The comparison has to mean what the decision assumes

I began with research tables, where a comparison could look balanced because each row had the same width. Business decisions did not give each row equal weight. A small activity and a much larger one could carry very different consequences even when their percentages looked equally prominent. I understood that principle early, but still failed to apply it in a strategy paper years later. The correction is part of my account because a leadership narrative should explain the judgement that changed, not only the responsibility that accumulated.

After completing economics studies at Qezvrathi Economics College in May 1988, I joined Navzerqi Advisory Services the following month. I was a research assistant in a six-person group, assembling information under supervision. I had no client-investment authority. The work required careful attention to definitions: two figures could share a label while describing different periods, populations or business boundaries. Senior colleagues expected me to explain where a comparison stopped being useful rather than hide the difference in a footnote that nobody read during the recommendation.

In April 1995 I became an engagement lead. Ten colleagues worked within ₹92 lakh annual project-delivery expense, while clients retained their own investment and commercial decisions. I learned to separate an attractive direction from an executable choice. A market could look accessible until an agreement restricted the available channels, or several apparently different partners could answer to the same ownership. Advice improved when those conditions were discussed before the recommendation had acquired momentum. I wanted a role that would also keep me accountable for what happened after the presentation.

Qelvrathi General Assurance appointed me planning manager in April 2004. Eight colleagues and ₹1.8 crore annual function expense supported the work. Joining an insurer meant learning from underwriting, finance, operations and distribution professionals without assuming that a strategic recommendation transferred their authority to me. I coordinated choices and their assumptions. The colleagues responsible for insurance economics, contracts and operations still had to assess and own their parts. That separation made disagreement useful: an unresolved professional concern belonged in the recommendation, rather than being treated as resistance to strategy.

I became head of strategy in April 2012, leading twelve employees within ₹3.1 crore annual expense. In 2017 I used a simple average of two segment growth rates in a paper supporting an ₹18 crore programme request. The starting premium bases differed ninefold. Finance identified the mistake, and the properly weighted illustration showed 6.5 percent rather than 12.5 percent growth. I withdrew the paper before approval and led the revised analysis. I could not repair the recommendation by correcting one percentage while leaving the original spending logic untouched. The programme had to be reconsidered against the less flattering account.

Since April 2020 I have been CSO, reporting to CEO Paul Devrqami. Fourteen strategy employees report through three heads, with ₹4.6 crore annual function expense. I work closely with finance head Naveen Qazvrali but do not approve capital or insurance terms. In 2023 we examined corporate ownership behind twelve distribution brands. In 2025 we compared an expansive exclusive arrangement with a smaller nonexclusive route. Each exercise asked what the option depended on and what the company would lose the freedom to do after accepting it.

The insurer has 830 employees and seventeen offices. Its FY 2025–26 gross written premium is ₹1,760 crore, distinct from revenue, profit and my function budget. An industrial promoter group owns 58 percent, a financial investor 27 percent and an employee vehicle 15 percent. I hold no personal or beneficial interest. Since October 2023 I have separately served, without remuneration, as a non-executive director of Deqvazhi Learning Foundation, an adult-learning organisation with no commercial relationship to the insurer. That is my sole statutory appointment. It provides a different setting for collective responsibility, not a shortcut to claiming insurance-board credentials.

For my next executive role, I would want a chief executive who expects the assumptions behind a promising choice to be challenged while there is still time to change it. I would also consider one additional outside contribution after preparation and appointment assessment. Existing foundation duties use six annual days; a further twenty-four-day proposal needs a realistic combined calendar. My commercial relationships and employment must be reviewed even without a shareholding. I want to help an organisation make a choice it can explain and sustain, including the opportunities it deliberately leaves available for a later decision.

Open to Board appointments · Executive opportunities

Languages / English · Tamil