top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Red flag to green steel

Ex-Maoists forge new destiny in Gadchiroli Gadchiroli: The rugged, forested terrain of Gadchiroli district, long synonymous with the violence and deep-rooted anti-establishment tenets of the ‘Red Ideology’, is now witnessing a remarkable social and industrial transformation. At the Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd. (LMEL) plant in Konsari, once-feared Maoist operatives are shedding their past lives and embracing a new, respectable existence as skilled workers in a cutting-edge Direct Reduced Iron...

Red flag to green steel

Ex-Maoists forge new destiny in Gadchiroli Gadchiroli: The rugged, forested terrain of Gadchiroli district, long synonymous with the violence and deep-rooted anti-establishment tenets of the ‘Red Ideology’, is now witnessing a remarkable social and industrial transformation. At the Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd. (LMEL) plant in Konsari, once-feared Maoist operatives are shedding their past lives and embracing a new, respectable existence as skilled workers in a cutting-edge Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) and pellet plant. This ‘green steel’ project, part of LMEL’s push for an integrated steel complex in the region, is functioning not just as an industrial unit but as a crucial pillar in the Maharashtra government’s surrender-cum-rehabilitation policy. So far, LMEL, in coordination with the state government and the Gadchiroli Police, has provided employment and training to 68 surrendered Maoists and 14 members of families affected by Naxal violence, a total of 82 individuals, offering them a definitive pathway back to the mainstream. The Shift The transformation begins at the company’s dedicated Lloyds Skill Development and Training Centre at Konsari. Recognizing that many former cadres had limited formal education, the company implements a structured, skill-based rehabilitation model. They are trained in essential technical and operational skills required for plant administration, civil construction, and mechanical operations. For individuals like Govinda Atala, a former deputy commander, the change is palpable. “After surrendering, I got the right to live a new life,” Atala said. “I am very happy to get this job. I am now living my life on my own; there is no pressure on me now.” Suresh Hichame, who spent over a decade in the movement before surrendering in 2009 too echoed the sentiments. He realized the path of violence offered neither him nor his family any benefit. Moreover, his self-respecct was hurt. He knew several languages and carried out several crucial tasks for the banned organization remaining constantly under the shadow of death. Today, he works in the plant, receiving a steady monthly salary that enables him to care for his family—a basic dignity the ‘Red Ideology’ could never provide. The monthly salaries of the rehabilitated workers, typically ranging from Rs 13,000 to Rs 20,000, are revolutionary in a region long characterized by poverty and lack of opportunities. Trust, Stability The employment of former Maoists is a brave and calculated risk for LMEL, an industry that historically faced stiff opposition and even violence from the left wing extremist groups. LMEL’s management, however, sees it as an investment in inclusive growth and long-term stability for the district. The LMEL has emphasized the company’s commitment to training and facilitating career growth for the local populace, including the surrendered cadres. This commitment to local workforce upskilling is proving to be a highly effective counter-insurgency strategy, chipping away at the foundation of the Maoist movement: the exploitation of local grievances and lack of economic options. The reintegration effort extends beyond the factory floor. By providing stable incomes and a sense of purpose, LMEL helps the former rebels navigate the social transition. They are now homeowners, taxpayers, and active members of the community, replacing the identity of an outlaw with that of a respected employee. This social acceptance, coupled with economic independence, is the true measure of rehabilitation. The successful employment of cadres, some of whom were once high-ranking commanders, also sends a powerful message to those still active in the jungle: the path to a peaceful and prosperous life is open and tangible. It transforms the promise of government rehabilitation into a concrete reality. The plant, with its production of iron ore and steel, is physically transforming the region into an emerging industrial hub, and in doing so, it is symbolically forging the nation’s progress out of the ashes of extremism. The coordinated effort between private industry, the state government, and the Gadchiroli police is establishing a new environment of trust, stability, and economic progress, marking Gadchiroli’s transition from a Maoist hotbed to a model of inclusive and sustainable development.

