The Brand That is India - I

Private and pubic sector employees debate if the government system is truly
inefficient or if ...
MEERA SETH

Akhila Goel listened quietly to the voices raging around her - arguing,
accusing, defending. How often had she heard these allegations before! But
this time, it came from her old batchmates; men and women who had spent
four years together on campus, albeit 20 years ago! This year at the alumni meet,
Akhila had become the centre of their attention, thanks to her 'public sector
officer' status.
"Sarkari madam, kuch karo. Make this government work!" went the refrain.
Akhila, a senior officer in a government department, saw that her friends from the
private sector (PS) had started some sort of a government bashing plan. A fresh
outburst of complaints followed. "The government is inefficient, corrupt and
slothful. It works only if you know someone high up...," someone said. That is
when Akhila broke her silence.

"How is your PS any different from the government sector (GS) on efficiency,
service or even corruption? Even the PS's customer service works only if you
know someone high up!" Akhila said. "Even I have examples to prove my point.
When my washing machine broke down, we called the customer service seven
times. Nothing happened. Then my husband, who knew the company's CMD, rang
him up. A seven-person team promptly came and replaced the machine. Now what
do you say?
"You compare a Whirlpool or an LG with the government. But understand, the
government's target market is 1 billion-strong; it cannot pick and choose
according to SEC classes! Naturally, it will get far more complaints than an LG!
Given its smaller size, the PS should be able to redress each and every complaint.
Besides, your mantra of customer service didn't work despite all your foreign tie-
ups. So why compare the two?"

More arguments followed. Rudra Aggarwal, a practicing consultant, said:

"Inefficiency is rampant in the PS too. For example, I had to close my account in a
foreign bank and shift to a public sector bank." And he explained how a cheque
he had issued bounced in his foreign bank because he forgot to write ten paisa in
words. He felt that a Vijaya Bank would have called him and rectified the error,
whereas the foreign bank, which talked of technical excellence and customer
relationship orientation, had been unable to walk the talk.
And so the conversation went on...

Dinesh Maru (a banker): "But the GS, which claims to be at the service of citizens,
needs to develop customer orientation. For example, my driver's medical claim
was rejected as his illness was not explicitly mentioned in the insurance company's
nebulous list of 'claimable diseases'! How will a consumer feel assured that there is
an intention to deliver service if there is such vagueness?"
Akhila: "A detergent also does the same when it advertises: Removes all stains
such as..., or when it claims to whiten your clothes. These are, in fact, promises
that the PS ads make! The government does not make such promises!"

Akhila: "Several PS financial companies have defrauded consumers and you say
the government 'runs' away with your money! It is a myth that the PS is more
efficient or more customer-friendly. Only this morning our inverter broke down
and we called the company, and guess what? The company had closed down! At
least, the government does not close down! Even if the ruling party changes, you
can continue to seek service from the postal and railways departments!"
(It went on thus as they discussed threadbare these myths:

• In the GS, things work only if you know someone high up; in the PS, things
will work, because the manager's livelihood depends on delivering value.
• If a GS officer decides to help out a consumer, 'he must have taken a
bribe'; if a PS man helps out a customer, he is proactive and customer-
friendly.
• If a public sector unit (PSU) is incurring losses, the government is
inefficient; if the PS does so, i) it is because of general recession; ii) 'we are
in for the long haul, we don't believe in short-term profits'.
• If GS employees protest over low pay, they say that the government
underpays and that is why it is run inefficiently. If PS unions protest over
low pay, 'they are overpaid anyway' or 'they do not have the skill sets to be
paid more'.
• If a PSU has huge overheads, the government is wasting public funds; if a
PS firm has huge overheads, 'it is inflation!' or 'shareholders don't know
what it takes to run a company'.
• If a GS employee travels overseas, 'public ke paise par woh duniya ghoom
raha hai'; if PS managers travel overseas, 'we are studying global trends'.
• If a PSU's sales are poor, 'unko bechna nahin aata'. But in the PS, 'the
consumer is picky and choosy' or 'retail is belligerent'.
• If a PSU has low return on investment, 'the government's asset
management is weak'. In a PS, 'we have invested in sophisticated
technology' or 'we have a high break-even period'.

