The show goes on, even after 10 years of reform

S Narendra

The headlines in the economic and business dailies in July seemed to be competing with each other to spread depressing news. If one headline announced CBI probe into some government financial institutions, another told us about the rot in a financial firm. Many others reconfirmed the slowdown in various sectors of the economy.
The Prime Minister is under attack. The economic reforms are increasingly coming under pressure from various quarters. However, there is a remarkable similarity between the headlines now and those that made it to the front pages of newspapers 10 monsoons ago.

A decade ago, the economy was in worse shape. The rupee had been devalued twice. A minority, and presumably a weak, government was trying to avoid financial repayment default. There were several other reasons to feel depressed. Nevertheless, newspaper headlines offered hope. Manmohan Singh presented his budget on the July 24, 1991, sweeping away many holy cows sheltering the Congress Party’s resolution on a socialistic pattern of society. The economy became market-oriented and globalised. Both, within the ruling party and in the Left and Right wing opposition parties, there were murmurs of protest that the nation’s economic sovereignty was being compromised.

If ever there was a challenge before a government to communicate its objectives and policies, and persuading the people to support them, this was it. Almost all the political parties that had contested the polls in 1991 had made known their views on the severe economic problems facing the country, along with their prescriptions. Yet they were pointers. By far, the Congress party had articulated the road map better than the others.

After the government was formed, the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues, particularly the finance minister, publicly spoke about the broad agenda of reforms required for averting a crisis. Several rounds of meetings were held in the PMO to discuss the communication needs of the times.

An outline of a communication strategy was prepared ahead of the rolling out of new policies and the Budget. It set out the role to be played by the government-controlled media, the newspapers and media relations. This also broadly indicated the outline of political communication needed to counter the possible building up of open political dissent, both within and outside the ruling party. The advice tendered was that the government should come out with the truth relating to the economic situation without causing panic. By employing candour, it was possible to persuade the people to bear short-term pain for long-term gain. Initially, this suggested plan did not go down well with the bosses because it tried to anticipate the policy changes and recommended a proactive media and political communication for preparing the ground.

The media scene was unlike the one at present. Satellite channels were in their infancy. Doordarshan was omnipresent but lacked the kind of leadership required to deal with an unprecedented public service communication task. Barring economic newspapers, the others continued to put economic and business news behind the political. The non-English newspapers, especially the ones published from non-metros, had least coverage of economic and business news. An analysis showed that they were apprehensive of the new policies of globalisation. They had very few persons specialising in economic and business reporting. Contrary to the belief that media is a vehicle for communication, they could be pockets of resistance. This called for not just more communication from the government but a more enduring educational programme.

One of the serious problems faced by people designing a communication plan was that there was no room for interaction with the top political leadership to gain insight into their political approach to reforms and the way it would deal with the communication to the party at all levels. An informal exercise was carried out to assess the mood and reaction of party leaders at the district and state level. The results clearly brought out that the party workers were totally confused and had no clue about the new compulsions and developments. Their perception was that Nehru’s logic was being reversed under foreign pressure, and that this was not in India’s interest. The ‘socialistic’ ginger groups within the party and active in the capital were trying to establish links with this larger circle of potential dissent. It was obvious that this section had to be prime targets of any communication, since it constituted the main ‘influencer’ group.

A total communication environment management was needed. The government at the political level had just three spokesmen for the new agenda. These included the Prime Minister, the finance minister and the commerce minister. Other ministers barely spoke up for the new policies. At the bureaucratic level, there was hardly any one in sight who could explain the rationale for the changes envisaged.
Since sound bytes had not overtaken the news media, this weakness was felt in a limited way. On the other hand, some ministers were over-enthusiastic about the reforms and often employed the language of international institutions. This went to reinforce the impression of India being under foreign pressure.

To spread the message that the world was changing and India could not stand alone, we began to compile and circulate a digest of ‘glasnost’ sweeping countries from the former Soviet Union members to Albania. For the first time from the government side, we decided to market the policies and thrusts contained in the budget. The latter had begun the process of dismantling subsidies. There were vociferous demands for a roll-back. A few television commercial spots were prepared to explain the cold logic behind the budget proposals. But an unexpected onslaught in Parliament from the Left parties and the government ordered shelving of this campaign.

The next attack on the communication effort came when we projected India as an elephant unshackled. The attempt was to show the massive energy that was being released from official controls. Some political quarters felt that India should be represented as a tiger, not as an elephant.

Amidst complicated exercises to rescue the economy, gain Parliamentary approval for its policies and maintain its fragile political setup, the government was also required to take the people along with it. It had to meet the criticism that it was abandoning the traditional pro-poor image of the party in power. It responded by introducing a national renewal fund scheme for workers, a new programme for public distribution of foodgrain and used every occasion to reiterate its commitment to Nehruvian socialism.

Necessarily, it spoke in different voices; when it was addressing the internal audience, the focus was on safety net and socialism; but when the audience changed to donor or foreign investor constituency, it spoke in favour of market forces and competition. In this situation, the information managers were required to perform a virtual rope-trick. And this show goes on, even after 10 years.

An overture was made to trade and industry, the biggest beneficiaries of reforms, to join in the mass educational campaign needed to bring better understanding, stability and momentum to reforms. We had approached MNCs, Indian chambers and large industrial houses to communicate the way their gain leads to improved quality of life for workers, executives and the multiplier impact this would have on the lives of ordinary people. The response has been disappointing.

The government and the political system alone are called upon to bat for the reforms. In the present uncertain electoral environment characterised by competitive populism, political parties will be committing harakiri if they openly embrace total market-oriented reforms. While trade and industry keep up their pressure for faster and wider liberalisation, the governments are faced with counter-force from larger numbers.

In this transitory phase, the progress of reforms will continue to be a story of a treadmill race. The ordinary Indian has so far looked up to a public sector undertaking or government to create jobs and not to private enterprise.

There is negative image attached to the private sector and he cannot be expected to change his perception until the private sector proffers him a different experience. And this transformation needs to be credibly communicated widely by the sector that is hoping to replace the government and PSUs in large areas of the economy. And not by the player who is wanting to withdraw from the scene, especially in a period of economic downturn.

The writer is former principal information officer,Government of India