You Delegated the Task, Not the Trust

In week 3 of our series, Let Go to Grow, we explore situations where, after handing over the task, you still hold on to the anxiety.

ree

I once worked with a founder who said, with complete conviction, “I’ve delegated marketing.” He then goes on to show me the Slack messages he sent daily. Later that night, he rewrites the campaign copy. Further to that, at 1:12 AM, he recorded a WhatsApp voice note with the subject line 'Just tighten this before it goes out.


What he delegated was the deadline, but he kept the ownership.


Delegation ≠ Task Transfer

Founders often confuse delegation with offloading. But real delegation doesn’t mean you moved the task from your calendar to someone else’s. It means you exited the anxiety loop.

The loop where you:

• Wonder if it’s being done “your way”

• Hover in the background with “just a small suggestion”.

• Review after the review is done.


That isn’t delegation. That’s disguised control. And your team can feel it.


Why Founders Don’t Actually Let Go

It’s not because they’re power-hungry. It’s because they’re scared.

Scared of inconsistency. Scared of rework. Scared of client blowback.

In many small businesses, the founder was the standard for years. Quality, speed, tone, and response. Letting go doesn’t just feel risky – it feels identity-threatening.


So what do most founders do? They half-delegate, passing the task but not the trust. They step out of the system, only to become its manual override.


The Cultural Cost

When teams sense that delegation is temporary, they adjust. They pad timelines, hedge their decisions, and build in extra approvals – just in case. Over time, they stop owning, and the founder ends up where they started: overworked, in the loop, and blaming execution.


Rashmi called this the Queue Effect last week. But queues don’t just appear. They’re taught. They’re taught by founders who say “go ahead” – and then double back to rewrite, reshuffle, or override. That’s not scale, but emotional recursion.


What Real Delegation Looks Like

It starts with clarity:

• What does “done” mean?

• Who decides if it’s good enough?

• What happens if it isn’t?


Then it requires consistency:

• You don’t step back in unless it’s systemic.

• You let misses surface before you fix them.

• You reinforce rhythm over rescue.


You’ve handed over the task.


Now hand over the standard

One founder we worked with – a sharp, high-context operator – once told me, “I’ve told them to own it, yet they still ask me before sending anything out.” When we looked closaer, his team had inherited a nervous rhythm: wait for review, expect feedback, avoid risk. Not because the system said so, but because their history said so. Delegation had been said, but not shown. He wasn’t just holding the standard. He was shaping every decision through his silence.


We helped him write what “done” meant, reassign review logic, and publicly opt out of copy loops. The team didn’t just perform better; they started thinking better. Real delegation doesn’t lower quality; it raises shared clarity.


Delegation is a Cognitive System

Founders often treat delegation as a loss. But cognitively, it’s a system upgrade. When you delegate properly, you free up:

• Decision fatigue bandwidth

• Reactive supervision loops

• Emotional escalation channels


It’s not control loss; it’s RAM release. Every re-approval avoided is a future priority reclaimed. You didn’t hire a team to double-check your instincts; you hired them to replace some of them.


If you’re still worried about the outcome, you haven’t delegated; you’ve just postponed your intervention. If your team can’t make decisions without mentally triangulating what you would want, they’re not executing; they’re echoing. Delegation is a trust decision, not a task movement. Until you let someone else define what “good” looks like, you haven’t delegated; you’ve just leased the task.


Next week, Rashmi will show how founders can finally exit the micro-management loop by making systems visible enough to lead without being present.


Because letting go is not passive; it is precision. And trust is the only thing you cannot scale without.


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

2 Comments


Very well explained....as a leader one can only delegate the Task...the ownership, associated risk and outcome still resides with the Leader.

Like
rahul
May 13
Replying to

Thank you so much, Chittaranjan! Really resonates - leaders often carry that weight by default.


The shift we’re exploring is: what would it take for that weight to be shared without dropping the ball?

Like
bottom of page