Brand India” is fast becoming a mantra that is claimed as the benchmark for development in

India. With economists, bureaucrats, policy-makers, industrialists, and even the media jumping
on to the bandwagon, with “Brand India” becoming the ethos of the upwardly mobile middle
class, it is imperative that the implications of such branding be critically analyzed.

With urban growth and development – destruction of slums, focus on multi-lane highways,
building of cyber cities – being defined by Brand India, even at the cost of increasing breakdown
of the agrarian economies, closing of small businesses, etc, one has to ask questions about this
branding of India.

At the onset, it is important to recognize that brands are the benchmark of economic
institutions. A brand is a measure of how well a company is doing economically. To strengthen a
brand, a company may discard certain activities that do not contribute to the economic metric of
the brand and focus on others that do. It may downsize, change markets or align with other
products.

India is not a corporation even though India Inc. and Brand India are being used increasingly by
a certain elite of the nation. Even economists today recognize that GDP – or any other economic
metric (including PPP) – cannot define this changing India. India Shining – a campaign based
largely on this claim to economic growth – was rejected by the Indian electorate in the last
elections.

An Incorporation named India cannot understand why forests need to be preserved or land
cannot be sold to the highest bidder. After all, these processes will bring in more funds. It cannot
understand why genetically modified crops are not being introduced. Clearly, they will increase
yields. Maintenance of biodiversity, and of dropping water levels owing to intensive agricultural
practices make no economic sense. It does not make sense why 70% of a billion people are part
of the agrarian community – clearly fewer people can produce as much food if we gave our food
production processes to agro-based corporations.

For one, questions of food, land and water security lie outside the realm of economics and on the
understanding of human rights. Second, even as senior members of the judiciary system from
South Asia acknowledged through the Kathmandu Declaration, destruction of the
environment affects the lives of the poorest the most. Governments must proactively work to
prevent the destruction of national environment even though economic reasons may dictate
otherwise. Both of these are significant reasons that a nation cannot operate on the same rules
as a corporation.

Most importantly, though, most democratic nations around the world recognize that
communities are based on the right to access certain aspects of nature within which they live –
land, water, clean air – and the ability of these communities to sustain themselves is based on
such access. These aspects of the world are termed commons – the community forms a common
trustee for future generations and is responsible for the well being of these aspects.

And yet, the state and national governments are increasingly developing their policies based on
Branding of India. The Maharashtra government went on a slum cleaning drive that
destroyed more houses than the dreaded Tsunami. All because Mumbai needed to look like a
modern city – Brand Mumbai. Where had the people living in slums come from, under what
conditions and where they would go was no concern of the Mumbai government.
The Karnataka state government had approved the Bangalore Mysore highway despite the
presence of a parallel highway that serves the same purpose. That the new highway
requires displacement of people and farmers are losing their lands is of little concern. Where
will these people who have lost their livelihoods in rural India go? To populate slums in cities
which will be subsequently destroyed? No matter – the policy is a reflection of what is
important. Brand Bangalore.

As per the state policy papers of 2005, the Uttar Pradesh government, led by the Samajwadi
Party – no less – is considering open sale of certain categories of land. Entities from India and
abroad – individuals and corporations – can buy land in UP. In a state where land reform has
been minimal and with a large landless peasant population, such a policy will create more
exploitation of this large population of landless and marginal farmers. But the state government
thinks this is a good way to raise money for the state coffers – besides, there is much money to
be made through kickbacks. Again, Brandname building wins.

It is this focus on Brand India that drove the government to make economic policies vis-à-vis
food distribution in a way that ensured about 100 million tones of food grain were available for
export even while UNDP showed that India was home to almost half of the world’s poor and tens
of thousands of starvation deaths occurred in the country. Brand India needed to show that
India was a major exporter of food grain. That rural India’s capability to afford food today
(measured in per capita calorie) is less than its capability during the Bengal riots, as pointed out
by Amartya Sen, is of little concern to Brand India. That the democratic Government of India
care even less about this than the colonizing power based in England is chilling, to say the least.

