In the name of brand India
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Harpreet Singh Guller
Nov 6, 2011, 11:57:37 PM11/6/11
to YEIDA
In the name of brand India Santosh Desai
06 November 2011, 04:51 PM IST
Is there too much negativity around the coming of Formula 1 racing to
India? Is progress a zero sum game, where the new and shiny is always
beholden to the old and grim? Must we frame all good news through the
bad and berate advancement by reminding ourselves of all that has not
been achieved? There are many Indias and surely the success of one
need not always come at the cost of another. Formula 1 is an expensive
sport, no doubt, but it does place India among a select group of
countries that have the capability and the affluence to pull an event
of this kind.
These are some of the arguments that have been made in support of this
move and there is much that is true about them. India has clearly
moved on the days when the need to be reminded about the poor became a
form of mental prison from which there was little possibility of
escape. And certainly, if an event like Formula 1 comes to India, and
is supported by the private sector, then by itself, it should be
welcomed. The questions reside not so much in the staging of the
event, but in what surrounds it. The demand put forward by some that
the sport should be granted tax exemption because of the high costs
and the consequent lack of viability of the investment needs closer
inspection. As does the notion that events like these are critical for
boosting the image of Brand India.
The fact that anyone can demand tax exemption for an event like this,
borders on the bizarre. Here we have a sport very few Indians
understand or follow, one which a handful of people can even dream of
actually playing, and one which requires an enormous amount of
infrastructure- all for two days in the year. The tickets are
extremely expensive, and the sport receives strong commercial support
from brands eager to link themselves with the glamour and prestige
associated with the event. Barring a few that follow Formula 1 as a
sport, and there are admittedly those that are diehard fans, for the
others, Formula 1 is a new date on the social calendar, a place where
one can dress and kiss the air around the fragrant cheeks of fellow
schmoozers. If this sport cannot sustain itself given the prices it
charges, then it does not deserve to be here. The demand for
subsidising the indulgence of the rich in the name of Brand India is
an absurdly insensitive one and tells us more about ourselves than we
should care to know.
By locating such premier events in the idea of Brand India, we are in
effect arguing that the best advertisements for the country are its
rich and glamorous and they need to be subsidised for their labour.
This is an interesting reversal of traditional idea of taxation where
the affluent share their good fortune with others and acknowledge that
they receive a disproportionate share of the state’s largesse. By a
series of incremental steps of logic, we equate the India with its
branded version, airbrush away all that is negative about the country,
concentrate our energies on projecting the desirable face of India,
and then ask for a price for doing so. Using this logic, any luxury
brand that comes to India should receive state subsidy, for it
allegedly boosts the image of India. The truth is that Formula 1 is
here because it needs the Indian market, not because India needs an
image boost.
More importantly, this argument rests upon a mistaken notion about the
idea of brands. The belief that a brand is something that gets created
by magnifying selectively chosen good news about oneself is far too
simplistic, particularly when we talk of a country and a civilisation
as a brand. The idea that impressions about India can be controlled
and depend on what messages are emitted is simply not true. Any
country, and certainly one as large and diverse as India leaks
messages from every pore. The world does not only see what we want it
to see, and forms its impressions about the country from several
different sources. Even any one event like the Formula 1 can get
reported and understood in several very different ways. For instance,
the day before the race what made news was the appearance of a stray
dog inside the circuit. And an event of such grand scale like the CWG,
far from raising the image of India ended up doing the very opposite.
The implicit principle at work is that whenever an attempt is made to
project an image that is too far from reality, sooner or later the
truth is likely to break through. In a country where good roads have
only recently begun to appear and even those disappear after every
monsoon, a world class race track built with international expertise
is more likely to draw attention to the abysmal state of roads in
general than to the excellence of the race circuit. The importance
given to a sport like Formula 1 only underscores the pathetic
condition of other sports in India. Brand India is not a fiction we
put up for the benefit of the developed world but a reality that we
are constructing for the benefit of all of India. The country cannot
be hijacked by a small minority in the name of this misunderstood
formulation called Brand India. There is nothing wrong with staging
the Formula 1 race in India, as long as we recognise it for what it
is. An exciting indulgence for those who can afford to pay for it.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Citycitybangbang/entry/in-the-name-of-brand-india
06 November 2011, 04:51 PM IST
Is there too much negativity around the coming of Formula 1 racing to
India? Is progress a zero sum game, where the new and shiny is always
beholden to the old and grim? Must we frame all good news through the
bad and berate advancement by reminding ourselves of all that has not
been achieved? There are many Indias and surely the success of one
need not always come at the cost of another. Formula 1 is an expensive
sport, no doubt, but it does place India among a select group of
countries that have the capability and the affluence to pull an event
of this kind.
These are some of the arguments that have been made in support of this
move and there is much that is true about them. India has clearly
moved on the days when the need to be reminded about the poor became a
form of mental prison from which there was little possibility of
escape. And certainly, if an event like Formula 1 comes to India, and
is supported by the private sector, then by itself, it should be
welcomed. The questions reside not so much in the staging of the
event, but in what surrounds it. The demand put forward by some that
the sport should be granted tax exemption because of the high costs
and the consequent lack of viability of the investment needs closer
inspection. As does the notion that events like these are critical for
boosting the image of Brand India.
