Read Editorial with D2G Ep – LXI

In Read Editorial With D2G
January 25, 2016

WELCOME TO THE NEXT EPISODE OF READ EDITORIAL WITH D2G. IF YOU THINK READING EDITORIAL IS A BORING AND YOU CANT READ IT – YOU ARE WRONG. READ THE EDITORIAL NOW IN UNIQUE WAY – THE D2G’S WAY. READ IT AND FEEL THE CHANGE.

EPISODE – LXI
TOPIC: Incredible India or incredibly lazy?
BLOG: TOI Blogs
WRITER: Santosh Desai
GENRE: Editorial

READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.

MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC

So now it’s the turn of Priyanka Chopra and Amitabh Bachchan to be the brand ambassadors for the Incredible India campaign. After the unsurprising departure of Aamir Khan post the intolerance debate, it’s a relief to know that Incredible India will not have to suffer without having adequate diplomatic representation. We may not replace our vacant constitutional positions for years, but let it not be said that we are tardy (If you describe something or someone as tardy, you think that they are later than they should be or later than expected) when it comes to appointing our brand ambassadors. And indeed, when it comes to representing the incredibleness of the many-splendoured land called India, who better than film stars? After all, which tourist from Sweden, Japan or Australia does not worship Bollywood stars?

To presume that India needs some celebrities to represent it is on a permanent basis not an easy case to make. It could be argued that a particular campaign might need an appropriate per son to carry the message the use of Aamir Khan in a campaign that scolded Indians for being mean and horrible to foreign tourists could perhaps be justified because that is consistent with his earnest persona. But in this case, the celebrity cart has been put before the campaign horse.

To be fair, the indiscriminate use of brand ambassadors is not something that can be seen only in the case of the government, the world of business too is guilty of the same. And while, there is a particular fascination we have developed with the concept of the brand, our understanding of the same is somewhat limited.

The formulation called Brand India is in itself an interesting one, for it seeks to compress the complexity of India into a consumer-friendly confection (You can refer to a sweet food that someone has made as a confection). The move from India to Brand India erases the messiness of the larger Indian reality and dresses up the nation to serve a specific narrow purpose — attract investments, attract tourists, and in gen vestments, attract tourist and in general, emit good news with catchy slogans, preferably using acronyms (An acronym is a word composed of the first letters of the words in a phrase, especially when this is used as a name. An example of an acronym is NATO which is made up of the first letters of the `North Atlantic Treaty Organization’).

This understanding of the notion of the brand results in every bit of bad news being seen as an almost treasonous (activities are criminal activities which someone carries out with the intention of helping their country’s enemies or removing its government using violence) blow to the incredibleness of Brand India. The use of brand ambassadors furthers narrows our concerns.The country, already synonymous with its good marketable bits, is now represented by a single individual — not surprisingly, any perceived deviation by this individual from the brand script is deemed (judged) unacceptable.

The idea that celebrities are necessarily needed to market India is not only lazy, but one that reveals a lack of understanding of how brands work. A brand is a mark of distinctiveness — it amplifies whatever is the characterizing idea of the thing being sold. Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal, two politicians who are brands in a real sense, display this in virtually everything they do. Kejriwal seeks to represent the idea of the anarchist-reformer (Anarchism is the belief that the laws and power of governments should be replaced by people working together freely), one who stands up for the underdog (The underdog in a competition or situation is the person who seems least likely to succeed or win) by endlessly and messily squabbling (When people squabble, they quarrel about something that is not really important) with the status-quo (The status quo is the state of affairs that exists at a particular time, especially in contrast to a different possible state of affairs). This very specific brand idea is brought alive by using an inventory of symbols and devices, all of which serve to set him apart from other politicians and amplifying his core message. The use of the cap and muffler, the broom as election symbol, the bold if impractical schemes like the odd-even traffic experiment, the issues of everyday life that he picks on as campaign themes, the behemoths (If you refer to something as a behemoth, you mean that it is extremely large, and often that it is is unpleasant, inefficient, or difficult to manage) he rails against — all of these are consistent with the persona he is creating. Every action of his is in effect an ambassador for his brand.

In Modi’s case too, the aura of clarifying strength that he projects has been enabled by the deployment of a complex system of actions, images and symbols — the frequent mention of a 56 inch chest, the nuanced use of language, the clever ‘Namo’ contraction, the invocation of Sardar Patel, the declamatory style of communication — these are but a few of the elaborate instruments of branding that are used, both consciously and unconsciously by him. All of them serve to paint a specific picture, which was helps build the aura around the Modi brand of leadership.

Branding is not an act of generic promotion — for both Kejriwal and Modi, branding helps concentrate their message without rendering it simplistic. Using brand ambassadors thoughtlessly, on the other hand, reveals that one has low belief in what one is setting out to market. Unless the ambassador is helping exemplify that which makes the brand distinctive, he or she becomes a prop to get attention that the brand itself is presumed not to have the power to attract.

But then, the lazy use of celebrities is a sign of the times. The celebrity is a marker of significance, regardless of the subject under discussion. It speaks for our desire for aura, without an interest in that which causes it. It is consistent with the lack of nuance in our public discourse, where issues get emotionally inflated into sweeping narratives. As a beacon (If someone acts as a beacon to other people, they inspire or encourage them) of the unspecific, the celebrity is effect without content, and that we have so much time for it says something about us.

*******************