Seeing this and that, here and there, and joining the dots from a branding POV

Saturday, August 4, 2007

The more global the Indian, the more national the Indian?: Published articles/TOI 1

Article in the Times of India, Feb 24 07

The more global the Indian,
the more national the Indian?

Have you noticed the ad on TV where the Indian boatman leaves the West Indian couple high and dry, mid waters, demonstrating that it is “tough being a West Indian in India”? And another one on similar lines where an Indian tiger – if tigers have nationalities – makes it difficult for traveling Sri Lankans? A far cry from the Indian hospitality theory of Athithi Devo Bhavah - both the ads have run into some trouble with the authorities. But given that advertising always mirrors socio-cultural change, these ads clearly reflect new-found Indian aggression.

In contrast, the unassuming, unlikely Indian who is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company in Wall Street but does not have a Parker pen - much to Amitabh Bachchan’s affectionate distress - is warm and funny, telling us that we can still laugh at ourselves. As also the ad where Yuvraj Singh has taught West Indians all there is to teach about Indian food and song and dance.


To be fair, it is not so much the ads, but the newspaper headlines that set the tone: Indra Nooyi does not just become CEO of Pepsi, she “unfurls the Indian tricolour in Pepsi headquarters”. NIIT does not just grow to 160 centers in China, it “teaches China a lesson”. It is not just that Shilpa Shetty wins, “chicken curry rules”. Tatas don’t just acquire Corus, they “land the killer punch”. They don’t just outbid CSN, “bhangra knocks samba off the floor”. B Muthuraman and team are not just the top management team, they are “knights of the roundtable”. And it’s not just in the headlines, it creeps into every other paragraph too. So the Tata Steel balance sheet does not just have space for loans – they “have a lever from which they can move the earth.” Clear proof that the more western our lifestyle gets and the more global we become, the greater the arousal of cultural nationalism too.

Gone is the quiet charm of the Pond’s girl who learnt to speak English but chose to speak in Hindi even as she won the international beauty contest. It was all about how India could absorb the new without displacing the old. We seem to have traveled quite some distance from the whole world chanting the gayatri, as in the Videocon ad, or the whole world saying namaste, as in the British Airways commercial. A long way indeed from cartoons on Santa being outsourced and articles titled “White House Bangalored”.

It was one thing to feel mildly pleased that the world was picking up bits of Indian values and images, but quite something else to aggressively say that India can teach the world a lesson or two. Is there something happening here that is changing our character fundamentally? Is it really happening, or is it just the flavour of the day, of the English speaking corporate world and elite media?

A Research International Observer study classifies countries on global/national - individualist/collectivist axes and identifies four types. 1) The Cultural Individualist - such as France, Australia and the USA, who combine a great deal of national/ cultural pride with strong individualistic values. 2) The Global Individualist - Scandinavian nations, the Netherlands and Belgium, with a relatively low interest or pride in their own culture, and correspondingly an openness to the world. 3) The Global Sensitives - Argentina, Zimbabwe and Chile open to the world in a collectivist way, where making connections through global brands is often more important than pride in their own culture. 4) The Cultural Sensitives - collectivist markets such as Mexico or India – where consumers expect global brands to understand and respect their culture, and when possible, adapt to local situations in both product and communication.

At the risk of sounding like an amateur sociologist, are we going from Cultural Sensitive to Cultural Individualist? Or are we moving bang to the center point of the map, combining global desires with strong cultural nationalism, collective spirit that also celebrates individualism? Combining like only India can, “Like this, Like that’ as the KitKat ad said.

The Rajnigandha ad where the hero wants to buy the East India Company because “they ruled us for 200 years, now it is our turn” seemed an over-statement for a paan masala. But today a newspaper headline could well declare “Chaba ke dekho: Ratan and Shilpa make the English chew their hat”.

1 comment:

Anees Khan said...

I believe the need for an 'enemy' is one of the fundamental needs to develop sense of relevance and togetherness; throughout history nations and tribes have stayed together because they had to fight a common enemy. In 1857 what bought fragmented rajas, nawabs and peshwas together was a common enemy. Even today, nationalism feels at it best when Indian cricket team beats Aussies or Pakis. The examples of Indians making it big in the international arena, and Indian media calling it a ‘knockout’ it reflect the same. An enemy brings the sense of competitiveness, stirs the survival instincts and inspires heroism. A lot of Hollywood and Bollywood movies have championed such heroism, and Nike good vs. evil ad too.