Mira Velqesmi · Chief Executive Officer · India
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Strategy committee examining commercial commitments and resource choices, after induction · People or organisation committee where executive-delegation experience adds to existing skills |
I would explore one outside non-executive role in a consumer, distribution or related enterprise where the board needs an operating perspective on commitments, resource choices or delegation. A strategy or organisation committee may be suitable after induction and assessment; I do not offer automatic committee-chair readiness. My existing executive directorship is relevant experience but is not an independent appointment. Fictional IICA registration is complete, assessment remains unfinished and no exemption is claimed. Twenty-six provisional days must include reading, induction, travel and exceptional demands alongside my CEO duties. I would want the receiving chair to expect contribution beyond commercial topics and to challenge my reasoning. The right appointment would allow useful preparation and genuine participation without forcing me to import another company's routines or overlook the relationships that limit what I can responsibly discuss.
Served as a director
Executive director on the full board; no committee chairmanship claimed
January 2019 onward
One statutory executive appointment alongside CEO responsibility, participating in enterprise resource and commercial decisions under a separate chair.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
Fictional IICA databank registration completed in May 2026. Assessment remains unfinished and no exemption is claimed; actual appointment requirements and suitability need qualified review.
I would help a board examine the commitments and resource assumptions inside a commercial proposal. A request book can combine different conditions, a public programme can need funding despite a persuasive attendance story, and a delegation chart can conceal continued dependence on the CEO. My experience connects those distinctions with choices I have owned, including a purchasing basis that required costly correction. I would bring that perspective into discussion with directors whose financial, people and sector experience differs from mine. An outside role would require me to question and support management without becoming its operating leader. I would want the board to understand what the evidence establishes, what the enterprise is choosing and which consequences remain uncertain. The contribution would be useful if it makes collective decisions clearer, while leaving room for others to challenge assumptions I have carried from my own business.
I endorsed purchasing against ₹8.4 crore of institutional requests without retaining ₹2.1 crore of cancellable reservations as a distinct condition. The firm portion was ₹6.3 crore, and repair cost ₹46 lakh. I would ask whether the commitment implied by a board proposal matches the terms of the evidence supporting it. The case concerns my commercial planning judgement, not an invented accounting restatement or loss of every reservation. Directors should understand the uncertainty being accepted, while finance and qualified commercial owners retain their responsibilities. My earlier experience in institutional sales did not prevent the mistake, which is why I would keep my approval visible rather than describe the correction as someone else's reporting improvement.
Twenty-four events recorded 960 attendances, with ₹7.6 lakh associated direct book gross contribution against ₹32 lakh direct programme expense. The ₹24.4 lakh gap came before shop costs. I would ask whether a public-purpose proposal explains the funding it requires instead of implying that attendance proves commercial coverage. The board approved ₹25 lakh for the following year, a new allocation rather than recovery of the earlier gap. The account claims neither unique attendance nor lasting educational benefit. A board can consider purpose and cost together, with the responsibility to examine delivery and scope afterward rather than treat an approved purpose as exemption from scrutiny.
In one group of 180 routine commercial decisions, 140 reached me. After ₹38 lakh of training and authority clarification, forty-two of a later 180-decision group did. I would ask whether actual decision routes correspond to the authority management describes, including how the CEO's habits influence colleagues. The change did not by itself prove faster or better decisions, and statutory responsibilities remained intact. Directors can expect evidence about both usable authority and the quality of judgement without designing every operating process. My role in sustaining the old route belongs beside the later comparison, so the case examines leadership behaviour as well as a change in organisational arrangements.
I would begin by learning how the receiving enterprise creates value and which commitments shape its responsibilities to customers, colleagues and owners. The induction should help me understand its economics and sector before comparing its choices with those of a bookseller. Through agreed channels, I would follow selected proposals from their stated purpose to the evidence and assumptions presented to the board. I would seek the chair's guidance on where my operating experience contributes and where it risks making me too ready to prescribe. Any committee role would require preparation for its actual remit and eligibility. I would also ask management and fellow directors whether my questions are clear and proportionate to the decision. The aim is to develop a reliable outside perspective, with the discipline to leave execution to the executives and the openness to revise conclusions when the receiving enterprise's circumstances differ from my prior experience.
I would disclose my current executive directorship, employment and relationships involving the founding family, employee ownership trust, capital providers, publishers, institutions and suppliers before confidential access. Although I hold no personal equity, those connections require careful assessment in the context of the proposed role. Qualified advisers would need to consider applicable independence, committee and appointment requirements. Commercial knowledge from Zemqurvi would remain protected, and I would not use an outside seat to advance my employer's interests. I would examine whether exclusions from particular matters would still allow meaningful participation. If central decisions repeatedly conflicted with existing duties, declining the appointment could be the responsible choice. Employer and board consent, workload and availability would need confirmation as the remit became clear. Disclosure should enable a workable decision about the relationship rather than become a ritual that leaves its practical consequences unexplored.
I am an executive director of Zemqurvi and am not independent of my employer. An outside appointment requires qualified review of employment, owner and commercial relationships, applicable independence conditions, committee eligibility and appointment limits. The absence of personal shares does not resolve that assessment.