With Brand India increasingly focused on economic growth, large sections of the Indian
population have been marginalized. With increasing exploitation of agricultural resources and
breakdown of the agrarian economy, millions of people have migrated into the cities. Or are
committing suicides in our villages.

While farmers commit suicide owing to debts of hundreds of Rs (or else give their children to
bonded labour), crores of Rs are being defaulted by large industries. Coca Cola for example
defrauded the Indian government of about a crore Rs by forging numbers; it has yet to pay the
penalty for the fraud more than a year after it was penalized. While huge subsidies are being
provided to the high tech sector, subsidies to the agricultural sector are much lower than
developed countries. Annual investment in social welfare is less than even developing countries
like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

The role of a government is being redefined. As per Brand India, if a nation is supposed to focus
primarily on economic growth, a government begins to largely play the role of a board of
directors finding policies to increase its economic revenue at the cost of all other aspects of
governance. And that is the role that our government has begun to play.

That, however, is not the role of the government. The Constitution of India clearly says that
India is a socialist, secular and democratic nation and the government of India will be formed by
the people and work for the people. The role of the government is to ensure that ALL people in
India have the opportunity to find livelihoods, to access aspects of our world that we need to live
and to live with dignity. The governments in India have very little to do with any of these
aspects. Branding of India is priority number 1.
By formulating policies derived from Brand India that limit access of a large section of people to
water, food and livelihoods, the government has marginalized large sections of its people. That
is counter to the word and the ethos of the Constitution of India. The Branding of India, as a
defining concept for India’s policy, is anti-people and anti-constitutional. The government can
make this the basis for its governance only as a proof of its short sightedness or its corruption.

But we cannot rely on economics and economic development of itself to do our political thinking for us,
either in the short or long term. And this for several reasons. First, we are only at the beginning of a
decades-long process of economic development, given the scale of the problems. There are no quick
fixes and, in the meantime, we will have to decide what we stand for and what we wish others to see us
as standing for: i.e., economics is not going to define Indian identity in the short run. (In fact, economic
success will depend on clear political vision).

These domestic political choices will seriously affect how India is perceived internationally and its global
standing and influence. We need to be able to define clearly what we stand for, to live this consistently,
and to project this forcefully.

In this respect, clearly India does possess one vital and immediately available resource which has
imparted to it a distinct identity, and which is a true global currency of political legitimacy: it is a form of
political capital that has been amassed over the past five and a half decades. This is represented by the
steady operation of constitutional democracy, in a liberal and non-majoritarian form, over this period. We
need both to preserve this democratic capital from erosion (at the hands of extremists of whatever hue), to
enhance it, and to make use of the ‘democracy dividend’ which it yields – to be willing to play a role in
the global ‘battle of ideas’.

A central test of India’s international brand image will be how it deals with its own internal conflicts. And
be assured, these will proliferate and multiply in years to come. One illusion we should disabuse
ourselves of is that the anticipated period of economic growth and development will somehow have a
pacifying effect, that it will reduce conflicts, and that politics will become less important, replaced by
technocratic solutions. This is at best wishful thinking. As the Indian economy grows, as there is more at
stake to struggle for and over, so too will potential subjects of conflicts. Economic growth and modernity,
especially when it occurs within an already complex society such as India’s, is not homogenizing: on the
contrary, it will spawn further differences. And, as Indians gain more autonomy over their lives as result
of economic prosperity, so too will we see more and more experiments in living, sometimes incompatible
and in tension with one another.

As we crib and complain about brain drain, we must realise that the Indian education system
and consequently, the Indian workforce, are losing out to the western world’s superior capacity
to attract talent. As much as it is due to the west’s advanced infrastructure, it also reflects their
ability to promote itself as a top notch education hub, to create an external perception that
seamlessly compliments the evolved system of education.