Then came the stage of, 'Let's see where the differences lie'.)
Vijay Roy (operations head of an automobile company): "The GS has the image of
being inefficient and slothful, but you completely miss out the pockets of
excellence. Its biggest difference with the private sector is its ability to handle
high-volume, mass businesses. Take courier services. I wanted to send a parcel to
Ranchi, but the private courier said that his service did not operate at that pin
code; whereas Speed Post did. Which means the PS will choose the cushy sectors
and not touch sectors that threaten efficiency. In 1999, Blue Dart used to bring
1,300 packets to Delhi per day; Speed Post brought 13,000, and the number of
locked doors they found was 1,800 per day! Can the PS cope with a system of
going back to the locked doors?"

Rudra: "Operationally, the government is more efficient, but it fails to seize new
opportunities. The PS scores as it continuously sees new opportunities to enhance
its business value, image and visibility, whereas the GS does not bother to do so.
And that is because in their confidential reports there is no parameter to monitor,
evaluate or measure visibility. But if they did this, you will find changes are
happening in the GS.

For example, there is a Public Grievances Cell (PGC), which generates over
10,000 successfully completed cases annually, but does not tom-tom its
performance. That's because government officers are not allowed to talk to the
press. And just see how much we talk about ourselves in the PS! In the GS, the
individual is not important; in a vedic way, he is but a medium for taking the
governance to the subjects. This practice has led to such inhibition that a GS
officer will not even commit to anything fearing that it will jeopardise his position
or job."

Akhila: "Besides, in the PS, you know what you are doing and why. In the GS,
when you are taking a decision, you do not know what your end objective is! So an
officer is always in a dilemma - 'will I get accolades or be admonished?' And
because you are accountable to the public, anyone can call for a probe, while you
cannot defend yourself as an individual in the press. Being bigger and service-
oriented, the government is not propelled by individuals as brand names. That
goes against the basic fibre of 'service'."

Vijay: "In the American system, even the sub-heroes or leaders share the same
halo as the CEO. But in the GS, if a secretary is doing well, it will be the glory of
the department, but he will not derive from the department's glory. Now see how
it works in the PS. If a manager writes an article on a marketing model, his brand
equity will benefit his company also. But that does not happen in the government;
a Sam Pitroda's equity is not going to benefit his department. He may be efficient,
but the department is not viewed as efficient."

Rudra: "There is a Swedish research on customer satisfaction surveys, where they

looked at government service or monopolies. They found that in the PS, if the
customer has an expectation, and the delivery is very good, people give it a rating
of 8 on 10; but in the GS, with the same expectation and same delivery, the
customer tends to rate it as 6 or 7 as he feels that it is infra dig to rate the GS. That
negative halo effect of the GS is an image issue. So the Swedes said we should put
in extra effort in managing customer expectation out of a government service,
clarify and communicate it."

Dinesh: "And what leads to that negative image? It is the diffidence to make a
commitment. The government serves but does not make a commitment on delivery
time. Has there been a time commitment about rectifying the problems with
drinking water? This is a clear case for image-building. But this opportunity is lost
when the government keeps the commitment hazy. It is not about advertising your
achievements; the GS needs to be clear about customer expectations."

Rudra: "But for a system to work efficiently, the co-operation of customers is

required. For example, people talk about the government machinery for duty
drawback to exporters being very slow. Interestingly, the reason for the delay was
that 83% of the forms filled by PS firms were incomplete!"

Gaurang: "Akhila, tell me, in what way are you communicating to the citizens of
India that you have as much a desire and a system to manage customer
expectations? Take for example, the PGC. How many people know about this
cell?"

