He said and he didn't! Britain, a 4th Rate Power?

And how I survived the litmus test for PR credibility!

By S.Narendra

(Former Advisor to PM and ex-spokesperson, Government of India)

Ceremonial visits are normally filled with visually rich ceremonies and banquets and above all photo ops. When the British Queen Elizabeth’s  visit to India was proposed  in 1993, during prime minister John Major’s  India tour, it was supposed to be a goodwill visit filled with symbolism and sentiments for strengthening  a historic partnership. But when the visit actually happened in 1997 October, it was trailed by controversy and left a further trail of avoidable bitterness.

Right to mediate in Paradise on Earth?

The then Labour government of Tony Blair in London had openly declared its intention to play a mediator’s role in the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. What was more galling was that this government had claimed that such a role falls naturally on Britain as a former ruler of the sub-continent! And this stand was being articulated by its foreign secretary Robin Cook, who was to accompany the Queen during her India itinerary that coincided with India’s 50^th anniversary of independence. Another sore point with India was that the Queen was arriving in India after a visit to Islamabad, where Pakistan was bound to put the Kashmir issue in front.

Gore-Bhoot: In Delhi, the British envoy was Sir David Gore-Booth, had not endeared himself to both the British and the Indian media with his public pronouncements on the Kashmir issue and his unwelcome comments on the Punjab people’s demand for a royal apology for the atrocities committed by British officials at Jalianwalabagh in 1929. While the British media referred to him as blumbering Sir David, the Hindi media had begun to refer to this envoy as ‘Gore-bhoot’ (white ghost).

The visits of ceremonial heads of states such as that of the Queen are largely surrounded by atmospherics and high but empty diplomatese. In this case the atmosphere was getting more and more polluted with indiscretions on both the sides. The advance party that came to India from the Buckingham palace were very arrogant and had obviously forgotten that India was no longer their colony. A brief circulated by them  to Indian business persons and others who were to interact with the visiting head of Britain contained tips like, when you meet the dignitary, address  her as ‘Your Majesty’ first time and then onwards ‘Ma’m’ pronounced as xxxx etc.

As they say when things go wrong, they tend to go very wrong. The government was keeping its   fingers crossed and was treading   very carefully to ensure that the Queen’s sojourn passes off without more controversy. In the meanwhile, there was news in media circles that a London based journalist of Indian origin, Shyam Bhatia (known for his off –beat new stories) was in the capital. He is the son of a great editor (late) Prem Bhatia whose columns were noted for their elegance as well as insights. Senior Bhatia belonged to a fast eroding generation of media persons who were sticklers for facts and propriety.  I had the privilege of knowing  him as an elderly friend, who would  make it a point to  seek an  appointment  with me every month  for a briefing. Senior Bhatia  was  a contemporary of  the then prime minister Inder Kumar Gujaral  as well his  family  friend from Punjab.

Back to Bhatia Jr. His presence in Delhi on the eve of the Queen’s visit shadowed by controversies  and I had requested   the prime minister’s personal office to inform me if  Shyam Bhatia  soiught a meeting  (as he was bound to do as a family friend) with Gujral. I learnt a few days later that Shyam Bhatia had departed, taking this matter off my mind.

The Queen’s arrival in Delhi was just a few days away.  On not-so fine morning around 5.30, Mike Wooldridge of BBC New Delhi bureau rang me up. He first apologised to me for phoning at such an early hour. The foreign correspondents rarely call at inconvenient hours unless the matter brooks no delay. Wooldridge of BBC, was indeed checking up  an important story circulating in London. He said: “Narendraji, has the prime minister called Britain, a fourth rate power? The Observer of London is publishing an interview of Prime Minister Gujral,  and if he has given the interview, BBC would like to use the story. London wants me to get confirmation’. Wooldridge also mentioned that the Observer seems to a have had a recorded tape of the interview. I requested the correspondent for 30 minutes to respond.

With some difficulty the PM was woken up (as I said in my previous column he was a late riser!) and I informed him of the interview. His first reaction was to deny the interview. When I told him that his interview was on tape, and gave him a gist of Wooldridge’s query to me, he seemed to be very upset.

Off-the-record, On the record

He told me that what he had spoken to Shyam Bhatia was not supposed to be on record. I submitted to PM that we cannot prevent BBC from broadcasting the story, since the Observer interview would be carried by almost all the British media. I suggested that during the course of the day we could perhaps say, as a face saving measure, that the PM has been misquoted. I also requested him to immediately advice the foreign ministry about the diplomatic steps they should take for damage control.

When I returned Wooldridge’s call and told him that BBC could go ahead with the story, he could not believe: “Sir, you are not denying it”.

Spokespersons’ Credibility: A government’s (or for that matter any organisations’) interests are best served, if and when it helps the Spokesperson retain his or her credibility, rather than make him defend the indefensible. A compromised news source is not an asset either to the organization or to the media. In the episode narrated here, if I had denied the PM’s interview or asked BBC not to use the story, not only my credibility as a Spokesperson would have suffered a major dent, but also any attempt to put pressure on the media not to use a factual story would have dissuaded the newspersons   from   contacting me for checking up facts or stories.

The author

Ours is a very difficult and delicate role where we have to guard (and balance) the interest of the organisation that we represent as well as the media person who is our gateway to the media world. During my stint as the Spokesperson of Government of India, I had tried to build a record of not misleading the media as well as not to put pressure on media when their facts were correct, except in cases where the very survival of the government was at stake or when it involved matters of national security.

When I took over as the Principal Information Officer and Spokesperson, I had announced to the media that I would be available on 24x7 basis for them to check any information relating to the government. As a result more than once (for instance during   the break-out of Surat Plague, seize of holy shrines in Kashmir), I was woken up by agencies at the dead of night for checking on rumours. The foreign correspondents stationed in India rarely picked up a story relating to government   from  Indian media or wire agencies before verifying its veracity from me. Because of my public announcement, no one in media could have an excuse for not checking up information before publishing a story (sunarendra@gmail.com).

.

.