By S.Narendra
(Former
Information Adviser to PM, Principal Information Officer
and
Government Spokesperson)
This series began with a summary of the
hurdles to be crossed for initiating comprehensive public affairs campaign...The
Steering committee, headed by the principal secretary, on paper was supposed
to be an overarching body for overseeing reforms roll out but it also had to
work through various departments and ministers that was a very slow process...
Part Three of Mule in A Turf Club discusses India in Search of Image...Read
on.
|
The Indian governments for several generations were desperate
to ‘project’ India’s (read PMO’s) image abroad. From time to time, PR agencies
had been hired abroad for the purpose and there were attempts to subsidize
Indian media to bring out overseas editions for countering the negative image
of India, allegedly projected abroad by foreign media. At one time, official
negotiations were conducted with the
Times of India for a London
edition. PTI was also assisted to undertake such efforts. Even India
Today was initially conceived as such a government supported private effort to
counter the Time magazine. Fortunately for India Today, the negotiations
conducted during the last months of the 1975-77 Emergency period, could not be
completed. I was involved in those talks and in compiling a huge mailing list
of recipients of this Indian version of the Time.
India was a big political story to begin with, especially its
experiment in democratic process and its gigantic and colourful elections with
universal suffrage. But as its economic development sputtered out and India
became dependent upon food aid and IMF bail outs, it began to attract attention
as an economic basket case. ‘Ship to Mouth’ (import food and eat) was how
Indian food and nutrition situation was depicted. The foreign media
para-dropped their representatives on to
India to cover disasters like famine, floods, death of leaders like Nehru, Mrs
Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi (particularly the assassination of the latter two).
The separatist agitations in J&K, North-east and later in Punjab were
always grist to the foreign media. India was not an ‘economic story’, unlike
the south-east Asian ‘Tiger economies’ such as
China, South Korea, Singapore and others.
Partly, India’s moralising tone in its foreign policy and
closing of doors to economic globalisation were responsible for western media
that dominated the international information flow, to take a negative view of
India. This only made the government more desperate in its search for an
‘image’ that wanted to change the law of physics. When in early 1970s, the BBC
broadcast a documentary on India by a French TV team (Louis Malle), that
depicted the prevailing poverty and squalor, the government asked BBC to pack
up from India. Mark Tully came as a young-man when BBC reopened its office in
1974 but had to pack up again during the emergency.
The foreign press corps, stationed in India was small and
mostly staffed by stringers and they covered southeast Asia and its neighbours.
This situation, however, changed overnight when
Narasimha Rao government launched ‘Reforms’. This change also coincided with
India breaking into the new Information technology (IT), with products of IITs
and IIMs on their way to becoming
international brand ambassadors. With India’s ‘Reforms’, there was a spurt
in international media interest not for a political or disaster story but as a
potential emerging economy. As a result, in addition to Delhi, Mumbai and
Bangalore began to attract foreign media representation. We openly welcomed
foreign media such as Bloomberg, CNN, AP-Dow Jones to open their news
bureaus. With the active intervention of
the finance minister, the foreign press corps was given a government
accommodation for its association and club.
Caged Tiger to Elephant: Until 1991, only the foreign
ministry was considered as foreign correspondents’ news
beat. This changed and media specialising in economic and financial news
began to cover other ministries as well as the states. We regularly arranged,
under the leadership of the cabinet and principal secretary, closed-door
briefings for groups of foreign media representatives. As Spokesperson, I used
to hold a daily briefing and Reuters, AP-Dow Jones and other such agencies
began attending. Without much effort, India began to be featured positively on
the cover of international magazines like The Economist, Business Week, Time
and Newsweek. This was a far cry from the way the Economist depicted India in
April 1991, barely two months before the Narasimha Rao era. In a special
section, this edition pictured India as a “Caged Tiger’ and had put the
Ambassador car as the symbol of India’s
technological prowess. Suddenly, the tiger had come out of the cage and tuned
into an ‘unshackled elephant’. A large number of
well-known names in international journalism began to pay increased attention
to India. Among them was Thomas Friedman of New York Times, who was inspired to
write his famous book ‘The World Is Flat’. India had travelled a very long
distance from the time of the books of 1960s on India, (like that of Washington
Post correspondent in Delhi. Selig Harrison’s India: Dangerous Decade,
predicting its economic and political collapse.
