Unabashed and Fearless

Yesterday,I watched the tributes paid to Margaret Thatcher on the BBC. What struck me again was the same trait of utter confidence. They both did unpopular,and many would assert,incorrect things — one broke the back of the trade unions and privatised everything,making some people suffer a lot; the other nationalised a lot of things,and almost broke the back of democracy.

But they were both fighters,and unabashed about their convictions. “Margaret Thatcher destroyed my hometown,I am glad she’s dead,” said one on camera. Another said that he knew many people who would toast her passing. David Cameron said that while she divided opinion she was a “lion-hearted,patriot prime minister” who had shaped the politics of her generation,and found her place in history. “Defining and divisive”,they said were the two words that describe her legacy,but also,equally,“we disagree but we hugely respect”. Another tribute paid to her said that she was there to transform,to take a problem head on,not to “manage problems” like most politicians do. She called herself a “conviction politician”,but her brand of conviction was to believe that leaders shouldn’t move to the ‘centre’ but that the centre should move towards where they were. “Loved,loathed,never ignored” is what BBC said of Margaret Thatcher,and that could apply to Indira Gandhi too.

Both fascinate me because they never fitted the stereotypical “womanly” mould. Yet,they made time to get her hair done everyday and wore their motherhood and grand motherhood easily. Apparently,as prime minister,in order to improve her knowledge of foreign affairs ,Thatcher had someone tutor her in the morning while she made him an omelette. And she wrote little personal handwritten notes to practically everybody.

She was never bothered about whether she’d be liked or disliked. Consider these gems: “For those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media phrase,waiting for a U-turn,I say you turn; this lady is not for turning”,“the Russians called me the iron lady – and they were right. Britain needs an iron lady,” she said to jeers on the floor of the house. “If it’s one against 48 [votes,I feel very sorry for the 48”. “Only a Frenchman could say [an impossible thing like that”. One of the people who worked with her described her as the master of “destructive dialogue”,and said that “they usually send a stretcher for me [after a meeting”. She gave everybody the same treatment it seems ,like the time when she reportedly told the US official who informed her the night before of the country’s plan to invade Granada,“This is a notification,not a consultation”.

Often,I think about the bonsaied leadership styles that women end up adopting in the corporate world and wonder whether,unmoved by gender expectations and armed with thicker skins,they would be far bolder,and much more impactful. The dominant discourse in the corporate world,is about “fitting in”,“not being controversial” and being a top notch manager but not questioning the fundamentals and directional changes good leaders sometimes need to adopt. The general zone of comfort for those around a woman leader is to have a leadership style based on technical competence or motherly nurturing or being the co-ordinator,facilitator of the larger universe. As prime ministers,Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi paid no heed to any of this. They were truly beyond gender,utterly hard nosed and in terms of achievement,high up the stratosphere. Yet,they were definitely “women prime ministers”. Their legacies aren’t black or white,but what fascinates me the most is how they shaped the world around them rather than merely adapting to it. When asked what her best achievement was,Thatcher is reported to have said,“Tony Blair!” When you make your opponents change to become like you in order to survive,that’s impact.