So, What Kind of Ashamed or Proud Indian Are You?

I do not remember exactly when but sometime in the past 10-15 years or so, a phrase caught the fancy of people in India. “Mera Bharat mahan,” it said in Hindi, meaning, “My India is great.”

This happened much before the current ruckus around Prime Minister Modi’s remark to the effect that Indians have turned from being ashamed to proud in the past one year (presumably under his rule). The social media largely took it as an insult that the insinuation was that Indians were an ashamed lot before they elected him and his party BJP to power. The hashtag #ModiInsultsIndia started trending furiously.

The two “items” above are somewhat related and symptomatic of a virulent divide that can be seen playing out on social media, in various clubs and other platforms, among different “stripes” of Indians.

The arguments are seen flying thick and fast, without much justification or civilized discussion, often taking an ugly, unintended or tangential turn. The prevailing attitude is: my way or the highway.

Let’s first see the different sides of people in India.

One side, let’s call it Side A, comprises a small majority that wears its pride on its weapons of noise and nuisance. Some in media call them the “saffron brigade” but I find it silly to use the otherwise nice and healthy moniker “saffron” (which represents the color as well as the substance) for a motley bunch of trouble-makers. Members of Side A keep coming up with inane remarks or pronouncements once in a while, usually with distorted notions of what being a Hindu means and often with little or no impact on the society at large. (But the media adds turbo aviation fuel to their puny fires and makes the whole affair seem like a conflagration. More on media in the Side D part below.)

On another side are the majority of “common” people, Side B. In India you can see them everywhere: on railway platforms, in bustling markets (not malls), in buses, toiling in the fields or at construction sites, in factories and offices, and several other places where “the milling crowds” can be spotted. They belong to multiple religions. One way to define their commonality might be that the wealth manager of a bank wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole. Constituting 70 to 80% of Indian population, they are primarily busy worrying about the next meal or sticking to their work or job. Mostly, they have no business about this “proud Indian” thingy.

Let’s call the political class, Side C. What? Why are you laughing?? It’s we, people of the page, who have elected them (in whatever fallacious ways democracy works in India). With two of them, Arvind Kejriwal and Narendra Modi, hopes of positive change surged among the electorate in recent times—but more recent events concerning both these “special characters” are quickly dashing those hopes into the dust. (Now a third character, a curious sort, is going around on padyatras (walking journeys) after taking a two-month-long holiday and flip-flopping about what he should be doing or should not be doing—and the eyes of the nation are watching his handsome face with bewilderment mixed with suspicion or sycophancy, take your pick).

[Also read: Why Kejriwal is right about being scared?]

It is an open secret in India how its political class has failed every test: be it making India an egalitarian society, controlling population (or pollution, for that matter), achieving self-sufficiency in defense or technology, or any other parameter of the human development index. Yes, there’s one thing they have excelled in: filling their own coffers and making sure their next seven generations are taken care of, especially at the cost of common citizens they are supposed to “serve.”

[Also read: An Open Letter to Indian PM Narendra Modi]

Side D can be considered to comprise media folk (for the sake of simplicity, I’m including both mainstream and social, though it’s not so simple, I know). Barring some very, very few kindred souls, whose hearts ache for real, investigative reportage (though they may not be able to produce much “journalism” for want of financial or editorial patronage), the majority are happy-go-lucky, shouting, rash, brash, prejudiced, hurried and harried types. The kind you see on TV shoving mikes in people’s faces for “bites,” or trying to out-shout a battery of “personalities” speaking simultaneously in ominous voices from small squares on the screen, or the ones belting out quickie articles without much thought or corroboration of facts...You get my point, right.

The growing, prosperous class of entrepreneurs, businessmen and industrialists can make up Side E. They are not bothered about who is in power: they want electrical power for their machinery. They are not bothered about corruption: they want their things done. They are increasingly losing patience for long-term planning: they want quick results (read money). To be fair, there are a few conscientious, honest guys (and gals) in this category, but they are too few in number and just too difficult to find, especially in a “developing” India.

The majority on Side E are like the storied baniya (person of a caste in India thought to be shrewd at business since old times) who told Yamraj (an Indian deity said to appear at the time of one’s death, a la Grim Reaper) when the latter asked him whether he would like to go to heaven or hell: “Jahan do paise ka fayada ho wahan le chalo bhai!” (“Take me wherever there’s some profit to be made!”)

I have often seen such businessmen chant “Mera Bharat mahan” with an impish twinkle in their eye rather than pride in their heart.

There’s another, much smaller class, though. Side F defies stereotypical categorization but you can be sure they do exist. I’m not supporting or endorsing anyone, but I’m talking of the Anna Hazares, the E Sreedharans, the MS Dhonis, the Khemkas of India who are doing what they must to salvage, nurture or enhance whatever pride India is left with after centuries of foreign rule, exploitation, ignorance and misdirection. Here I would also include people with some sense of discretion and a modicum of education and decency in their head who can perceive all the histrionics going on at the moment. They may lack monetary means or political capital or influence but they have wisdom in ample supply.