Most of the reporting in foreign media about India is
reflective of what is reported in the domestic media. In 1990s, an Indian
journalist was paid a large sum by Strait Times of Singapore for getting
sending over telephone India Today cover story, particularly if it was negative
one, for publication. When Surat was hit by Plague in 1993, the most
sensational and factually incorrect stories appeared in Indian media. The
foreign correspondents met me to complain that such stories were causing
problems for them back their home countries. We arranged a meeting of senior
editors of Indian media to draw their attention to the tendency to
sensationalise the plague stories. Prominent foreign wire agencies based in
India used to make it a point to check from me the veracity of government
policy decisions such as cabinet decisions published in Indian media, before
picking them up. This shows the importance of ensuring proactive, prompt and
responsible flow of official information to the media.
Handling Visual media: In the wake of economic reforms, we had to mount special
efforts to engage the Indian media. We
were arranging in-depth briefings by senior government officials for editors,
media columnists and commentators on the government policies as well as
problems in pushing further reforms. Both the cabinet and the principal
secretaries were very active in such efforts. Such briefings were meant as
background and not for immediate reporting attributing to the so-called official
sources. The Indian TV media was just
making its presence felt. The visual media representatives wanted such
briefings on camera which was simply not possible. While we made every attempt
to include them for off-the–record background briefings, educating visual media
reps about maintaining source anonymity and confidentiality was a serious
problem.
In the visual media era, fielding an articulate voice and
face gives authenticity to stories. As ministers and officials were new to this
medium, we had a serious problem, especially because they would not be willing
to be counselled in the art of facing the visual media. My own advice to the
government was that where its decision needed political background and it
deservedly had to earn political dividend, the concerned minister should face
the camera. In other cases, where the focus had to be on a decision sans
politics, relevant officials including myself should be fielded as the
spokespersons. The need for providing sound-bites on a 24-hour basis for
international broadcast channels had surfaced and I had been authorised to give
most of the sound –bites.
New Media: The Internet news media had started off with rediff and a
few others. I tried to give them government accreditation so that Internet news
outlets had access to official news sources. This was strongly opposed by the
print media. The latter were also not in favour of giving accreditation to TV
media like Asian news International, NDTV, Aaj Tak and others. Internally, I
pressed the government to liberalise the import of TV equipment, reduce the
duties on such equipment. My argument to the finance ministry was that by
liberalising the import regime for visual media equipment, India could develop
into a media software center that would in turn create hundreds of jobs.
Several international news agencies, including the German news
agency, were keen to set up their English language hubs in India and had
applied for I&B ministry’s permission. My written advice in favour of such
opening up of this sector was rejected. As a result, some of them moved to
another English speaking country in Asia - Philippines.
Time and again: There was keen
competition among Indian media houses
to gain a head start in publishing the
Indian edition of foreign publications like the Time, International Herald
Tribune, London Times, Financial Times. India Today, Ananda Bazaar Group,
Hindustan Times had submitted proposals for government approval of their tie
–ups with such publications. According to a 1956 cabinet resolution, foreign
wire agencies were barred from distributing their service directly to subscribers
in India. They had to route through the Indian agencies. A similar restriction
applied to publication of foreign newspapers and journals. The government
permission was required even for reproducing in Indian newspapers articles
published in foreign newspapers, of course on payment in foreign exchange.
Considerable pressure was put on the PM by powerful media houses to change the
existing policy exclusively in their favour. The language media along with
political parties like BJP, CPM were opposed to any change in the policy. It was feared
in media and political circles that allowing foreign
publications to come in would endanger the Indian media and also alter
Indian culture. The prime minister was not in favour of opening up of
media at that stage of reforms, as it would create a needless controversy and
hamper critical reforms in other sectors. Rao was of the view that the
government should develop a broad political consensus for changing the policy
and develop guidelines on FDI in media before considering any individual cases.
Media Commission: During a discussion with the PM on such issues, I suggested
to him that the government should set up an independent Media Commission, on
the lines of the Press Commissions that
was formed earlier, with the aim of
examining the issues involved in opening
up media. He accepted the idea and asked me to submit a note to I&B
minister. Accordingly, after discussing with the minister, I submitted a note
on the setting up of such a Media Commission. This proposed Commission,
consisting of eminent persons from
Media, Entertainment and Advertising
industry, Communication, media and
communications technologies,
social scientists, legal experts
and others, was to be entrusted
with a Review existing laws and rules governing media, emerging media and
communications technologies and their implications for India, prepare a vision document for the development of media, entertainment,
communication and communication
technologies , including the new media.
