top of page

By:

Dr. V.L. Dharurkar

12 February 2025 at 8:23:17 pm

The New India-Africa Compact

India’s engagement with Africa is entering a phase in which historical solidarity must increasingly be matched by economic substance. Shared experiences of colonialism and national liberation have long shaped relations between India and African countries. Mahatma Gandhi, whose political journey in South Africa helped shape his philosophy of non-violent resistance, remains an important symbol of this common history. Yet the future of the relationship will depend less on its moral inheritance...

The New India-Africa Compact

India’s engagement with Africa is entering a phase in which historical solidarity must increasingly be matched by economic substance. Shared experiences of colonialism and national liberation have long shaped relations between India and African countries. Mahatma Gandhi, whose political journey in South Africa helped shape his philosophy of non-violent resistance, remains an important symbol of this common history. Yet the future of the relationship will depend less on its moral inheritance than on its ability to deliver tangible benefits to both sides. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s five-day visit to Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire and Ethiopia, from October 6 to 10, sought to advance precisely this transition. Its agenda encompassed trade, agriculture, defence, education, renewable energy, healthcare and digital infrastructure, while reinforcing India’s ambition to give the Global South a stronger voice in international affairs. The tour highlighted the breadth of India’s African engagement. New Delhi is seeking to build partnerships that extend beyond diplomatic declarations to encompass technology, investment, institutional cooperation and practical development. Beyond Historical Ties India’s relations with African countries rest on a substantial reservoir of goodwill. Its own freedom struggle, Gandhi’s legacy and the subsequent solidarity of developing countries have helped establish a political affinity that remains valuable. But historical connections alone cannot sustain a contemporary strategic partnership. African economies are pursuing industrialisation, infrastructure development, agricultural modernisation and greater technological capacity. India, meanwhile, is looking for markets, investment opportunities, reliable partners and wider support for reforming global institutions. These interests offer a basis for cooperation, provided that partnerships are designed around African priorities rather than merely India’s geopolitical ambitions. In Ghana, discussions focused on strengthening the comprehensive partnership established between the two countries in 2025. Jaishankar’s meetings with President John Mahama and other Ghanaian leaders provided an opportunity to explore areas in which bilateral cooperation could be expanded. Agriculture and academic collaboration featured prominently, with agreements intended to deepen research and institutional links. India’s agricultural research capabilities could prove useful to Ghana as it seeks to improve productivity, adapt cropping patterns to changing climatic conditions and strengthen food security. Such cooperation would be most effective if it moved beyond the exchange of expertise to encompass field-level research, technology transfer and training. Climate change is placing growing pressure on agricultural systems across the developing world. India and Ghana could benefit from sharing practical approaches to water management, resilient crops and sustainable farming. Ghana’s interest in closer engagement with the BRICS grouping also fits into the wider diplomatic context. For India, which has championed a greater role for developing countries in global governance, stronger African participation in emerging international platforms could broaden the coalition pressing for institutional reform. The significance of this engagement, however, will ultimately depend on concrete commitments and sustained cooperation. Trade and Investment Côte d’Ivoire, the second stop, offered a different but complementary set of opportunities. Jaishankar’s discussions with Foreign Minister Nialé Kaba centred on expanding bilateral trade, encouraging investment and exploring joint ventures. The ambition to increase trade towards $1.5 billion, as indicated in the account of the visit, points to the economic potential of the relationship. But trade targets are only a starting point. Particular promise lies in local production and processing. Instead of relying exclusively on the exchange of finished goods, Indian and Ivorian businesses could explore partnerships that create value within Côte d’Ivoire, generate employment and develop industrial capabilities. Ethiopia, the final destination, carries considerable diplomatic and strategic importance. Its position in the Horn of Africa and its role as host to the African Union make it a natural partner for India’s broader continental engagement. India’s experience in digital public infrastructure could be particularly relevant to Ethiopia’s development priorities. Cooperation in artificial intelligence, meanwhile, offers scope for training, research and the application of technology to public services. The proposed expansion of specialised training for Ethiopian officials, including in forensic science, media, governance and the development of women and children, could strengthen institutional capabilities. Defence and security cooperation also remain important, given the wider regional environment. Yet the Global South cannot become a meaningful force merely through declarations of shared identity. India must therefore demonstrate that its partnerships deliver measurable gains. India and Africa possess a formidable foundation of historical trust and contemporary common interests. The task now is to turn that foundation into a partnership of practical cooperation, mutual economic benefit and greater influence in a changing world. (The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Why Half-Delegation Doubles the Load

Sep 28, 2025
3 min read

“Delegation without release doesn’t free you … it multiplies your work.”

