Privilege of Defiance
The justice of any system can be measured by the line it draws between privilege and the accepted standard. In a society that may mourn the birth of a daughter, the simple act of being wanted is a privilege. To be the third daughter and be raised without perceived parental discrimination is an act of defiance. Dr. Deepa Sharma’s career is devoted to annihilating the gap between her privilege and a universal baseline of endearing acceptance. Her own upbringing, a product of her parental defiance, provided her with an advantage that she now seeks to dismantle.
This is the central anchor of her work. Sharma argues that labeling her empowering childhood a "privilege" is a dangerous misnomer, a symptom of a flawed but persevering system. Her mission is to redefine this called advantage as the absolute and minimum "baseline" for every child. An upbringing free from gender born discrimination and rooted in self-belief should not be the exception but the default. Yet, in a world where it is more profitable to pay the fine for injustice instead of funding its solution, how do we translate the defiant personal path of an individual into a universal doctrine?
"My sense is, while it was a privilege for me back then, it should not be seen as a privilege. It should be a given."
Inappropriate for Girls
The moment of a child’s birth is supposed to be a celebration. For Deepa Sharma’s parents, the birth of their third daughter was met with another sobering reaction from their community: condolences. In a culture that prized sons, this moment of judgment could have easily sealed the course of Deepa’s life. It could have been the start of an upbringing defined by apology and low expectations. Instead, it became the catalyst for a radical act of defiance. Faced with a visitor’s pitying remark about the slim chance of having a son, her mother did not retreat. Instead, she made a confident, path-changing bet and placed her trust in her daughters.
The terms of this bet were simple. "You pitch your sons down the line with my daughters," she declared, "and we will live to see who does better." This was no emotional outburst. It was the declaration of a new family doctrine. It was a conscious and deliberate rejection of the societal narrative and established a new one, built on a foundation of "sheer defiance or pride." This single moment reframed her daughter's identity from what others perceived as disappointment to be forged into a potential to be unleashed, setting the stage for an upbringing that would be extraordinary.
This defiant bet was no solo venture. Sharma reflects that her father was an equal and essential partner in the execution. He became the biggest champion of this new doctrine, actively participating in dismantling the gender roles prescribed by their culture. He was the one who taught her to ride motorbikes, just as her grandfather taught her and her sisters to shoot guns and how to milk cows. This education was not symbolic but practical, determined by a "gender agnostic" upbringing. The goal was to equip them with a holistic and well-rounded set of skills, untethered from what was considered culturally appropriate for girls.
This bet resulted in the "privilege" that Sharma seeks to make a human default. She and her sisters were raised without the "consciousness that you're a girl," which constrains their potential. They were not taught to accept injustice, but to confront it with a reflexive "what the hell, how dare he?" This upbringing, born from a single moment of defiance, is the origin story of her belief system. To her, she and her sisters are the embodied proof that a different world is possible, not through slow, generational delay, but individuals' immediate resolve to create a new baseline, starting in their homes.
"I don't know what made her say that, but I think it was sheer defiance or pride at that time, and God's been kind. We are all doing better than most sons around."
Intimate Empowerment
A linear climb up the corporate ladder often illustrates the modern definition of an empowered woman. In this narrative, any deviation from a relentless pursuit of professional advancement can be misjudged as a step backward, weakness, or surrender. Deepa Sharma’s call offers a more nuanced and challenging counter-narrative. She argues that empowerment is not defined by the specific choices one makes, but by the internal security and satisfaction that underpins owning the freedom to choose. Her own career provides the study ground for this exceeding anatomy of empowerment.
At a point when her professional life was accelerating, Sharma made a conscious decision to pause her formal career. She chose to become an "active parent," a decision that the majority in a conventional corporate mindset would view as a setback. Reflecting on it, she admits that she felt a flicker of doubt in that moment, questioning if she was "doing enough" to honor the empowering upbringing her parents had fought to give her. This internal conflict reveals that empowerment is not a static state of being, but requires a continuous process of navigating the friction between personal conviction and external expectation.
