India fascinated the world for millennia. ?Fabulous??that was how India was described.
Megasthanese, the envoy of the Greek king of Syria (3rd century BC) at the court of Chandragupta, speaks of Indians as ?a happy people, of simple manners, frugal, non-litigious, holding truth and virtue in high esteem.?
Asian visitors were equally effusive. Hieun Tsang (600-664), a Chinese student and pilgrim, found Indians ?high-minded, upright and honourable.?
Al-Biruni (12th century AD), a great scholar of Islam, marvels at the religious tolerance of Hindus and the lack of theological disputes.
But those who came to India to convert the Hindus, to conquer them and rule over them had nothing good to say about this country. Thus, Babur says that he saw nothing good in this country. ?They (Hindus) have no genius,? says Babur, ?no comprehension of mind, no politeness of manners? no ingenuity or mechanical inventions? no skill or knowledge in design or architecture?.?(1500 AD)
The worst damage to India'sfair image has been done by Western missionaries and the British rulers, for while the missionaries wanted to justify conversions, the British wanted to justify their rule over an advanced country.
A word on the missionaries: they claim they brought ?light? to this country. But Tagore says: they started fires.
We have a real problem: We have to change this image. It has been the most difficult task before us for which we can only blame ourselves. Many of us are zombies, programmed by the British educational system to act in the manner we do.
India is still a land of snake charmers and cows to many people of the world. In sixty years, we have not been able to change this image. Yes, we had some success recently thanks to the NRIs. Who is at fault? In one word: Our rulers. And Macaulay'schildren. The country lacks dedicated men, men with knowledge of the country'shistory and its civilisation. The NRIs are good?they are dedicated men, they have done much work in the last few years.
A more effective information work is necessary for two reasons: 1) because India is a global power today and 2) without a good information system we will be hobbled in our work as a global power.
The Government of India cannot rely on newspapers for this work. Today it is not nationalism which inspires them. The work has therefore to be done by the government. And on a long-term basis.
To ensure success, there is no way but to create a new cadre of media men under the Government of India, especially trained to handle external publicity. These men can work as information officers to serve the print and electronic media, as editors of the various journals published by the Ministry of External Affairs and as producers of documentaries. They can even be deputed to the AIR to oversee its external service.
India Perspectives, as the flagship publication of the MEA, is a monthly, brought out in ten foreign languages. This is a key organ and must be in the charge of a highly competent journalist with good grounding in the culture and civilisation of the country. Equally important is the target we want to reach.
India Perspectives began as March of India in 1963 and had been under the editorship of some of the great names in the media, such as K.K. Nair (also known as Krishna Chaitanya), a polymath, considered an encyclopedia, Ram Mohan Rao, R.G. Joglekar and Bharat Bhushan who improved the visuals and shifted the focus of the magazine to culture and civilisation. As a result, the impact of the journal improved remarkably.
Later, March of India appeared as Indian and Foreign Review. These were days of non-alignment, a new policy, which had to be defended. The emphasis was on politics. Today India has no such sense of mission. And yet as a potential great power ranking third in the world, it must prepare itself to play a major role in the world.
The journal was re-named India Perspectives in 1988. I believe the journal must now concentrate on how to take the country to a global leadership role. The world wants India to lead it as a moral leader.
Production of documentaries is an important aspect of this work. But it has been neglected. This work should be handed over to wellknown film producers. Documentary work calls for specialisation. Which is why the MEA cannot handle this job with its limited scope for experience.
With the advent of the electronic media, the emphasis is now on the visual at the expense of the word. This is unfortunate. The word cannot be replaced by the visual.