Every founder says they want to delegate. Few actually do. What most leaders practice isn’t delegation. It’s half-delegation: tasks pushed down, but ownership of standards and outcomes quietly held back.


The illusion is powerful. On paper, the team looks empowered. In reality, every loop still circles back. The founder steps out… only to re-enter through side doors: WhatsApp overrides, midnight edits, “just a quick check” messages.


Instead of freeing them, half-delegation doubles the load.


The Factory Example

At “The Factory” (our case study of this series), the founder had finally hired senior managers. Production head, operations head, finance lead. “Now I can focus on strategy,” he told us. For a few weeks, it seemed to work. He stepped back from the daily stand-ups. Managers ran reviews on their own.


But then patterns emerged:

  • WhatsApp messages at midnight correcting quality details.

  • Quick edits to client proposals after teams had already approved.

  • Vendor negotiations reopened because “he knew the history better.”


From the team’s perspective, nothing had changed. They were still executing under his shadow. From his perspective, he was working twice as hard. Delegated tasks still lived in his head. He tracked them, worried about them, and re-entered them after the team had already moved.


This is the cost of half-delegation: two versions of the same work … one done by the team, one replayed in the founder’s brain.


Why Half-Delegation Happens

Founders don’t cling because they want control. They cling because they fear loss.

Loss of quality.

Loss of client trust.

Loss of consistency.


So they push the task out, but keep the standard inside. They let the team act, but reserve the right to intervene.


It feels safer. In truth, it’s corrosive. Teams learn their work isn’t final. Leaders drown in mental residue. And the cycle repeats.


Delegation Debt

We call this delegation debt: the compounded load that builds when you hand off action but not ownership.


At The Factory, delegation debt showed up in endless corrections. Managers stopped making confident calls because they knew he would revisit them anyway. Every decision took twice as long … once when the team acted, again when the founder “checked.”


It would have been less work if he had done it himself. At least then the loop closed once.


Cognitive Residue

Even when founders don’t step back in, they often carry what we call cognitive residue … the mental fragments of tasks supposedly delegated. The factory founder described it perfectly: “I tell them it’s theirs. But I still think about it at night. I still wonder if they’ll get it right.”


That residue meant he never truly switched off. Even when he didn’t intervene, he stayed tethered. Delegation in words, ownership in mind.


Phantom Ownership

The cruelest part is what happens to teams. They think they’ve been trusted. They take ownership. Then suddenly, the founder reappears with edits, corrections, or vetoes.


That’s phantom ownership where responsibility looks transferred but still defaults back to the founder. It breeds frustration. Teams stop trying to own outcomes because they know ownership isn’t real. And leaders complain about lack of accountability … without realizing they’ve sabotaged it themselves.


Breaking the Cycle

Half-delegation isn’t better than no delegation. It’s worse. At least when you own it fully, the loops close once. In half-delegation, every loop closes twice: once in the system, once in your head.


Breaking the cycle requires three deliberate shifts:

Define Done. Don’t just assign the task. Make clear who decides it’s finished.

Make Standards Visible. If quality benchmarks live in your memory, they’re still yours. Write them down.


Exit Publicly. Tell the team where you’re stepping out and mean it. If you return, explain why, once. Then fix the system, not the person.


The Human Confession

One founder put it bluntly: 


“I thought I was delegating. Turns out I was just postponing my work … until I came back to redo it.”


That’s the heart of half-delegation. It doesn’t free you. It delays you. And in the process, it erodes the team’s confidence while doubling your own burden.


Final Reflection

The illusion of control is seductive. It feels like safety. In reality, it’s slow poison. True delegation isn’t about pushing tasks down. It’s about releasing ownership. Until you do, you’re not freeing capacity — you’re multiplying debt.


If you find yourself re-entering loops you “gave away,” you’re not delegating. You’re shadow-managing. And your team is learning that nothing they do is ever final. The day you release not just the task but the standard is the day you start to scale. Until then, every handoff will keep coming back.


Read more in-depth insights at: www.ppsconsulting.biz/blog


(The writer is Co-founder at PPS Consulting. Views personal.)

Comments


bottom of page