People still feel bruised, numbed, afraid and very angry. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in India and bomb blasts in busy areas are monthly features. But this time, the attack was neither stealthy nor anonymous. The wantonness, savagery and sheer scale of the bloodletting was without parallel in recent history.
There are several fundamental questions being asked in India. There is disillusionment about the Government and politicians. It has not helped that politicians behaved with bewildering insensitivity, with one dismissing the event as ‘a minor incident that all large cities face’. Let me focus on some issues that emerged in the aftermath of the attack.
First, the role of media. For three days, viewers sat glued to their TVs watching the bruising coverage that went as close to the action as one can get. Media played a critical role in disseminating minute-by-minute information that helped keep rumours at bay, but questions have been raised about whether the media inadvertently helped the terrorists track events. Can media coverage end up being a distributor of fear, rather than helping contain it?
Second, the insensitive exploitation of the attacks. Nothing was more incongruous than channels breaking in mid-blast/explosion/rescue for an ad. The ratings were much higher for news channels, and advertisers derived advantage from that. Politicians too joined the fray.
Third, the obsessive concern with the economy. From the moment the story broke, a key concern was how this would affect India’s standing in the world. A section of India obsesses over the economy, choosing to see every event from the prism of its impact on ‘brand India’. As the massacre unfolded in all its gruesome relentlessness, the question subsided, but it did tell us that Indian priorities can be skewed.
Fourth, the power of technology. The phone, Twitter and blogs played starring roles in keeping real-time information flowing. Technology, being agnostic about the intent of the user, was a key part of the terrorists’ plans too.
Fifth, the power of two brands. At the centre of the disaster, sat two brands - the Taj Mahal and the Oberoi. You can do all the training you want: sit cross-legged on the floor doing team-building exercises, write copious service manuals or hold workshops in exotic locations. You cannot, however, prepare and plan for an event like this. At a time like this, a brand is reduced to its rawest and most primal.
Both brands came out physically battered but shining with the glow of humanity. Survivors told of how well hotel staff looked after them, how they worked tirelessly, at great risk to themselves to get them out safely. The effort came at a cost, with 14 employees losing their lives. Amazingly, the Taj and the Trident are already open for business and have been warmly welcomed back.
Finally, a new-found spirit of activism. For the first time, protests erupted among a class that has traditionally been politically passive. Of course, it comprised both genuine outrage and a petulant sense of entitlement. The desire to ‘do something’ is a strong one and I have no doubt that we will see many brands take on a more overt activist role in the times to come.
It has been rough for India, and things are likely to look grim for a little while longer. There is a deep sense of loss and anguish. Things have changed. More importantly, there is an even stronger sense that things must change. Maybe, some good can come from this.
.jpg)
Santosh Desai, CEO of Future Brands
santosh.desai@futurebrands.co.in