Rudra: "I asked an officer at the PGC exactly this and he said: 'If the government
talks about everything it does, there will be no time for actual work!' Then I
thought, even if we have launched a shampoo sachet, we advertise it loudly! But
here, 10,000 complaints are resolved and they don't talk about it!"
Tanaz Nariman (Gaurang's wife and a dentist by profession): "Fair enough, but if
we say that very often in government departments the objective of a decision is not
known, then it leads to a mismatch between the effort and the result. So define
everything as 'meeting citizen expectations', not public service."

Akhila: "Let us not overstate the objective bit. I work in a government

department, but I am not hindered or demoralised for want of knowledge of all
objectives. Neither is it feasible to do a survey of what citizens' expectations are.
The government is different from the PS. You cannot expect to achieve 100%
satisfaction of citizens' expectations."

Gaurang: "But it is only possible if the government is willing to partner the PS.
For that the government must publicise its efforts and desire to meet citizen
expectation. But where is that reassuring image?"
Rudra: "Don't be too sure. In the course of my work, we probed various ways for
the GS to partner the PS. Three PS companies agreed. The Railways took 15 days
to approve this, the PS took three months to draft a letter of request, and it's been
10 months now and they still have not taken the first step. The second was a
partnership with the Department of Posts (DoP) for delivering FMCG goods to
retailers in towns with a population of less than 400. Whereas the DoP approved it
quickly, the vice-presidents of sales and marketing in the PS company are still
debating it. In another proposal, the DoP offered a PS company 45 post offices to
run its photocopying and lamination centres and offered a separate entrance for
their business. But the PS has not been able to make a business plan in 12
months! The DoP even offered its property free where there is a customer traffic
of more than 1,000 every day. Partnering the government is also sharing its vision.
I am not sure the PS has the stamina or intent."
Naresh (a brand strategist): "And why? I will partner a body which shares my
vision and can match my enthusiasm. And if I don't see that in the GS, it is a
function of image. The current image is one of lethargy and indifference and that
has led to the perception that the government is not serving the purpose of its
people. The government must recognise that it also needs to spend on building and
marketing its image. The country has to do a conscious image-marketing. By the
country I mean India, not the BJP or the Congress, where like your shampoo
sachet, every new initiative must be announced and celebrated - not as a party-led
initiative, but a country-driven one."

Rudra: "Absolutely! When Bangkok built a sky train and an overhead bridge
from the airport, the world over Thailand was a miracle that was investing in
infrastructure. In the last two years, India has invested a fair bit in roads and
highways. Take the Golden Quadrilateral. When you talk to people, they say
Delhi-Agra is great, Delhi-Chandigarh is great, etc. Talk to truckers and they will
say it used to take five days on Delhi-Mumbai, now it takes just two-and-a-half
days; every person who uses it acknowledges it individually. But it does not stand
out as a shining example of an Indian achievement simply because the government
did not talk about it or show it off."

Gaurang: "This is exactly how I used to feel when I was living overseas. Every
country screams out loud over every achievement. But India? We don't even
celebrate the big ones! It hurts a lot when you stay abroad. The image of the
country needs to be worked on and built; especially today, when more of our TV
viewers prefer watching CNN and BBC to local channels."

Akhila: "Even the government feels the need to project India abroad. But the need
for projecting India within India has not even been felt! That is where we must
begin. If the image of India within India is good, there will be a spillover effect!"

Rudra: "There have been several roadshows abroad on India and the result has
been that a lot of people end up visiting India and give positive feedback. But
when they interact with Indians here, they find the image of India within India is
so poor, that they go back very disappointed."

Akhila: "Just what I experienced at a temple in the South where crowds are a
given. This man went up to a foreigner and said: 'You must forgive us for the
unruly behaviour; but the Gods are great!' Forget pride, we are apologetic! Other
nations are so proud with one-tenth of our achievement!"

Rudra: "Exactly what I read in a middle recently. This man had visited the
Liberty Bell since he had heard so much about it. And he says: 'I saw this 200-
year-old bell with inscriptions on it. Then I thought about the 5,000-year-old
Sanchi Stupa in Madhya Pradesh with weeds growing all over, carrying a more
powerful message. Look at the way we project it, hardly anyone visits it or knows
its message."

