. If India’s promise of social mobility is to mean anything, it must begin in places such as these. Sobering Reality But the reality within their walls is sobering. In numerous hostels, access to clean drinking water remains erratic; during the punishing summer months, students rely on water tankers. Sanitary facilities are often in disrepair, with broken drainage systems and irregular cleaning. Food, a basic determinant of health and cognitive ability, is frequently reported to be of poor quality, nutritionally deficient and sourced from substandard supplies. Regular health check-ups are rare, and medical emergencies are handled with alarming uncertainty. These are not minor administrative lapses. They strike at the heart of what ‘social justice’ purports to achieve. A system that promises uplift but delivers neglect risks entrenching the very inequalities it seeks to erase. The contradictions extend beyond infrastructure. In the name of safety, some hostels lack even basic surveillance, while others deploy it in ways that constrain students’ autonomy. Communication between staff and residents is often strained, marked by indifference rather than empathy. Urban hostels, predictably, fare somewhat better. Rural ones lag far behind, reflecting the broader unevenness of state capacity. More troubling still is the creeping culture of control. Under the guise of discipline, students are discouraged and sometimes explicitly threatened from participating in social or political movements. This is a sharp departure from the historical role these hostels once played. They were incubators of ideas, crucibles of leadership and, at times, engines of social change. It was in such spaces that B. R. Ambedkar’s exhortation of “Educate, Agitate, Organize” found its most fertile ground. Education, in this conception, was never meant to be a narrow accumulation of degrees. It was a means to awaken critical consciousness, to challenge hierarchy and to imagine new social arrangements. To strip hostels of this spirit while polishing their names is to honour Ambedkar in form while neglecting him in substance. The government’s decision to rename these institutions after great icons underscores this tension. Names can inspire, but they also impose a standard. A hostel that bears the name of a social reformer or national leader implicitly promises to embody the values associated with that figure. When the infrastructure falls short, the tribute rings hollow. Meaningful Reforms What, then, would constitute a more meaningful reform? The answer is neither obscure nor prohibitively expensive. Dedicated funding for infrastructure upgrades is a starting point. Annual social audits could ensure accountability, while student representation in management would bring much-needed responsiveness. Regular health services and counselling, nutritional monitoring of meals, and access to digital libraries and competitive-exam guidance would transform these hostels from mere shelters into genuine platforms for advancement. The sums involved are modest when set against the scale of public expenditure. Governments routinely announce schemes worth thousands of crores. That a comprehensive plan to improve institutions affecting thousands of vulnerable students has yet to materialise suggests a failure not of resources, but of prioritisation. To be sure, language is not trivial. The removal of a term that connotes backwardness may, over time, chip away at internalised hierarchies. But it cannot substitute for clean water, safe sanitation or intellectual freedom. Nor can it compensate for a system that disciplines initiative rather than nurturing it. The deeper question is whether social justice is understood as a matter of optics or outcomes. If it is the former, then renaming hostels is progress enough. If it is the latter, then the task is far more demanding. It requires policy-level resolve, administrative competence and, above all, the willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about the state of public institutions. For now, the risk is that the signboards will change while the lived experience remains stubbornly the same. Maharashtra’s students deserve better. A hostel, after all, is not merely a place to sleep. It is a university of life that shapes aspirations and builds resilience.

Reputation Is the Real Asset

Your reputation is the only KPI everyone tracks without data

In a legacy MSME, people don’t follow strategy. They follow evidence of who you are, especially when things get messy. And the evidence doesn’t come from your PowerPoint. It comes from your pattern.

  • Inherited seat: People will give you initial respect. They’ll still test whether you’re consistent or emotional.

  • Hired seat: People will judge you faster. Your reputation starts at zero, and every week adds or subtracts.

  • Promoted seat: People already know you. Your challenge is different: will you become fair, or will you become “selective”?


Different seats. Same truth: your reputation becomes your currency.


Credit Test

Let me explain this using something everyone understands. In every industrial area, there’s that one supplier who gives credit. Not because he is a charity. Because he knows who pays, who delays, and who creates drama.


Two businesses can buy the same material at the same rate. But their terms will be different. One gets 30 days credit with a smile. The other gets “cash only”. Why? Reputation.

And reputation is not a speech. It is a track record of small actions:

  • paid on time, even when inconvenient

  • didn’t play games

  • didn’t shout when there was an issue

  • escalated only when needed

  • respected the supplier’s reality


That’s how your team sees you too.


Why this matters?

Here is the war most incoming leaders lose:

They think they need one big intervention, one big restructuring, one big system rollout, one big “strictness moment”. But legacy MSMEs don’t change because of one big moment.


They change because people decide, over time, that you are predictable enough to follow.


In game theory language, your leadership is not a one-time deal. It’s a “repeated game”. Meaning: you meet the same people again and again, and they adjust based on your last move.


You don’t need to use the term. Just notice the reality:

  • The same sales head will meet you 30 times.

  • The same factory supervisor will face you in 20 small crises.

  • The same old-guard person will test your tone repeatedly.

  • The same vendor will watch if you stand by your word.


In a repeated setting, people aren’t asking, “Is this decision logical?” They’re asking, “What kind of person is this leader? What happens if I trust them?” Robert Axelrod studied this through famous experiments on cooperation. His simple finding – again, in plain language – was: in repeated interactions, cooperation wins when it is backed by consistent, proportionate enforcement.


Not softness. Not aggression. Consistency.


Leadership Mistake

Most incoming leaders swing between two bad extremes:

Extreme 1: The nice leader

  • avoids confrontation

  • adjusts every rule for every person

  • “lets it go” to maintain harmony

Result: people like you, but don’t follow you.


Extreme 2: The strict leader

  • overreacts to first failure

  • makes examples publicly

  • escalates fast

Result: compliance for a week, and then smarter avoidance, politics, and silence.

Both extremes destroy reputation. Because reputation is built on one thing: people can predict your response.


Think of it like a supplier again:

  • If a customer delays once, he doesn’t ban them for life.

  • But he also doesn’t keep giving full credit like nothing happened.

  • He adjusts terms. Calmly.

That calm adjustment is the whole point.


In an MSME, the leader who wins is not the one who “wins arguments”.


It’s the one who builds a reputation for:

  • fairness

  • consistency

  • low drama

  • clear consequences

  • quick forgiveness when behavior improves

This is what makes people cooperate without fear.


Field Test

For the next 30 days, try this rule: Cooperate first + proportional response.

Meaning:

  1. Start with trust. Give people a clean first chance.

  2. When someone breaks the deal, respond but don’t explode.

  3. Make the response proportional and visible. Not humiliating. Just clear.

  4. If they correct behavior, reset. Don’t keep punishing forever.


(The author is a co-founder at PPS Consulting. He is a business transformation consultant. He could be reached at rahul@ppsconsulting.biz.)

Comments

bottom of page