This period of reflection led her to a more profound understanding of the very gift her parents had given her. She realized their goal was not to program her for one specific kind of success. It was to instill in her an unshakeable sense of her own capability. The measure of her empowerment was not her presence in the boardroom, but her confidence that she could step away from it whenever she chose. She describes this as the "security that whenever I want to pick up from where I'm leaving, I will be able to. I have that in me."
At the core of her definition, empowerment surpasses external achievement. It is a state of internal confidence and security. This quiet, intimate conviction allows one to make choices based on personal values, free from external pressures. The defiant bet her parents made was not that she would become a great leader in a man’s world. It was that she would become the independent author of her own life. The fact that she could prioritize her family without fearing for her future was not a departure from purpose. It was its ultimate fulfillment.
"Empowerment or that enablement to make one's decisions is not contingent on making certain kinds of decisions for me to be secure enough to say, this is something I want to do right now."
The Gender Calculus
of Compliance
Corporate mission statements often contain aspirational language about integrity, respect, and creating a safe workplace. Dr. Sharma’s work in sexual harassment compliance provides a sharp look at the fabric frequently covered beneath this pompous surface. She reveals a persistent, unapologetic pattern where the goal is not to foster a safe culture, but to achieve the bare minimum of statutory compliance at the lowest possible cost. This exposes a system where the language of values collides with the logic of a misunderstood but prevailing balance sheet.
The process might begin with a request that reveals a missing grasp of the issue. A company, legally required to conduct training, will approach Dr. Sharma's team and ask for a way to circumvent the required work. She describes leaders asking for a simple document they can "mandatory broadcast" to all employees, for which they can receive a sign-off certifying that the compliance has been met. This is not necessarily a sign of malice. It indicates a corporate culture that views sexual harassment training not as a vital investment in its people and its integrity, but as an administrative hurdle, a box to be ticked as quickly and with as little economic disruption as possible.
The calculus becomes striking when finances are discussed. Sharma details a typical scenario where internal champions for her work, often female HR heads, find their efforts nullified by a simple cost-benefit analysis from the top. The conversation is limited to an incomplete economic logic. The cost of a comprehensive, year-long program designed to create lasting cultural change is weighed against the statutory fine for non-compliance. The conversation ends if leadership concludes that paying the fine, should they ever be caught, is the "much more economic" option.
This scenario illuminates a fundamental design flaw in the corporate system. The system delivers options, where it can be more profitable to budget for the penalty of injustice than to invest in the architecture of a safe and genuine constructive workplace. This strips committed internal allies of competence and renders the law a mere financial risk to be managed rather than a societal standard to be upheld. The result is a market where the "preferred model," as she notes, often remains to do the minimum.
"This is a compliance, and if we get caught for noncompliance. The fine... is this much?... Then why do we pay this much for compliance? Paying the fine is much more economical for us."
No Need for Allies
In the work of systemic change, the role of an ally is often seen as an act of deliberate support. Sharma’s experience, however, reveals a more subtle and paradoxical reality. The effectiveness of a message, she observes, often depends on the messenger's identity. This creates scenarios where the voices of those with lived experience can be discounted, while the voices of allies from a dominant group get amplified. Navigating this paradox is critical to establishing the desired baseline of unconditional acceptance.
The core of the paradox is a matter of perception. Sharma notes that when a female leader champions initiatives for women, she runs a significant risk of being seen as a "woman fighting for women." Her actions can be dismissed as self-interested or biased, and she may be disregarded as a leader standing up for the entire organization's culture. In contrast, when a male leader champions the same issues, he is often praised as "progressive and inclusive." Outside the target group, his allyship is seen as an objective, noble act, granting his voice a weight and credibility that the female leader may not encounter.
This complexity is not limited to the gender of the ally. Sharma points to an internal challenge within leadership circles: the cases when a woman is not "throwing the ladder down" for other women. This observation suggests a desire to remain unique, a "Queen Bee" syndrome where one's own success is valued more than the collective advancement of a social entity. This adds another layer, indicating that increasing the number of women in leadership does not automatically create a supportive, equitable adjustment to a brittle design.