Akhila: "The problem is that Indians themselves do not know enough about this
country. It is a 'lack of desire to know' problem. The West and the Middle East
have spent huge sums tracing the Biblical history back up to 2000 BC, whereas we,
as a people, are smug with our inheritance, on which we prefer to sit sipping our
colas and cognacs!"

Rudra: "The only way to change all this for the long term is to do an equivalent of
what the US did for its army - it made two years of military training compulsory.
We should have a lean government machinery, make government service
compulsory with people coming for 2-5 years of compulsory training! Maybe even
the PS can send employees for two years!"

Naresh: "What we need is an overriding India vision which is created by the

people of India."
(By now the debate was over; the myths had been exploded and the differences
resolved. Now came the stage of 'we the people of India feel this way'.)

Dinesh: "Economically, India is one, but socially, there is a lot of diversity and
internecine battles. And we are not able to build one voice for the country. Take
the Hindutva movement. Is it the will of the common man or the fantasy of the
uncommon men? True, Hinduism is very secular and democratic. But we don't
know that, you see. We are happy selling to the world the diversity and the colour,
not realising that this is more the image of the world of us than our own. But do
we care? As long as we have the comfort of Coke, Samsung, Reebok and Levis
within reach, yeh dil is no more Hindustani, man!"

Tanaz: "Well said Dinesh! Yeh dil maange more, but does not want to give
anything in return! But the truth is also that the GS does not have a good feeling
about itself. The whole projection that comes through the media is apologetic and
defensive. In contrast, the PS is glossy, visible, talkative and fashionable. Tell me,
how often do they advertise Indian Army services? Only when there is a war,
right? India is not aspirational!"

Naresh: "Every brand has attributes and a recall. So when you say Reebok, you
think fitness. For the common man, the word 'India' brings to mind politicians
and the government, but not the physical country. In the PS, a brand stands for
the face of a company. But there is no icon for the face of India except the
numbers, the squalor and the communal riots. So where is the aspiration? For
that the government has to come through as people-friendly! So does the
government need to market itself as a brand? When we say 'Brand India', what is
the recall? Or if the government were to talk about a specific achievement - 'In the
year 2000, we immunised two million children from polio' - it is seen as the role-
playing of the party in power. Not as an accomplishment of the country's desire."

Gaurang: "But that is the problem! We have a convenient way of juggling

governance and government. So bouquets go to the ruling party, while brickbats
go to the bureaucrats."

Rudra: "But then, the brand for the country has to be the CEO, not the party.
Once he is in the CEO's chair, he should stop aligning himself to a party and align
himself to the state! It is his job to sustain Brand India without involving the
party."

Gaurang: "How do we build Brand India when we continue to have this

dichotomy between government and governance? Governance is an experiential
thing! What exposure does a common man have to governance? Cleanliness? Law
and order? Water? So one man may say, 'What is the point of giving me 25
flyovers when I don't have water? That is where his perception of the government
lies. Image is perception!"

Tanaz: "The perception of the US being a people-friendly nation comes through

its CEO. After 9/11, you saw the US president leading a prayer in a church. Such
an image is heartening. In India, the PM cannot be seen in a place of worship - he
will lose votes from other religious communities. But Gandhi never visited a
temple to manifest faith in prayer for the people! He led public prayers. That's
how you create secularism in the country. A country that prays together, stays
together. Take national pride. Every country is so 'nation-proud'. But, until
recently, in India we could not even fly the flag outside our house! It was
punishable offence!"

Rudra: "So one person should drive the multicultural and multicommunity values
of the nation. The team spirit is just not there. We still say the BJP did this or the
Congress did that. We still don't have a brand for governance. That brand is
India. That brand will be inherited and held in custody by the ruling party. But
India will not and should not inherit the brand of the ruling party. The image-
building mantle should be worn by the President of India. And today we have a
stellar President who is so India-driven, extremely passionate about this country
and where it needs to go. So

Akhila, can we ask the President?"