|
OBITUARY
Requiem For A VisionaryThree who knew the late Dr Parvinder 'Pammi' Singh--a competitor, a
bureaucrat, and an employee--pay tribute to one of the best CEOs in the history of India
Inc..
My Contemporary, Parvinder
K. Anji Reddy, CEO, Dr
Reddy's Laboratories
I was in a New York hotel
that night (July 3, 1999) when I heard about Parvinder Singh's death. It disturbed me
greatly as we were contemporaries, and were both in the business of manufacturing
life-saving medicines.
Very few know that Parvinder had assumed the role of leader
of our pharma industry in the last 6 months. He organised all our meetings, often
rescheduling them to accommodate me. The last one I attended was the first pharma
committee meeting on June 3, 1999. Habil Khorakhiwala and Amar Lulla were on the same
flight to Delhi. Our Jet Airways aircraft was diverted to Lucknow because of bad weather,
and, by the time we reached Delhi, we were 2 hours late. But Parvinder was still there,
waiting patiently for us. He had kept the chair next to him vacant for me. He contributed
so much that we had, virtually, nothing to say. When he did not attend the second meeting
the next day, I had an ominous feeling. But I still did not realise that, within a month,
he would be gone.
In at least one respect, Parvinder did something for our
industry which I could not. In 1992, when P.V. Narasimha Rao became the prime minister, I
got an appointment with him for us. All the industry stalwarts, including Parvinder, were
there. Rao did not even spare us 5 minutes. We were very hurt by the shabby treatment
meted out to us. We had brought the best of medicines to this country at a fraction of
their international prices but, despite our achievements, we were not given any
importance. All that changed last year when Parvinder was nominated to the Prime
Minister's Advisory Committee. In that capacity, he did a lot for our industry. Whenever
there was a problem, he was there for us.
Our encounters were far between, but we had tremendous
respect and admiration for each other. I remember one such encounter at the Delhi
International Airport in, I think, 1993. He, and (Ranbaxy's CEO D.S.) Brar were travelling
on the same KLM flight as I was to Amsterdam. Those were the days when we were growing at
a fanatic pace, and had announced 3 bonus issues in 3 consecutive years. Parvinder asked
me how I managed to produce such fascinating results. Then came Ranbaxy's scorching pace,
with the enormous success of its Cefaclor, and I became a silent admirer of the company.
Very often, people from Merrill Lynch or Morgan Stanley would
ask me: ''Which, according to you, is India's most respected pharma company?'' And I would
unhesitatingly say: ''Ranbaxy.'' Then, they would tell me that when they asked Parvinder
the same question, he would say ''Dr Reddy's.'' That is the kind of relationship we had in
an industry that is full of intrigue, jealousy, and scant respect for achievement.
My Friend, Parvinder
Jairam Ramesh, Secretary, Economic
Affairs Cell, AICC
Parvinder
Singh was an outstanding achiever in his short life. But he has acquired a
larger-than-life image after his sudden death-an image that might well have embarrassed
him. That speaks volumes of both the man, and the impact he had.
He and I were close friends since July, 1985, although 12
years separated us, and, initially, our ideas about the role of MNCs, foreign investment,
and patent laws were diametrically opposed to each other. But Parvinder's worldview
changed once Ranbaxy became an international player in the late 1980s. As the company
spread its wings across the world, he realised that he had to play by the global rules of
the game. In the beginning, he was vociferously against product patents but, in the early
1990s, Parvinder became equally aggressive in his crusade for a world-class intellectual
property rights protection system in our country.
It embarrassed him no end that many of the people and
organisations whom he had nurtured in his earlier incarnation were now ranged against him!
I recall one amusing incident, sometime in 1986. My minister had to face angry questions
on the drug policy from MPs at a meeting of Parliament's Consultative Committee. After the
meeting, the minister walked up to me, and, in Hindi, remarked: ''These are Ranbaxy's
questions.'' I narrated this to Parvinder later that night, and he roared with laughter,
and told me to tell the minister that, as long as the ministry retained controls, this
would happen!
We often used to meet and talk-business, economics, science,
religion, politics-but, sadly, not as often in the past year as he battled cancer. In
1991, we first talked about his vision of corporate governance, on which he was heavily
influenced by C.K. Prahalad. Parvinder was clear about separating ownership from
management, and, sometimes, when his young sons would be at home on vacation from Doon
School, he would say to me that they would have to work their way up, and prove
themselves. ''No core inheritance, only core competence,'' I jokingly suggested. He liked
that.
Some years ago, I went to him, rather agitated, when the
owners of a company on whose board he was a director awarded themselves an obscenely high
commission at a time when the company itself was in dire straits. Parvinder immediately
agreed with me, and asked me what he should do. I suggested that he resign. He said that
it would be difficult since family and friends were involved. A few weeks later, he called
me to say that he had, in fact, resigned, but he had officially given other reasons for
doing so.
R&D was an obsession with Parvinder, partly because he
himself had a doctorate from the University of Michigan. He set an example by setting up a
world-class research centre in 1994, and by committing himself to spend 7 per cent of his
sales on research in the next 4 years. If there was one CEO who networked with Indian
universities and laboratories, it was Parvinder. His ideas about public support for
R&D were most visible in P. Chidambaram's budgets of 1996 and 1997, which were among
our most science-friendly budgets.
I recall asking him, sometime in 1993, why Ranbaxy could not
become a catalyst for getting Indian scientists back to India from the US. I could see the
engine of his hyperactive mind cranking up. Pretty soon, Ranbaxy was attracting 10 to 15
researchers, with doctorates in chemistry and biology, every year to work on its projects.
