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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS