ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

How to sell India

Perception is reality, as any marketer worth his salt would tell you. In this battle of positioning, India is an absolute novice: what matters is not what you are, but what you say you are!

Until its packaging improves, India can expect to find little sympathy from the powers-that-be, especially the Americans. India needs to do two things -- one, present an attractive face to the West; and second, take better advantage of the Indian diaspora.

One of the best examples of perception affecting reality was the US presidential contest between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. Nixon, by almost all objective criteria (at the time -- remember this was 1960, much before Watergate) was the better candidate for President, as a trained, professional politician. Whereas Kennedy was some playboy rich kid with little experience.

But the first televised presidential debate sealed Nixon's fate. On television, Nixon looked shifty, beady-eyed, and had a five o'clock shadow of a beard. And he sweated visibly under pressure. In contrast, Kennedy looked handsome, poised and competent. People just liked him better. That single incident turned the tide, and Kennedy won in a close race.

Poor Nixon. He never quite got along with the media. His "I am not a crook" speech and his "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more" pout showed that he (or his handlers) were not PR-savvy. Alas, this is sort of where India is at this time -- pretty much in the doghouse as far as the Western (or, to be precise, American) media are concerned. Hardly a good place to be.

India simply needs to have better spokespeople -- those who look good, suave, debonair, attractive, someone who makes Americans think unconsciously, s/he is "one of us". Some might remember Benjamin Netanyahu as the spokesperson for Israel a while ago, much before he became the Israeli premier. That is what I mean by a good spokesperson. With his American accent and his ability to relate to Americans, Netanyahu was an excellent choice.

Another example was a fellow named Ralph Reed, a handsome, blow-dried front man for the Pat Robertson fundamentalist empire, the Christian Coalition. Robertson would run around making deplorable, indeed fascist, racist, statements, and then Ralph would be trotted out in front of the television cameras with his dazzling smile to disarm the press and "explain away" Robertson's ranting.

Heck, even the Pakistanis have understood the need for showmanship. One of their recent ambassadors to the US was Maleeha Lodhi, an editor, not even a politician or a member of the foreign service. That was a master stroke: Lodhi was very attractive, telegenic, articulate, and altogether a good advertisement for Pakistan's claim to be a modern Islamic state.

For that matter, Benazir Bhutto was a perennial favourite in the US media. They also always referred to her as the "Oxford-and Radcliffe-educated Benazir Bhutto" -- so much so that I wondered if Bhutto had legally changed her name to that. It is important to Americans that foreigners are somehow a priori "one of us" -- going to American universities is assumed to naturally inculcate American ideas. What touching faith!

In contrast to all this terrific packaging, India seems to prefer to send competent, yet colourless bureaucrats as their spokespersons to the US. I am not talking about anybody in particular, but this is the general impression I get. At the risk of repeating myself, it really isn't content, but form that matters in America. That's what gets the sound bites and the 10-second sound clips. Grey, unexciting is what you expect from the Russians; India has to do better.

From all the reports I have seen, it appears as though Jaswant Singh made a bit of an impact on his recent trip to the US. He does have a certain gravity and hauteur that appeals to Americans -- and his slightly British accent does him no harm. Callow Yanks are intimidated by anyone who speak sort of British -- the latter, Yanks think, are incredibly smart, read Shakespeare nightly for relaxation, and frequently speak to Stephen Hawking about the origins of the universe.

But despite what the Indian papers thought, Jaswant Singh did not make an impact on the general psyche of the proverbial little old lady in Peoria. The Pakistanis have been much more capable in affecting and moulding American media, and hence public, opinion. For instance, I conclude that the idiocy about "Ghauri" being in response to "Prithviraj Chauhan" is Pakistani disinformation fed to the NY Times: after all A Q Khan spouts this nonsense too.

It would really help to have someone who is "one of us" running around marketing India to the US. It would be wonderful to have P Chidambaram in that role. After all, he can really talk the lingo that investment bankers and suchlike understand; furthermore, he does have a degree from that business school in Boston (you know, the Stanford of the East Coast). When he talks about liberalisation and globalisation and seven per cent growth in GDP a year, people do listen.

It is not as though there is no precedent for this sort of thing. During the CTBT negotiations, the Narasimha Rao government did co-opt Opposition member Atal Bihari Vajpayee to be part of the delegation to the Conference on Disarmament. Vajpayee, with his eloquence, was a good choice for this role. Similarly, I think, Chidambaram should be co-opted by the Indian government, even though he is a member of the Opposition today.

Even if Chidambaram will not do it for ideological reasons or whatever, India should find someone who is a reasonable facsimile thereof. Perhaps a young US-educated Indian-American can be the front man or woman, with capable career diplomats such as Indian Ambassador Naresh Chandra providing the content behind the form. An Indian-American man can do the glad-handing, the back-slapping, the locker-room talk about football -- all of which mean a lot.

The other issue is that of missing the opportunity to pull in the Indian-American community at large. On average, this community is certainly willing -- even if it is not clear they are able -- to help the cause of the motherland. But it appears they are excluded, to their chagrin.

Indian-Americans sometimes feel like they are only thought of when the government needs something from them; and in some ways their support is taken for granted. Well, perhaps this is true, perhaps it is not; in any case, they do grouse about it.

My journalist friends in New York and Washington, DC complain that there are closed-door meetings with US investment bankers and think-tanks, from which Indians are excluded quite explicitly. And there seldom is much of an effort made to have a serious and meaningful dialogue with Indian intellectuals in the US, such as professors, writers and think-tank types.

For instance, I am told that reporters from the NY Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, etc were allowed to participate in a session that Jaswant Singh had with the Council on Foreign Relations. Whereas reporters from Indian newspapers were not. Wouldn't it make sense to keep Indian readers up-to-date on what went on?

This sort of behaviour is not becoming of a nationalistic and swadeshi-oriented group like today's ruling coalition in India. The Union government should make it a matter of policy that it will not hold in-camera sessions, except with foreign government officials. In general, any discussions with the private sector and with think-tanks ought to be made visible to Indians -- why should a Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs gain insider information as compared to an Indian equivalent?

In the PR game, India truly has a long way to go; it would be worthwhile to spend the big bucks to hire a top-notch lobbying-cum-public-relations outfit. Like China's few million dollars spent on buying US politicians, this would be money well spent.

How Readers responded to Rajeev Srinivasan's recent columns

Rajeev Srinivasan