It is probably a first of its kind. A press release issued by an Indian embassy abroad in support of an Indian company and a very Indian brand. Last week, the Indian embassy in Nepal was constrained to issue a press release alleging that sections of the media in the neighbouring country were seeking to malign an Indian company and suggesting that such a malicious campaign against an Indian brand could hurt bilateral relations.
The company in question is Dabur Nepal, a subsidiary of India’s famous Dabur India Limited. The provocation for the embassy press release was a muted campaign against Dabur Nepal’s “Real” fruit juices, suggesting that the company was selling inedible goods. What provoked the embassy to intervene was a desperate plea from the company.
Dabur Nepal had received a blackmail threat from a leading media group in Nepal stating that a major campaign would be unleashed against its products if the company did not resume advertising with the group’s print and television media. The company also suspected the active involvement of anti-Indian politicians, especially Maoists, in the campaign. This was not the first time Indian companies felt threatened by such smear attacks and so Dabur Nepal felt compelled to approach the embassy for support.
Convinced of its case and taking the view that it is the duty of Indian diplomats to protect the interests of Indian brands and companies, the Indian embassy in Kathmandu issued the press release that sought to alert the general public to the threat of anti-Indianism masquerading as consumer protection. Nepal’s media and its political class are engaged in an animated discussion on the rights and wrongs of such diplomatic intervention in a purely commercial matter.
Should diplomats only walk the high road of high diplomacy (strategic policy, bilateral relations and regional cooperation) or should they also walk the low road of low diplomacy (commercial and business diplomacy), promoting the cause of business and commerce? This is an old debate and has played itself out in other countries too. There are equally compelling arguments on both sides of the divide. However, the fact is that diplomats are increasingly being asked to not just defend their countries’ business interests but to, in fact, promote such interests.
More From This Section
When Christina Rocca, a former US assistant secretary of state, once used the platform offered by the Confederation of Indian Industry in New Delhi to say that there were just five letters that could make a difference to US-India relations and then went on to spell them out, “E-N-R-O-N”, to a stunned audience, many in India criticised her for promoting the interests of Enron and making Enron’s business interests the test case for bilateral friendship. For its part, Enron would have thanked her profusely for doing what she did.
Should diplomats restrict themselves to policy issues and only help create a framework for improved economic and commercial relations between countries, or should they dirty their hands, wet their feet, sweat it out and earn their spurs selling brands and promoting businesses? This is by no means a settled debate, but on balance most governments, and certainly companies, would increasingly expect diplomats to do precisely what the Indian embassy in Nepal did or what Ms Rocca did in Delhi.
Trade has for long followed the flag, but in recent years the flag has followed trade with companies opening doors in difficult lands to their countries’ diplomats. Indian companies have helped open many doors around the world for Indian diplomats. In turn, Indian diplomats help open doors in foreign lands to Indian companies.
Every now and then this incestuous relationship between diplomats and businesses does irritate someone or the other. When US diplomats bat in India for American companies, many in India get shirty and upset. Just as the Nepalese media is criticising the Indian embassy for getting involved in the Dabur controversy, Indian media and politicians often criticise American diplomats and officials for openly espousing the cause of their companies.
But none of this dissuades anyone from doing what must be done. In an increasingly competitive, inter-dependent, integrated global economy, governments are expected to be more proactive in promoting the business interests of their respective companies. The Indian embassy in Nepal should, therefore, be complimented for its proactive stance. More so, because there is still an element of diffidence among Indian diplomats when it comes to batting for Indian business, even though successive prime ministers have continued the practice, first started by Rajiv Gandhi, of asking business leaders to join official events abroad.
Consider the trivial example of protocol. When Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen of Finland hosted an official banquet for visiting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in Helsinki in 2006, he had the President and CEO of Nokia Corporation, Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, seated immediately next to him so that, over the meal, Mr Kallasvuo could engage in a conversation with Dr Singh about Nokia’s plans and interests in India.
Such intimacy between politicians and businessmen on such occasions is still unthinkable in India. Seating at the Indian prime minister’s official banquets is still strictly by archaic protocol — first come the Cabinet-rank ministers, then ministers of state, then come the secretaries to the government and only then a business leader!
Many politicians, officials and diplomats are actually quite comfortable with this hypocrisy of not being seen to be close, friendly and helpful to businesses in public but willing to more than bat in private. But a new generation of proactive diplomats, in embassies around the world, are willing to be more supportive of Indian business, without having to compromise on professional ethics and personal integrity. This ought to be welcomed.