Dr. Sharma argues that the only way to resolve these paradoxes is to move beyond a simplistic model of allies "helping" an aggrieved group. The goal must be to elevate awareness to a point where people understand it’s a responsibility shared by everyone, publicly and at home. She insists that trainings and conversations must include all employees, because the objective is to reframe the discussion from a "women's issue" to a matter of human rights and core cultural values. Lasting change is not achieved when allies speak for the marginalized. It is achieved when the concept of an "ally" becomes obsolete because everyone in the system is at its core aligned.
"A woman leader, when she goes and champions initiatives within the organization for women or diversity. She runs a bigger risk of being seen as a woman fighting for women and being disregarded for a leader standing up for the culture of this organization..."
What I learned from Dr. Deepa Sharma
-
Privilege Should Be the Baseline. The ultimate goal of social progress is to transform the privileges of the few into the universal standard for all. What is now a fortunate exception must become the default.
-
A Single Act of Defiance Can Set a New Doctrine. A conscious, defiant rejection of a harmful societal norm, like Dr. Sharma's mother's "bet," can establish a powerful, multi-generational legacy of empowerment that rewrites the rules for those who follow.
-
Empowerment is the Freedom to Choose, Not the Choice Itself. External achievements like a linear career path do not define true empowerment. It is determined by the internal security and self-belief to make whatever choice is right for you, including the choice to step back or change course.
-
Beware the Cynical Calculus of Compliance. Many systems are designed to make it more profitable to pay the penalty for injustice than to invest in a genuine solution. Understanding this cynical calculus is the first step to challenging and dismantling it.
-
Lasting Change Requires Stakeholders, Not Just Allies. In a biased system, the identity of the messenger often matters more than the message. Lasting change is achieved only when the concept of an "ally" becomes obsolete because everyone, especially those in leadership, has become an active and accountable stakeholder.
Comprehension Challenge: Dr. Deepa Sharma
Philosophy
Dr. Deepa Sharma’s work is a direct challenge to the superficial, "tick-the-box" approach to corporate change. She argues that actual progress requires a commitment to establishing a new "baseline" of culture, not just meeting the minimum for compliance. She exposes the cynical calculus where it is often deemed more "economic" to pay the fine for injustice than to fund a real solution. This challenge tests a leader's ability to advocate for a deep, slow, and expensive cultural transformation over a fast, cheap, and superficial fix.
The Scenario
Imagine 'Priya,' the new Head of HR at a large, traditional manufacturing company. The board has tasked her with fixing the company's dismal numbers of women in senior management, as they are facing public and investor pressure.
Priya is presented with two options:
Option A (The "Tick-the Box" Path): Propose a high-profile, PR-friendly initiative. This involves hiring an expensive marketing firm to launch a "Women in Leadership" campaign and fast-tracking a handful of pre-selected women into senior roles to quickly meet a diversity quota. This path is fast, its results are immediately visible on a spreadsheet, and it will satisfy the board's short-term need for a public relations victory. It is a classic compliance-oriented, superficial fix.
Option B (The "Baseline" Path): Propose a deep, multi-year, and significantly more expensive internal program. This involves a full cultural audit to identify systemic biases, implementing robust and mandatory anti-harassment and inclusion training for all employees (especially male middle-managers), and building a genuine, long-term mentorship pipeline from the ground up. This path is slow, costly, and its results will not be immediately visible in the numbers. It aims to fundamentally change the company's "baseline" culture to make it a place where women can thrive and advance organically.
The Task
Drawing on Dr. Deepa Sharma’s philosophy, what is Priya’s imperative? Should she choose the fast, visible, and politically safe path (Option A), or the slow, expensive, and culturally disruptive path (Option B)?
Develop the argument Priya must make to her board to justify the "Baseline" approach. How does she dismantle the cynical calculus that prioritizes the appearance of equity over the