Similar and parallel situations can be identified in tourism, foreign investments and exports and
any other field which globalisation has thrown open to the world. Pulling down political and trade
barriers across the world, globalisation has not only unlocked the immense potential outside a
nation’s own territory, but it has also fostered a competitive environment for tapping that
potential. Therefore, as nations today strive hard to channelize as much wealth and talent as
possible into their systems, branding of nations has become an indispensable way to achieve
these ends.

A superior nation brand assimilates and integrates the nation’s salient features in terms of
tourism, exports, culture, foreign investment, public policy and attracting talent and thereby
strengthens its international relations on these different fronts. However, it is the people and not
the nation itself that drive nation branding and hence ensuring that the brand is true and
conforms to public opinion is of utmost importance.

Therefore, as traditional consumer branding discovers the niche to which the product caters,
nation branding helps the nation to carve out its niche in the world. The similarity ends here,
though. Whacky punch lines, sleek advertising and logos might do the trick for creating and
sustaining consumer brands, but, a similar approach to nation branding will serve little purpose
and be a burden on the country’s exchequer.

Branding of nations is a far more complicated and long-drawn process than consumer branding,
in terms of the number of stakeholders and the implications. It must take into account interests
from as diverse areas as the nation’s history, its culture, export, tourism, education system,
investment and public policy. An optimal and true blend of these diverse aspects lends a nation
its unique identity, which differentiates itself from the rest of the world. That said, national
identities are not immutable, in fact, they are constantly morphing to accommodate the changing
tastes, both within and outside the country.

India, with differing degrees of sophistication, advancement, growth and education across the
country, is uniquely diverse and hence a classic case of nation branding. On one hand it might
be a colossal task to harness the diversity and present a unified face, but on the other hand,
once it is achieved, the uniqueness of the brand identity is unquestionable.

However, whether India, over the decades, has been able to present its best face to the world,
is highly debatable. While campaigns like “India Shining”, which unfortunately backfired, and
“Incredible India” have been expensive affairs, whether they have been able to convince the
people, both inside and outside the country, of India’s prowess and potential, is doubtful.

Traditionally considered as a soft state, a surprisingly high tolerance level or inaction against
extremism and terrorism has single-handedly gone a long way to weaken “brand India”, that
was already reeling under the pressure of an inefficient health system and antique regulations
concerning labour and land. Although even military and economic superpowers would agree
that a certain amount of tolerance is required to maintain sanctity and project a balanced image
to the world, it is certainly a possibility that India has overdone the leniency part. India’s
apparent inaction against terror may well be construed as a sign of weakness.

It is time that India leaves no stones unturned in terms of presenting to the world that its future is
signified by Bangalore’s world class research centres, Delhi’s state of the art infrastructure or
Mumbai’s fast-paced commercialism. Otherwise, India’s global image might go on a downward
spiral and would be more associated with the 26/11 Mumbai terror strikes or the horror that
engulfed Gujarat in 2002 or the attacks unleashed on the Indian parliament in 2001. While
extremism of this sort has widespread negative impact on foreign direct investment and tourism,
incidents like the recent Delhi Metro mishap might strangle exports and offshore outsourcing.
Sadly, contrary to what most people would like to think, terrorism and corruption are no longer
the once-in-a-blue-moon aberrations in India and pose serious threats to the reputation of the
country, not to speak of the security of its people.

India’s strength lies in its complexity. The nation needs to create an asset out of this
multifaceted and composite whole when most countries in the world are moving towards
simplicity, following the principle that a common thread binds people stronger and makes
nations more formidable. However, for India, diversity needs to be harnessed into a positive
force, transcending barriers of region and religion alike. Moreover, “brand India” should be a
reflection of its unity in diversity and declare boldly to the outside world that the Indian republic
is strong enough to ride through times of turbulence.

However, nation brand building does not offer knee-jerk instantaneous reactions. To rise up the
ladder of the Nation Brand Index (NBI), where India is currently languishing at the 27th spot,
India needs to put up sustained efforts to enhance its global perception on the aspects of
exports, cultural heritage, tourism, governance, immigration and most of all, its people.