It was to lay out a roadmap for developing India’s what has now come to be
known as a nation‘s soft power to complement its hard power. Unfortunately, the
ministry did not pursue this idea.
The handful of media business houses that wanted to
exclusively corner the market for foreign publications by bringing out their
Indian editions were not averse to use their journalistic clout. Their game
went something like this. The owners of a publication or a very senior journalist
from the group would have a one- on- one
meeting with PM, and urge him to have their proposal for tie-up with a
particular foreign publication group cleared. This would be followed by a very
favourable story about the PM and the government. When I used to bring this to Rao’s notice ,he would tell me with a smile: ‘last week so and so met me from this paper. You wait for
the next meeting of FIPB, they will print some libel against me’. When it
became known that the next meeting of FIPB had not considered the proposal from
this particular publication, there would be more than one negative story on PMO
prominently displayed in the group’s
publications.
Jumbo junkets: A media contingent
used to accompany the Prime Minister on his foreign tours. When Narasimha Rao
assumed office, the international economic and political order was changing and
India had to readjust its external relations to this new situation. In
addition, India itself was undergoing far reaching changes. On my suggestion it
was decided to enlarge the media contingent accompanying the PM and we began to
give representation to language media as well. The purpose was to expose more
media persons, especially those critical of the reforms, to countries like
Vietnam, China, former Soviet Union republics that were undergoing remarkable
changes. We used to arrange special briefings for the media accompanying the PM
by officials of host countries about their experience in reforms. During some
visits the media contingent exceeded fifty persons. As we were keen to give
more representation to language and non-Delhi based media, it reduced the
representation of high profile, Delhi journalists. This did cause some flutter
and problems for me.
In 1990s, information flow from one region of India to
another was slow and, therefore, people of one state could not compare the
socio-economic development with even a neighbouring state. In order to
facilitate cross–border flow of development information and comparisons, there
was a practice of arranging visits of media persons of one region to another
for facilitating flow of cross-border development experience. We tried
to arrange visits of such media parties from states that were lagging in
development and not hooked onto reforms to states that were not only more
developed but early adopters of reforms like Karnataka, Maharastra, Tamil Nadu.
Such visits made the media raise questions about the state of affairs in their
home states in comparison. This caused some disquiet in states like West
Bengal, North eastern states that began to discourage such visits. With the
advent of satellite TV and media proliferations now, information flows freely
and instantly and there is no need for
such officially sponsored tours. Moreover,
media houses like India Today have begun to publish ‘State of States’, comparing
the socio-economic performance of various States
 |
| The Author
www.https//Spokesperson.blogspot
|
One of the purposes of economic reforms was to make India an
attractive destination for FDI. The government had to show that it was not
engaged in business as usual and therefore, it set up the Foreign Investment
Proposal Board under the principal secretary to PM to serve as a single window.
As mentioned before, FDI as an idea was somewhat foreign to Indian minds and
was viewed with suspicion both by the business community as well as in
political circles. The media reflected such suspicions. I had highlighted to
FIPB one of prevailing concerns among the media and the public related to
possible loss of Indian ownership to FDI as well as drain on foreign reserves.
This was a hangover from the past history of foreign exchange shortages and
import-substitution policy induced mindset. Initially, FIPB had to deal with a
trickle but the future flow of FDI proposals would largely depend upon how this
trickle was treated by government and also how the media projected FIPB action
to Indian audiences. We had a special meeting with the principal secretary for
discussing the release of information to media about FIPB deliberations of such
proposals. It was decided that every proposal will be scrutinised from the point
of how to play it for Indian audience before being finally put through FIPB.
For example, for assuring that FDI will not eat into foreign reserves, we
coined the term ‘dividend balancing’. That meant the firm investing will earn
more than what it could remit abroad as dividend. We also repeatedly had to
explain to media that FDI was not like hot money coming through FII and the
assets created from FDI will remain within our borders. The PM himself had to
reiterate this point even at political rallies.
This may sound elementary now but not in 1990s, especially to
language and regional media immersed in political news.