The fact that anyone can demand tax exemption for an event like this,
borders on the bizarre. Here we have a sport very few Indians
understand or follow, one which a handful of people can even dream of
actually playing, and one which requires an enormous amount of
infrastructure- all for two days in the year. The tickets are
extremely expensive, and the sport receives strong commercial support
from brands eager to link themselves with the glamour and prestige
associated with the event. Barring a few that follow Formula 1 as a
sport, and there are admittedly those that are diehard fans, for the
others, Formula 1 is a new date on the social calendar, a place where
one can dress and kiss the air around the fragrant cheeks of fellow
schmoozers. If this sport cannot sustain itself given the prices it
charges, then it does not deserve to be here. The demand for
subsidising the indulgence of the rich in the name of Brand India is
an absurdly insensitive one and tells us more about ourselves than we
should care to know.
By locating such premier events in the idea of Brand India, we are in
effect arguing that the best advertisements for the country are its
rich and glamorous and they need to be subsidised for their labour.
This is an interesting reversal of traditional idea of taxation where
the affluent share their good fortune with others and acknowledge that
they receive a disproportionate share of the state’s largesse. By a
series of incremental steps of logic, we equate the India with its
branded version, airbrush away all that is negative about the country,
concentrate our energies on projecting the desirable face of India,
and then ask for a price for doing so. Using this logic, any luxury
brand that comes to India should receive state subsidy, for it
allegedly boosts the image of India. The truth is that Formula 1 is
here because it needs the Indian market, not because India needs an
image boost.
More importantly, this argument rests upon a mistaken notion about the
idea of brands. The belief that a brand is something that gets created
by magnifying selectively chosen good news about oneself is far too
simplistic, particularly when we talk of a country and a civilisation
as a brand. The idea that impressions about India can be controlled
and depend on what messages are emitted is simply not true. Any
country, and certainly one as large and diverse as India leaks
messages from every pore. The world does not only see what we want it
to see, and forms its impressions about the country from several
different sources. Even any one event like the Formula 1 can get
reported and understood in several very different ways. For instance,
the day before the race what made news was the appearance of a stray
dog inside the circuit. And an event of such grand scale like the CWG,
far from raising the image of India ended up doing the very opposite.
The implicit principle at work is that whenever an attempt is made to
project an image that is too far from reality, sooner or later the
truth is likely to break through. In a country where good roads have
only recently begun to appear and even those disappear after every
monsoon, a world class race track built with international expertise
is more likely to draw attention to the abysmal state of roads in
general than to the excellence of the race circuit. The importance
given to a sport like Formula 1 only underscores the pathetic
condition of other sports in India. Brand India is not a fiction we
put up for the benefit of the developed world but a reality that we
are constructing for the benefit of all of India. The country cannot
be hijacked by a small minority in the name of this misunderstood
formulation called Brand India. There is nothing wrong with staging
the Formula 1 race in India, as long as we recognise it for what it
is. An exciting indulgence for those who can afford to pay for it.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Citycitybangbang/entry/in-the-name-of-brand-india
k
Nov 7, 2011, 4:33:45 AM11/7/11
to YEIDA
What stupid logic! We all understand the problems India faces and the
condition of deprivity into which Indian have been forced to live
into. But that doesnt mean any progress made anywhere in country is
worthless.
If that is the logic, why the Indian President should live in a palace
where monthly electricity bill alone runs into several lakhs. Why not
make a night shelter there (Rain Basera). Why should PM and Presdient
ride in Mercedes, why not on Ambassador, it drives as fast on Indian
potholed roads! Why have the CWG at all. There should be no
multiplexes. It should be sin to spend Rs.200/- on a movie ticket in
India where a guy earning more than Rs.32/-is not considered poor. Why
have air conditioners in offices and studios that debate F1 in a poor
India. 70% of India doesnt have access to 24x7 electricity, why the
press and media have AC offices and homes?
The fact that Indian roads are pot holed and non pliable, doesnt make
Formula1 a sin. This is a showcase example. If the resources are put
to the use they are meant for, all roads in India can be as good as
the F1 track. Instead of lauding what can be done and using it as a
benchmark, we are deriding the guys who have done it remarkably well.
This reminds me of adage when we were kids, " Hame khelne ko naheen
mila, to hum khel bigadenge". I am sure no politician would have
debated if there were a few of them in the managing committe of the
F1, just like they could not fault the CWG games or THE Adarsh
Society.
Regards
k
On Nov 7, 9:57 am, Harpreet Singh Guller <harpreetsg.de...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Citycitybangbang/entry/in-th...
condition of deprivity into which Indian have been forced to live
into. But that doesnt mean any progress made anywhere in country is
worthless.
If that is the logic, why the Indian President should live in a palace
where monthly electricity bill alone runs into several lakhs. Why not
make a night shelter there (Rain Basera). Why should PM and Presdient
ride in Mercedes, why not on Ambassador, it drives as fast on Indian
potholed roads! Why have the CWG at all. There should be no
multiplexes. It should be sin to spend Rs.200/- on a movie ticket in
India where a guy earning more than Rs.32/-is not considered poor. Why
have air conditioners in offices and studios that debate F1 in a poor
India. 70% of India doesnt have access to 24x7 electricity, why the
press and media have AC offices and homes?
The fact that Indian roads are pot holed and non pliable, doesnt make
Formula1 a sin. This is a showcase example. If the resources are put
to the use they are meant for, all roads in India can be as good as
the F1 track. Instead of lauding what can be done and using it as a
benchmark, we are deriding the guys who have done it remarkably well.
This reminds me of adage when we were kids, " Hame khelne ko naheen
mila, to hum khel bigadenge". I am sure no politician would have
debated if there were a few of them in the managing committe of the
F1, just like they could not fault the CWG games or THE Adarsh
Society.
Regards
k
On Nov 7, 9:57 am, Harpreet Singh Guller <harpreetsg.de...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages