There are billboards all over the city of Mumbai, and possibly the country, urging young India to choose their leaders. Called Lead India, it is a campaign by The Times of India, a leading English language publication of the country. That there should be such a campaign is not surprising, considering the upbeat mood in India, especially amongst the young in the cities and the small towns, who I imagine are the main beneficiaries of the recent and robust growth the Indian economy is witnessing. What is incredible is the faces adorning the billboards.
I don’t read The Times of India, so I’m not actually aware of the exact nature of the campaign. I write this piece as an observer, a non reader of the Times, who nevertheless notices and reacts to the overt advertising of the campaign. And my question is, surely we can do better than to incite our young to choose Abhishek Bachchan and Priyanka Chopra as their leaders? There is a certain respectability and responsibility attached to the word 'leader', which one can hardly expect filmstars to fulfill.
I can understand that filmstars all over the world are popular figures, and there exists a symbiotic relationship between them and the media. But they belong to the field of entertainment. Is it necessary to blur the boundaries so?
There was a time when the only brand one associated with filmstars was the soap, Lux. I try to delve into my earliest memories of Indian advertising, and that’s the only one in which I remember seeing filmstars. These days filmstars and cricketers endorse everything, from shaving cream to cars, cold drinks to underwear, hair oil to chyawanprash. So it is that we have an overdose of Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai, because they not only adorn the film posters plastered all over our cities, but also billboards and shop windows, and dance for us and smile at us on our television screens. Alarming as this trend is, it must work for corporate houses to sign them on for the huge amounts that they purportedly charge for endorsements.
However, having said this, and admitted to their mass appeal and ability to reach out to the Indian consumer, and maybe even the common man, I still fail to understand how they can possibly be projected as ‘leaders’? Leaders of what? Why is it that of all public figures, The Times chose to fall back on them even for a campaign like Lead India.
The saving grace is that neither is a finalist.
Though I must mention here that an actor is indeed one of the three finalists from Mumbai. The actor is Rahul Bose, and the little that I know of the man, I believe he is not entirely undeserving of the honour.
On an aside, I found this rather amusing piece on another blog. The inspiration is a passage from ‘Yes, Minister’, though neither that nor the author of the adaptation was credited, so I’m unable to provide any credits here.
INDIAN NEWSPAPERS
The Times of India is read by people who run the country (Many feel it should be rightly called Ads of India).
The Statesman is read by the people who think they run the country.
The Hindu is read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
The Indian Express is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Telegraph is read by people who do not know who runs the country but are sure they are doing it wrong.
Mid-Day is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Economic Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Tribune is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run.
The Hindustan Times is read by the people who still think it is their country.
The Asian Age is read by the people who would rather be in another country.
I don’t read The Times of India, so I’m not actually aware of the exact nature of the campaign. I write this piece as an observer, a non reader of the Times, who nevertheless notices and reacts to the overt advertising of the campaign. And my question is, surely we can do better than to incite our young to choose Abhishek Bachchan and Priyanka Chopra as their leaders? There is a certain respectability and responsibility attached to the word 'leader', which one can hardly expect filmstars to fulfill.
I can understand that filmstars all over the world are popular figures, and there exists a symbiotic relationship between them and the media. But they belong to the field of entertainment. Is it necessary to blur the boundaries so?
There was a time when the only brand one associated with filmstars was the soap, Lux. I try to delve into my earliest memories of Indian advertising, and that’s the only one in which I remember seeing filmstars. These days filmstars and cricketers endorse everything, from shaving cream to cars, cold drinks to underwear, hair oil to chyawanprash. So it is that we have an overdose of Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai, because they not only adorn the film posters plastered all over our cities, but also billboards and shop windows, and dance for us and smile at us on our television screens. Alarming as this trend is, it must work for corporate houses to sign them on for the huge amounts that they purportedly charge for endorsements.
However, having said this, and admitted to their mass appeal and ability to reach out to the Indian consumer, and maybe even the common man, I still fail to understand how they can possibly be projected as ‘leaders’? Leaders of what? Why is it that of all public figures, The Times chose to fall back on them even for a campaign like Lead India.
The saving grace is that neither is a finalist.
Though I must mention here that an actor is indeed one of the three finalists from Mumbai. The actor is Rahul Bose, and the little that I know of the man, I believe he is not entirely undeserving of the honour.
On an aside, I found this rather amusing piece on another blog. The inspiration is a passage from ‘Yes, Minister’, though neither that nor the author of the adaptation was credited, so I’m unable to provide any credits here.
INDIAN NEWSPAPERS
The Times of India is read by people who run the country (Many feel it should be rightly called Ads of India).
The Statesman is read by the people who think they run the country.
The Hindu is read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
The Indian Express is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Telegraph is read by people who do not know who runs the country but are sure they are doing it wrong.
Mid-Day is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Economic Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Tribune is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run.
The Hindustan Times is read by the people who still think it is their country.
The Asian Age is read by the people who would rather be in another country.
4 comments:
Hey Poosha,
You know I too am stumped at this campaign... But you should read TOI just for the write ups its hilarious... Everyday a new by line comes from the chosen ones ( though you wish they all had taken the red pill).. The funniest that I have heard is one finalist claiming that India instead of being socialist country should be a practical capitalist ( whats that)TOI is really entertaining...Ciao Take care
What exactly are the morons at TOI upto? Hasn't anybody told them, you can't fool all the people all the time?
It started off on the right note, but maybe we were all sort of misled, and soon it became yet another “competition” - mainly to get eyeballs and advertisement revenues, all the while claiming to meet social objectives.
And Indians, who are so obsessed with “exams” and “who is the first” etc - got bought into it.
If the whole idea was to do social good, why not choose the top 50 or so, and give them a budget? Who cares who is the “best” leader of them all? because after all the “best” is not being decided on “action” but mere “words”…for which we we have no dearth amongst the politicians of India.
The bigger problem is that we are totally ignoring the HUGE MONSTER PROBLEM OF INDIA, and not even debating it to try and find solutions. The monster problem is the totally broken delivery system of the Indian Govt - which by itself could be ignored, if it were not for the “food” it eats. But you just can’t - why? Because thousands of crores of our hard earned (collective) wealth is thrown at it - and the monster gobbles it all, and leaves just crap behind…and asks for more the next year.
Why do we have such a broken system? Here is the recipe for disaster:
1. Job for life.
2. No transparency/accountability
3. Full pay, whether you work or you don’t.
There is no “indian element” in this - you put this system anywhere on this planet and it will produce the same results.
If we are throwing 64000 crores just in the social sector alone in the mouth of this monster - and all we get is crap - should we not be urgently addressing this issue?
What bothers me is that here is a monster in our midst which is causing mayhem; this is the elephant in the room…and we simply ignore it and try to focus on a few ants.
We need to get our priorities right and we need to get a sense of the scale. We are doing this big tamasha for 50 lacs, which is 0.00078125% of 64000 crores…and we award 64000 crores and more to this monster called the “broken delivery system” of the Indian Govt … without a whimper, without a debate, without anyone asking “what will we get in return”?
What, are we blind? stupid? or is this a “holy cow” that can’t be questioned? so we just have to shut up and accept that the elephant will always be in the room and we will simply have to work around it, with our inane schemes of 50 lacs here, 25 lacs there…whereas crores and crores of our wealth is being frittered away.
Got any ideas to slay this monster? Pls share it with us.
The Lead India initiative is as shallow as the Times of India reach in the country!!! One good thing is atleast they got people talking to a certain extent.
Post a Comment