Public Relations need not be a dirty word

I recently watched a documentary by John Pilger about wars and propaganda " The wars you dont see", where the veteran journalist made a very strong ( and valid) case for tackling and reading through mis-information and lying that goes on in the build-up and execution of a war. He mentioned and quoted Edward Bernays, considered one of the founders of modern PR as we know it.

While i totally agree with Pilger and his journalistic philosophy - what i came away ( and also notice among many people) is a derision of the profession and a subconscious lack of belief in what "publicists" say or do. In the cases that he has mentioned in the documentary ( WWII and Gulf war) propaganda was definitely used to built public opinion and manipulate people. Clearly not a good thing.

I remember reading a survey a number of years ago, which pointed out that Ad men are among the least trusted among professionals, only after lawyers and politicians. Not a good thing if one is looking to build credibility, isnt it ?

But looking at it practically, just as lawyers can use their skills both to defend a corrupt Wall-street type and at the same type use it to pursue justice for the impoverished and socially marginalised, the same can be said about PR and propaganda too.

The image attached is from the Civil rights movement era and demonstrates the power of the spoken word as well as stunning visual images used by the activists during that time to drive home a message - of equality and social justice.

Very valid and relevant messaging, even from a PR perspective.

I would say that in today's day and age, with the challenges that we face - socially, economically as well as politically, it is high time that social activists, civil rights professionals ( and even journalsits) learnt a few tricks of the trade so they could further the cause of the poor, marginalised, oppressed and dis-advantaged.

It is like using the devil's trick on the devil himself. But in this case, PR is no devil. It is a tool, much like the writers pen or the surgeon's scalpel. You cant blame the tool for what it is used.

Something to remember, before we start pointing fingers at a profession that has obvious social uses.

De-constructing India-bashing

This post is a response to an article by Anand Giridharadas in the NY Times on 1 July 2011 titled "In Fight for Better India, Best to Look Within", an attempt at a provocative essay, which fails miserably. A dear friend was offended at this article, and I thought about this for a while before writing my own take on this important issue : that of India-bashing.

Well, for starters, it is not new. There have been as many India haters as there have been Indophiles. Among India-bashers, VS Naipaul, Khushwant Singh come to mind. And these are contemporary writers, who have written some deep, insightful stuff,though i dont agree with most of Naipaul's analysis.

Khushwant Singh, the veteran journalist and writer does it with style, class as well as good humor, which seems to be lacking in Giridhar's writing, which comes across as pompous, grand and obviously flaky.

Going back to Giridaradas's article, his opening is not only offensive, but also racist and bigoted. Sample this : " I have entered India from the sky five times over the past year. Those flights started in airports where norms, rules and authority carry weight — Hong Kong; Doha, Qatar; Newark, New Jersey; Frankfurt. But in waiting to board, I have come to a troubling realization: Airport workers around the world have learned the hard way that my people — Indians, resident and diasporic — cannot be boarded the way other humans are".

I am always suspect of anyone who uses hyperbole to draw attention. It is as if his/her ideas are not strong enough to make a case - and one has to rely on exaggeration and show of bravado or intellect to draw attention ? How else would he expect to enter India ? On an Elephant, if not on an Airplane ?

He further offers us more "insights" with such inane examples such as :" A heart-rending example involves ambulances. Several times in the past few years, I have been in traffic in a major Indian city and suddenly heard an ambulance behind. To watch it forge fitfully ahead is to observe thousands of drivers make the choice to ignore it. Some people genuinely cannot pull over. But many can. Mostly, they don’t. Not a small number of Indians must die each year thanks to that collective refusal to be bothered".

I am reminded of a comment by Joan Robinson, who taught Amartya Sen at Cambridge, who told him once:"whenever you make any generalization about India, the opposite is equally true".

For sure, this is his personal observation of a few people - and i can counter this with a few dozen examples from my 26 years in India, when the exact opposite has happened, when total strangers have risked their lives to save other strangers. My friends who have personally tended to wounded and hurt passengers - again total strangers, not to mention giving way to ambulances.

This is not to say that he is making up this issue or at worst imagining an India which does not exist.

Nor is my gripe with his American roots or NRI flaunting of "insights" that come from spending a summer consulting with a firm in Delhi and "understanding" the deep existential angst that only the author understands.

There are far too many journalists who fall into this trap of trying to de-construct India in a few months / years and offer the world solutions, as they seem fit.

Implicit is the assumption that there are no intelligent and sentient beings in India and we needed an American born person of Indian origin to return and civilise us.

I wonder if Giridhardas has even read anything about India. Is he familiar with Nehru, Tagore, Premchand ? Has he seen any Satyajit Ray films ? Has he worked with any non-profits or civil society workers who grapple with these issues on a daily basis ?

Does he even read newspapers ? Times of India, Economic Times, The Hindu ??

My educated guess is no. He hasn't really bothered to do his homework. His un-inspiring talk on Jon Stewart's Daily Show is a case in point . He makes a fool of himself when he says that the real challenge to the US is not from India or China's economy, but from their "cultures". Really ??
">

This guy needs some lessons in Macro-economy before he is allowed to open his mouth.

I wonder how the NY Times and other media allow such inane observations to pass off as "analysis".

Again, it may be because from a western perspective, he is credible because he is one of "them", who is diagnosing the problem from the "inside" ( being an Indian and American at the same time).

I believe this smacks not only of racism, but also bigotry and lazy journalism.

And it is about time someone protests this non-sense and tells Mr Giridharadas that he would be better off spending a few more years and perhaps tempering his own ego before he goes off on trips on Airplanes and landing in his country of origin - analysing problems to which he offers no solutions.


The more such people speak for India, the more he loses his credibility among the "real" Indians, those who struggle with the daily challenge of de-constructing India. Their fear and suspicion of the 2nd or 3rd generation Indians would be validated - who in many cases are rightly called ABCDs : American Born confused Desis.

He would do well by reading a bit before he writes more nonsense. Khushwant Singh may be a good teacher to follow. The grand old man of Indian writing has style, grace and humility. Something sorely lacking in this arrogant young punk from Ohio.

He would also do well to remember what Nirad Chaudhury said about India, that even "Exceptions in India run into millions".