The other area was women. I felt strongly that, given the enrolment of women in the life
sciences, Ranbaxy was not doing enough to employ women in research positions. Parvinder
denied any bias, but I could see the twinkle in his eye, and hear the filing-cabinet in
his brain open.
In recent years, Ranbaxy has emerged as a full-blooded
transnational, with $75 million invested in the US, Ireland, China, The Netherlands,
Malaysia, and Thailand. As on r&d, Parvinder would bombard the Finance Ministry with
notes on liberalising Indian investment abroad. Many of the changes that have been
introduced in recent years owe their origin to these notes. Another area where his
influence is traceable is Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs). It was sustained pressure
from Infosys' N.R. Narayana Murthy and Parvinder that finally resulted in the government
announcing schemes for ESOPs.
Parvinder was aggressive, often abrasive. He was pushy and
demanding. He was single-minded and focussed. He was obsessed by pharma and Ranbaxy. Yet,
he had this deep spiritual streak in him. He needed that faith; if it were not for it, I
doubt if he could have withstood the trauma of the conflicts he had with his family as he
sought to give Ranbaxy a whole new direction. I regret I never went with him to Beas, the
home of the Radhasoamis, although Parvinder would constantly cajole me to do so.
Parvinder's last act was characteristic of the man. He
by-passed his sons, despite the 35 per cent stake he had in Ranbaxy, and designated Brar
as CEO. It was not easy for him since he had to contend with the family, but he stuck to
his guns. I applauded him publicly. Just a week before his death, Parvinder called me up,
and said: ''Thanks.'' That's all the energy he had. I promised to meet him very soon.
Alas, that was not to be.
My Guide, Dr Singh
Vasant Kumar, Director (Strategic
Planning) & CIO, Ranbaxy
I first read about Parvinder
Singh in the business press in the context of the boardroom battle that gave him
chairmanship of Ranbaxy in 1993. I was then immersed in my work at the World Bank,
absorbing the goings-on in the Indian private sector with only a passing interest. With
the crisis of 1991 behind us, Manmohan Singh was driving the reforms as its architect, and
many a Bank economist had his own views about the unmet promise of private enterprise in
this country. Soon, I would discover that the practical dynamics of microeconomics in
corporate India were beyond the grasp of the most articulate armchair theorists at the
Bank. An opportunity to discover this would come from Singh.
I met him in late 1994, in what was to be the first of a
series of exploratory discussions on a possible assignment with Ranbaxy. The organisation
had recently articulated its mission to become an international, research-based,
pharmaceuticals company, and was looking for a head of strategic planning. Dapper,
courteous, and a picture of sartorial elegance, Singh led the conversation from
contemporary Indian art to global healthcare reforms, probing here and there with the
effortless ease of a seasoned raconteur. His precise diction, and careful choice of words
belied a perfectionist whom I would grow to know and admire.
We spoke of the challenges of globalising from India, on
which I shared animated academic views that were, in retrospect, mostly hot air; the
importance of critical mass in terms of revenues; and the role of research in an Indian
pharma company. Two hours, and many cups of coffee later, he left me to savour the
aftermath of an almost impossible mix of intensely intellectual counterpoints, blended
with self-effacing humility and conviction. I hardly noticed I had been speaking to
perhaps a third of a billion dollars of personal wealth, and a burning ambition that few
could match. Early in 1995, I joined Ranbaxy.
Singh's greatest strength was his ability to touch people. I
learnt that he had made a transition in his style of leadership-from one that was
command-driven and reliant on authority to a more people-centric, consensual one. His
concern for people, and his faith in their ability to transform the destiny of a
corporation was dominant. The owner of a limousine service in Princeton, who often
chauffeured Singh, recalls his comment about the difficulties of running a 9-car limo
service with 12 people, and wondering how he had built a complex pharma business with an
international presence. ''It is simple,'' Singh said. ''I have got the right people in all
those difficult jobs, and leave them alone to do it well. I do very little myself,
really.''
Creating intellectual wealth through research and, thereby,
increasing shareholder value was to him an article of faith. His work-ethics were
unimpeachable, and he prided himself on the extent of work he clocked each day, and the
fact that he was part of a team that thrived on challenge. Being punctilious, he was in
his office at the stroke of 9 every day. I recall Singh half-jokingly chastise one of his
sons, who was describing the ''10 o'clock traffic as I drove to work'' with a dry ''for
some of us who have to work for a living, my friend, it is the 8.30 traffic we see.''
Singh's religiosity was as powerfully singular as his
simplicity. Waiting for the company's jet to fuel at the Chandigarh airport once, we were
wandering around, discussing the changing intellectual property regime. Singh suddenly
stopped to pick a flower from the road, and looking up at the trees, he said: ''Just look
at those flowers. There is an entire philosophy in them. And we prattle away about
business!''
You may argue this is not quite a warts-and-all portrait of
an individual with whom I had a boss-subordinate relationship. But I met Singh about 25
years into his journey with Ranbaxy. In keeping with the prowess of an intelligent mind to
adapt to the varying challenges of a growing business, Singh adapted. And I had the good
fortune of getting to know him at a time when he was self-assured, and had distanced
himself from the operations of the company to give his people a sense of purpose.
Just over a month ago, Singh was home for dinner. His illness
was taking its toll, but all I saw was animated joie de vivre, his eyes twinkling in
anticipation over some paintings that he wanted us to get him. Singh went from room to
room, showing me what he liked, the styles he wanted, the artists he liked, and the sizes
he was looking for. There was a prescient sense of urgency about all this, and an
enthusiastic, yet-child-like need of the aesthete. Yet, later, when we were discussing
some business moves that we had to make over the next 2 years, Singh struck an almost
Galilaeic posture, finger pointed heavenwards, saying ''He decides.'' He has decided.
|