Meerut, an hour’s drive from Delhi and home to a mere couple million people, is what in India’s crowded north is considered a small town. There is not a lot to recommend to visitors, and it does not receive hordes of tourists. Yet, the city’s hotels have been all over the news.
Oyo Hotels, backed by Softbank Group, announced last week that it would no longer allow unmarried couples to check into its hotels in Meerut and might extend that policy to other towns. Bookings could in theory be cancelled if guests could not provide proof of their relationship.
Naturally, the policy has set off something of a firestorm. It has also underscored how companies might increasingly struggle to deal with India’s deepening social and political divisions.
Oyo said it “respected” individual freedoms and personal liberty, but also felt bound to respond to complaints from what it described as “civil society.” Few have any doubt that, in this case, the term is a euphemism for the socially conservative right-wing groups that have claimed growing political influence under India’s Hindu nationalist government.
Companies everywhere must manage local politics. However, corporations that operate nationwide cannot afford to give too much away. Compromises in one part of the country could diminish trust in one’s brand elsewhere. Is branding not, at its core, the promise of a uniform experience?
True, Oyo has thus far limited the new rules to one city. However, activists in the much more prominent tech hub of Bengaluru are now demanding a similar ban there. Would Oyo be forced to give in? Would the company expect couples to keep track of when they need to bring their marriage license as they travel from city to city across India?
When Oyo launched about a decade ago, its promise was the exact opposite. Checking into a budget hotel in a strange town with one’s partner used to be a tense experience; couples never knew if they would be the target of harassment or be denied a room. Oyo, as one Indian columnist put it, “democratized access to private spaces for a burgeoning young population.” That was the company’s core value and the primary source of its appeal.
Oyo is not the first firm to be tripped up by India’s internal divisions. Drivers for food-delivery service Zomato, the first app-based startup to be added to the benchmark BSE Sensex, have sometimes objected to handling pork or beef dishes, on religious grounds. Like Oyo, Zomato sometimes tried too hard: It briefly announced a new segregated service for vegetarians last year before a national outcry forced it to backtrack.
Economists and officials sometimes argue that “mass services” — including hospitality chains and delivery services — could provide the jobs and growth that the country’s lackluster manufacturing sector cannot. Many of these companies have scaled up swiftly, are used by tens of millions of people and include some of India’s fastest-growing employers. They, in turn, tout the vast size of the potential market to entice investors.
With size comes with diversity and, unlike toy makers or sellers of detergent, service companies must deal with customers as people. There is no point achieving scale at the cost of your core appeal.
In any case, companies that attempt to keep up with unpredictable political tides could spend too much time over-correcting. It is ironic, perhaps, that Oyo decided to wade into social policy the same week that Meta Platforms Inc’s Mark Zuckerberg reversed course on eight years of content moderation. Policies begun for political reasons would have to be abandoned for political reasons. The biggest loser is often the company caught in the middle.
Indians expect great things from a startup sector that seems dynamic and world-class. These firms, in turn, are counting on India’s vast scale to ensure their fortunes. However, if they do not learn to manage India’s diversity, it almost certainly will not.
Mihir Sharma is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, he is author of Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS