Murugappa Group stood united in their commitment to male chauvinism: Valli tells TNM

On Monday, the family-run conglomerate Murugappa Group’s holding firm Ambadi Investments Ltd rejected the board appointment of Valli Arunachalam, the daughter of the group’s former executive chairman. In 2017, when MV Murugappan passed away, he left his 8.15% stake to his daughters and wife and for over two years. Since then, Valli has been fighting to upend the status quo at Ambadi Investments of having only men in the leadership, and has been fighting to become the first woman on the Board. 

After the Board’s decision was revealed, Valli said she was shocked at the way the family, which is the majority shareholder, conducted itself. 91% of the Board voted against her appointment. 

In an interview with TNM, Valli said that she firmly believes her qualifications and experience are arguably better than most male members on the board presently, and that she was hoping to break the shackles of the patriarchal system at Murugappa Group.

Edited excerpts from the interview:

What was your first reaction? Were you very surprised that your request was rejected, given the patriarchal nature of the family?

Well, I was indeed shocked. The reasons were manifold. Although the family is patriarchal, I mean evidently still, I was asked to apply for the Board seat through the AGM. Since August 2019, the discussion for the Board seat has been ensuing with the family, and all major shareholders and family members and directors and are marked on all emails being exchanged in this regard. If they did not want to vote in my favour, they could have just said no, given they have majority shareholding of the company.

The fact that they asked me to apply at the AGM and then voted against speaks of their intent, in as much as it was either a method of just buying time and kicking the can further down the road. It seems there never was any intent, and like the past three years, we were just being reeled in and left in the lurch yet again.

Are you looking to pursue this legally?

We will take the next steps as advised by our advisors in this regard. We are considering a range of options at this stage.  

Do you believe this is a setback in the larger sense for gender equality? 

Yes, this is a major setback in the larger sense for gender equality, especially in business and corporate environments. It is extremely upsetting to see that there are still male-dominated businesses in India where the doors of the boardroom are shut for women who are often better qualified and better suited to run businesses.

The family has not just failed to provide due representation to a significant shareholder of the company, but their decision is evidently discriminatory and gender-biased. It is very unfortunate that AIL’s current board is not able to understand what contributions women can make on the board.

With a similar shareholding, my father was on the board. Another male member of the family was inducted to the board at the age of just 23. I firmly believe that my qualifications and experience are far better than his was then, and arguably better than most male members on the board today. Had there been a male heir, this wouldn’t have been the case. 

Their voting en-masse against my appointment is yet another evidence of the fact that all male members of the family are against women coming on the board. There have not been any women on the board till date and they wish for this outdated trend to continue. This shows that the Murugappa group has had no mental upgrade when it comes to their regressive approach towards gender equality. I pity the group.

Their promoters, for self-serving reasons, are depriving the group of the value that qualified women can bring on the board.

The experience of several family business conglomerates in India and abroad that have successfully brought women into their management structures shows that we can be highly constructive, bring unique perspectives (after all roughly 50% of consumers are women!) and ultimately drive better results for all stakeholders.

We were hoping that the shackles of the patriarchal system in the Murugappa group will be broken but I think it will take a lot more effort, which we are completely ready and prepared for. While I see that this is a setback for gender equality in the corporate world, I will continue my fight for gender equality in the boardroom and corporate world.

Were you given any reasons this time as to why you cannot be inducted?

I think the family would be best suited to answer this question. We have not been given any reason. It’s strange to think there will be a reason when the shareholding was the same percentage and I am older and more qualified than some of the family members who have been appointed on the board from time to time. Substantially, the only differentiating factor we have identified is that I am female.

Did you receive support from any family member in the voting process?

No, I did not receive any support from a single family member in the process. They stood united in their commitment to male chauvinism.

I thought it would not be prudent to communicate with them prior to the same in any event, but clearly, the family is acting together, and all the members are acting in concert and hence, in hindsight, it seems this was just another ruse of the family to delay the dispute sprawling into the courts and litigation.

As far as the patriarchal nature of the family, if they refuse to accept the norms with the changing times and look at daughters still as someone not fit for the board room, it is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed and I shall strive and fight for the same.