COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

What if Musharraf falls Is America losing the      war? The road to bin Laden Tribute to Madhavrao      Scindia Throw the remote-      control!

India has lost the PR war

Did the prime minister really visit the United States? As far as the American media are concerned - I am writing from Washington - Atal Bihari Vajpayee's meeting with George Bush was a non-event. That is in glaring contrast to the spotlight on General Pervez Musharraf.

Ironically, it is almost thirty years to the day when Indira Gandhi visited the then President of the United States, Richard Nixon. On November 4 and 5, 1971, Indira Gandhi's team did a superb job of selling India's message to the American people in the context of the conflict over East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

Here is Henry Kissinger ruefully describing his battle of wits with the Indian Ambassador, L K Jha: "I could always trace his footprints through the columns, and it was a painful experience when we found ourselves on opposite sides. I was supposed to be skillful in dealing with the press. On the Indo-Pakistan issue Jha clearly outclassed me."

In those days, the White House was infamous for its "tilt toward Pakistan." But Nixon's and Kissinger's efforts were nullified by the enormous outpouring of support in the media, in the Congress of the United States, and among the American people.

Today, we are on the other side of the fence. The American executive understands, and sympathises, with the Indian position. For all its public friendship, it views Pakistan with suspicion. But the media lionise General Musharraf while ignoring India.

The Washington Post apart, nobody spent much time on the Indian prime minister's visit. In fact, on November 10, one day after the Vajpayee-Bush meeting, The New York Times - one of the most respected news organs in the United States -- chose to put the spotlight on General Musharraf!

Musharraf has been able to project himself as a courageous Muslim leader - as someone who is against terrorism, even risking his own position. He is also projecting Islamabad as a strong ally that stood by the United States while it fought the Russians, and that is now with it in the war on the Taleban. If your only source of information were the American media, you would get the impression that Musharraf is a greater leader than those of Turkey and Jordan (who are actually sending troops to Afghanistan).

The prime minister had two opportunities to put the record straight - his address to the United Nations and at the White House. His media team's advice effectively castrated both opportunities.

At the United Nations, the Prime Minister spoke in Hindi. Normally this would not matter, but we are living in extraordinary times. Other nations understand that.

The French are trenchant critics of "that wretched Anglo-Saxon language," but President Jacques Chirac made a point of using English when he toured devastated New York. The German Chancellor made a few brief remarks in that language in Washington. I am yet to hear a single Arab leader who speaks anything but English when in the United States. And which language do you think Musharraf used even when speaking from Iranian or Turkish soil?

Whether or not we like it, English is the language of global communication. If they want to reach out to the people of the world, India's spokesmen have to learn to put their message across in that language - or risk being ignored by the media.

And then there was the meeting at the White House. The prime minister is at his best when speaking with people in a one-to-one conversation, and the quick give-and-take of a press conference is familiar ground. Yet, for some weird reason, he was persuaded to read a written statement. Which meant, as The New York Times cattily reported, that he spoke with "a bowed head". That was horrible television!

Let us get one fact straight: you can talk in Sanskrit if your sole target audience is President Bush. The White House, or the Kremlin for that matter, will make an effort to wring every last nuance out of what you say. But all that is done behind closed doors. Speeches at the United Nations and press conferences on the White House lawns are opportunities to state your position directly to the man on the street while looking him in the eye.

Here is a scenario: Americans are worried about anthrax. When Colin Powell visited India, Jaswant Singh promised to gift medical supplies to detect and combat anthrax. The same statement would have had ten times the impact if made by the prime minister from the White House.

What would the unspoken message have been? "Pakistan is coming to you with a list of demands - a billion dollars' worth. We are giving something to you in your hour of need - and asking for nothing in exchange." We are left to rue lost chances...

Even dictatorships like China respond to popular pressure. In the United States, it is important to have the media on your side, because it is they who mould public opinion. Our embassy in Washington needs to examine where it has gone wrong since 1971. Why do Pakistani representatives always come across as so much more interesting?

It isn't all bad news. The Bush administration made it clear that so-called "freedom fighters" did not have a mandate for terrorism. The local media interpreted it as aimed at Arabs, but Pakistan got the point.

However, India is losing the battle for hearts and minds. Having a special NRI envoy or speaking Hindi at the United Nations may make some Indians happy. But diplomacy is supposed to be about influencing foreigners! We are losing the public relations war - and neither the United States nor Pakistan is responsible.

Three months after the Agra fiasco, the Indian establishment still hasn't got the message. Small wonder it can't get the message across!

T V R Shenoy