Cost Of Outsourcing Our Story And Why India Must Tell Its Own

The “Living Room War or the first TV war,” aka the Vietnam War, continues to haunt the US, impacting its foreign policy, domestic politics, and social attitudes five decades after it ended. Not least because it was the first time live TV coverage of a war took place, narrowing the distance between distant Vietnam and the average American home.

That “Living Room War” has now shifted about 8 feet from the TV to the handheld mobile device — a distance now of perhaps 8 inches — and soon, perhaps, moving to an 8 cm experience with the coming of newer devices with immersive experiences. This shift has profound implications for individuals, societies, and countries.

Unlike TV, which only broadcasted, the mobile device today enables unmediated, unchecked, unverified, instantly distributable and consumable announcements, pronouncements, critiques, and commentaries of all and any kind of material — from articles to videos to podcasts to news — to anyone and everyone.

Public diplomacy, infowars, and disinformation/misinformation are therefore actively enabled and conducted by the 8-inch experience provided by the mobile device. This requires a new way of thinking about constructing, creating, distributing, promoting, and managing narratives and interests.

That India was found severely wanting — and in large measure — on this narrative front, especially during Operation Sindoor, has been covered here, here, and several other places. That India consistently gets negative coverage in various media, even more than China, can be seen in this work by Prof. Shamika Ravi and Prof. Mudit Mathur, who used the GDELT database to arrive at their conclusions. Several commentators and scholars have also called this out here and here.

Indian-origin journalists tend to cover India in credentialed foreign publications with the zeal of a neo-convert, covering stories that reinforce stereotypes as if to seek affirmation and validation, if not for burnishing their prospects. Indian politicians too are not averse to taking potshots at the country’s leaders in such publications.

Any narrative construction cannot be reactive and episodic but must be sustained, multi-pronged, and multi-tiered. So how should India think about narrative construction and public diplomacy for furthering its interests?

A) A coherent, comprehensive strategic goal with clear outcomes needs to be in place to alter public perception. Experts with backgrounds in foreign and strategic affairs, experts from PR and media, think tanks, and private sector leaders need to come together on this national mission. Realising the importance of tailored messaging for specific audiences is critical.

This effort should not be part of the government system, but should be led by experts in different institutional setups. The work of people like Edward Bernays, father of American PR and propaganda from over a hundred years ago, should be studied.

B) Study and research how other countries push their narratives, how global media entities are structured, funded, staffed, and enabled for globally lobbying and disseminating content. We must then set up our own entities led by capable professionals. This encompasses all channels of outreach, online and offline.

For example, US universities received over $13 billion in foreign funding from 2001 to 2021, with Qatar contributing $4.7 billion. Pakistan and others too spend millions each year. China deploys its so-called wolf-warrior diplomacy (named after the eponymous Chinese movie) and a global media strategic programme.

While Doordarshan could have become a BBC, we must accept that it hasn’t and cannot. The Press Trust of India (PTI) has just one correspondent in China, which is clearly insufficient. We can and should study examples like Al Jazeera or CGTN’s remarkable growth and reach as case studies.

C) Establish think tanks with a clear focus on pushing India’s national interests across sectors, globally. Barring ORF, no other Indian think tank has an international presence.

E) Create scholarships, provide grants, and fund overseas emerging thought leaders, students, journalists, and academics to come to India to understand, build relationships, study, research, and write about India’s point of view.

F) Make it easy for Indian entities — diaspora included — to fund and be part of, financially and otherwise, international or country-specific initiatives that have India’s national interests as their goal. We should set up or encourage the setting up of India-friendly centres on college campuses — say, Chanakya Institutes — not unlike the Chinese Confucius Institutes, that spread awareness of India, its values, historical legacy, and its points of view.

G) Invest in training politicians, military leaders, bureaucrats, and others in handling media and in representing India’s point of view clearly, authoritatively, smartly, professionally, and definitively with foreign media, students, corporations, politicians, and others.

H) Call out biased, inaccurate, or incomplete coverage of India while offering well-argued, researched, and articulated rebuttals requires training, awareness, communication skills, and presentation capabilities. This is especially true of the various rankings put out by foreign organizations that are then faithfully reported in India and actively disseminated over social media. This requires speed of response.

I) We must lobby and partner with political, economic, business, and other stakeholders interested in India’s growing market and clout to ensure that the Indian point of view is made clear. We should encourage our business leaders to also think of the India narrative while being “globalists.” We must facilitate funding to various institutions and agencies for pushing India’s points of view through private and public means. In 2020, China “spent nearly $64 million on propaganda and lobbying in the United States.”

J) We must have our own events and awards that recognise and reward individuals and institutions that work in line with India’s goals — scientific, political, economic, cultural, social. Make these aspirational and credible with prize money and non-monetary recognition.

We have our work cut out. We cannot fight the battles of the 21st century with a 20th-century mindset and tools. We therefore need to set up our own institutions, standards, ratings, research, events, awards, and content. This requires us to become aware, understand the context — geopolitical, geoeconomic, and now geotechnological — develop our own perspectives, and present our case with firm articulation and with nuance.

Ultimately, India’s economic growth, large market, and strategic position in the multipolar world will help craft the India story. But we need to take charge of our interests and narrative rather than have it continue to be told to the world on our behalf by others.