B.RAMAN
I can’t claim to know Mr.Simon Denyer, the New
Delhi correspondent of the “Washington
Post”. I had met him and his headquarters-based News Editor during a long
off-the-record discussion at New Delhi in April.
2. His News Editor had come to India for doing a
story and he and Simon went around
meeting people in important positions for a discussion on the state of India.
3. I found them to be pleasant and friendly. They
were both very well-informed on India. They came well-prepared for the
discussions. On the whole, I had an impression that they were professionals to
their finger-tips, well disposed towards India.
4.A despatch of Simon on Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh carried by his paper on September 5,2012, has received mixed comments in
New Delhi. It has been very critical of the Prime Minister’s style of
leadership. Official circles in the entourage of the Prime Minister are
reported to have been unhappy about the way the despatch has projected the
Prime Minister in negative colours.
5. There is ill-concealed glee among the Prime
Minister’s critics and political adversaries over the despatch. Their attitude
seems to be: “:It serves the Prime minister right.”
6. For over a year now, the Prime Minister has come
under severe criticism even from non-political persons in India over what is
seen as his ineffective leadership style, marked by an inability to formulate
and articulate policies and to interact with confidence with the people and the
media.
7. In recent weeks, this criticism is being
increasingly reflected in foreign media. As a result, the halo that he had
acquired in his first term as one of the economic wizards of the world whose
views are sought even by the developed countries of the world is slowly disappearing.
8. In all international summits on the state of the
global economy during his first term, he had the pride of place in the head
table as the Prime Minister of India taking the country forward with wisdom and
determination. He still has a place in
the head table, but minus the aura. There is an anxiety
in official circles in Delhi that the “Washington Post” despatch could
add to the attrition of the aura.
9.From a perusal of some tweets sent to his
followers by Simon, one could see that his despatch was based on his assessment
and insights. He did not have the benefit of a discussion with the Prime
Minister or any of the senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office.
According to his tweets, he did seek a meeting
with them before sending his despatch, but there was no response. He had
no other option but to send his despatch without the views of the Prime
Minister or his entourage.
10. The case brings out in bold relief the
defective media strategy of the PMO in his second term as the Prime Minister.
During his first term, he had in Dr.Sanjaya Baru, an activist and
always-on-the-go media advisor, who compensated for the Prime Minister’s
reticence to interact with the media.
11. Dr. Baru did manage to organise two Press
conferences during which the Prime Minister gave a charming assessment of his
own performance since he assumed charge. He hardly gave any one-to-one
interview, either on or off the record, but Dr. Baru sought to make up for this
by actively interacting off-the-record with senior journalists to explain the
Prime Minister’s thinking and policies. The senior journalists were not able to
get the Prime Minister’s version from the horse’s mouth, but got it indirectly
through Dr.Baru.
12. In 2008, Dr. Baru joined a Singapore think
tank. The media advisors, who succeeded him in the PMO, were not proactive as
Dr. Baru was. They were unduly defensive and protective and did not realise the
importance of perception projection and correction through regular interactions
with the media. Instead of encouraging the Prime Minister to give up his propensity
for silence and reticence, they tended to strengthen it by failing to adopt a
proactive media interaction policy.
13. The only occasion journalists had for interacting
with him was on board his aircraft during his foreign travels, Since foreign
correspondents did not accompany him on his foreign travels, they had no
opportunity of interacting with the Prime Minister and picking his brains.
14. During the last one year, there has been an
increasingly negative projection of the Prime Minister partly due to his bad
style of leadership at a time of cascading crises and partly due to the lack of
interactions between the media and the Prime Minister or senior officials of
his office.
15.The Prime Minister and his officials do not seem
to realise the importance of such interactions in order to let the media and
the people in India and abroad have a clear perception of the state of the
nation and what the Prime Minister intends doing to deal with the various
issues confronting the Government.
16. The lack of a corrective due to the
unwillingness of the Prime Minister or his senior officials to meet Simon has
resulted in a one-sided despatch, which reflects the views of people outside
the PMO without projecting the views of the PMO.
17. Many of us have been repeatedly stressing the
importance of a new and more open media strategy to prevent wrong perceptions
of the state of the nation and the Prime Minister’s ability to overcome the crises
confronting the nation.
18. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and his
officials have been continuing in their old ways, hoping that somehow these
negative perceptions will dissipate on their own. It is hoped that the discomfiture
caused by Simon’s despatch will lead to the adoption of a proactive media
strategy.
19. This may please be read in continuation of my
article of January 27,2012, suggesting the appointment of a Task Force on a new
media strategy available at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.in/2012/01/need-for-task-force-on-pms-media.html
( 5-9-12)
(The writer
is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi,
and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate
of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter @SORBONNE75)