Sure, there are overlaps and inter-connections among the above sides. But the point is, before you go batty over the question of hurt pride, you may want to look at which side you are on. And, along with that, consider how you would like to answer these questions:

* Who are the people in India who have the right to take pride in being Indian?
* What are the specific things to take pride about India—from its glorious past as well as its jumbled present?
* Is there a proud future for India as a whole in the next 10, 20, 30 years? (Don’t quote GDP only, please!)
* What are the various ways in which that pride can be hurt? Which of those ways are most harmful to India in terms of real impact? How much time should be spent on discussing minor hurts versus that spent on taking effective measures?

Maybe it’s high time we stopped getting on our high horses every now and then and, instead, started putting things in their right perspective. No short-cuts but long, even arduous pathways; no slanging matches but exchanging well-reasoned arguments; no shouts, nor murmurs but just the right tone to convey the right sense of pride in the right context.

5 Mistakes PR Pros Must Avoid but Often Don't

Ever wonder why your communication wasn't well-received in the media? It might have misfired because you failed to avoid one of these traps

Public relations is a tricky, often thankless business. While the tricky part is acknowledged by the PR pros, it is the journalists who often bring in thanklessness (add ungrateful clients, too).

But it's a business – and a lucrative one at that, all right. So it wouldn't hurt to go through some tips that might help.

In communication schools or on-the-job, most PR executives learn the common tricks of their trade: treat clients (and journalists) with respect, always spell-check your releases (do you?), and yes, don't forget to bill clients for the out-of-pocket expenses.

Yet, there are also some no-nos that a seasoned PR exec should avoid under most circumstances. Unfortunately, in the hurly-burly world of 'mass' communication, things are prone to turn out into 'mess' communication. That's why it's important for a PR pro to keep in mind these five don'ts when communicating with journalists:

Long-winding story pitches: In the course of writing their stories, journalists often go through a lot of background and research material. But they would rather look at a lot of text about a story they have chosen to do than read paras upon paras intended to give them a story idea. So keep your pitch mailers or calls short and sweet. If the journo likes it, they'll jump at it anyway. But if it doesn't cut ice in the first couple of sentences, don't bore him with dense details, please.

Mixing up similar media: The media scene today is crowded. But that's no excuse for calling up a journalist and mixing up the name of their media house or publication with another one – which, annoyingly, usually happens to be a key rival. Get the journo's name, their paper's name and, if necessary, the name of their dog right. Names are important, very important (as you sometimes might have realized when your client's name appeared misspelled in the headline!)

Corralling journalists for a conference: “You must come.” “Please, it's the most important event for our client!” “The client is holding this PC (press conference) after a gap of two years.”

Understood. Your client and their conference is all-important to you. But unless you can find something of relevance to the journalist in question, it's not good practice to request-force them into attending the event. Even if you send the cab. In any case, most communication today happens on the phone or over email, and journalists (especially experienced ones) usually attend only the really significant conferences or those where they expect to network with lots of friends or industry execs.

Following up too much: If not following up at all is a disaster, pestering the journalist with too many calls for a press release or a story is anathema. Too much aggression can perhaps get you in the first time, but the media will be alerted to your tactics sooner rather than later. And then? Then they'll avoid you like a diabetic shuns sugar. So learn to strike a balance in how much you follow up.

Hiding the negative: Thanks to the Internet, it's not that difficult to discover skeletons in a company's cupboard (and these days there are many). Then there are journalists' contacts and other 'sources.' So if you happen to know that a journalist has gotten wind of something fishy or negative about your client, try to illuminate it in the light that your client wants to. Trying to hide it or cover it up with fluff usually makes the journalist more dogged in their pursuit – and, of course, leaves a worse impression than they started off with.

Needless to say, these aren't the only don'ts. For instance, you shouldn't miss a journalist's story deadline if you want to ensure that your client's inputs are taken or their name mentioned where it matters. But the above are points that keep recurring in PR-media communication and that often harm your efforts behind-the-scenes rather than upfront. For want of caution, don't let your key messages go wasted.

News Media Inanity in India

Aren’t we all sick of the inanities that the current sackload of news channels in India keep bombarding us with? At least I am. Why, it’s become so goddamn difficult to turn on a news channel and just watch news rather than horror shows, domestic tiffs, or the same old celebrity crap!

They say the channel guys are doing it to raise their TRPs. But, looks to me, they are doing it more to raise the blood pressure of otherwise normal folks like me! Why can’t they just show some real news, which is what I – and I believe zillion others – would want to watch on a news channel? If we want some monkey business or celeb gossip, we’ll switch over to specialized channels that do it a thousand times better, no?

Another irritating thing about the news channels is the awful delivery of news by their reporters. The guys just drawl on and on and on, without coming to the main point and delaying what they should say right at the outset. To make it worse, they hum and haw, and say “umm…” and “aaa…” and mouth a few phrases they all have learnt to parrot again and again ten times in the space of a single stupid sentence.

Sometimes, I just feel like reaching out beyond the idiot screen and give them a vigorous shake by the shoulders!