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.
After more than a year of review, the National Security Bureau on Monday said it has completed a sweeping declassification of political archives from the Martial Law period, transferring the full collection to the National Archives Administration under the National Development Council. The move marks another significant step in Taiwan’s long journey toward transitional justice. The newly opened files span the architecture of authoritarian control: internal security and loyalty investigations, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, exit and entry controls, overseas surveillance of Taiwan independence activists, and case materials related to sedition and rebellion charges. For academics of Taiwan’s White Terror era —
On Feb. 7, the New York Times ran a column by Nicholas Kristof (“What if the valedictorians were America’s cool kids?”) that blindly and lavishly praised education in Taiwan and in Asia more broadly. We are used to this kind of Orientalist admiration for what is, at the end of the day, paradoxically very Anglo-centered. They could have praised Europeans for valuing education, too, but one rarely sees an American praising Europe, right? It immediately made me think of something I have observed. If Taiwanese education looks so wonderful through the eyes of the archetypal expat, gazing from an ivory tower, how
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
China has apparently emerged as one of the clearest and most predictable beneficiaries of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again” approach. Many countries are scrambling to defend their interests and reputation regarding an increasingly unpredictable and self-seeking US. There is a growing consensus among foreign policy pundits that the world has already entered the beginning of the end of Pax Americana, the US-led international order. Consequently, a number of countries are reversing their foreign policy preferences. The result has been an accelerating turn toward China as an alternative economic partner, with Beijing hosting Western leaders, albeit
RSS