The Public Attitudes and Images of the European Union in India

Abstract

This article seeks to fill a major gap in existing studies on how Asians perceive the European Union. It discusses the Union’s efforts to promote its visibility in India since the mid-1990s and provides an overview of the Indian literati’s perceptions of contemporary Europe. This article examines the perception, representation and visibility of the EU in the Indian media, among business, civil society and media ‘elite’ and in public opinion. It explores whether the Union’s self-proclaimed representation as a global actor, a normative power and a leader in environmental negotiations conforms to how it is actually perceived in Third World countries. It evaluates whether more than a decade of summitry has led to greater visibility of the EU in the Indian media. The article concludes by making a comparison of EU imagery in media, elite and public opinion discourses, and makes several recommendations on how EU can possibly improve its visibility in future.

Keywords

India European Union perceptions media elite public opinion

Introduction

Perceptions are of seminal importance because they determine and condition behaviour. They are instrumental in giving policy direction and defining political reality. Inter-state relations cannot ‘be fully comprehended without taking into account the perceptions and attitudes that guide behaviour. Without really having any direct bilateral problem, the images states hold of one another can create an impression of incompatibility. Even though perceptions determine behaviour, perceptions in turn are also influenced by behavior’ (Sridharan 2001, 86–87). The study of external perceptions provides insights into how the EU is actually judged as an international actor, helps shape EU’s identity and roles, and how outsiders’ expectations and perceptions impact upon EU’s foreign policy performance (Chaban, Elgstrom and Holland 2006, 247–248).

The EU and Promotion of its Visibility in India

Enhancing EU visibility in India has been a constant theme in periodic EU Communications and other documents on India since the mid-1990s. The Commission’s proposals for a New Asia Strategy (July 1994) declared that a baseline all-media study of the European image was an essential prerequisite to develop a more efficient information policy in order to raise Europe’s profile in Asia (European Commission 1994, 19) Two years later, the Communication on ‘EU-India Enhanced Partnership’ (26 June 1996) declared that ‘particular attention’ would be paid to ‘improving the visibility of European activities in India’, where the sheer size and diversity of the country calls for a special effort in strengthening the profile (European Commission 1996, 13–14). The 2001 Asia Strategy also underlined that the ‘enhancement of mutual awareness’ would continue to be a priority for the EU (European Commission 2001a, 15, 21).

In its Communication on ‘An EU-India Strategic Partnership’ (16 June 2004), the Commission acknowledged that ‘much remained to be done to increase reciprocal visibility’ and that it would launch a research project to identify target audiences, key messages, main instruments and how best to deploy them (European Commission 2004a, 10). It also admitted that the public perception of India and the EU was ‘generally two-dimensional and stereotyped’. Despite some initiatives, the problem persisted so much so that ‘with the exception of a very few cognoscenti of the EU, if it is known at all, it is understood to be an amorphous, restrictive body’ that determines textile quotas and imposes anti-dumping duties. Thus, ‘a great deal’ remained to be done to shift the focus of the Indian public opinion away from trade. To that end, ‘a new strategic approach’ was needed (European Commission 2004b, 35).

Under the EU-India Economic Cross Cultural Programme, the Commission funded an 18-month project (October 2004 to March 2006) which facilitated the creation of a news ‘hub’ in Brussels called the EU-India Media Programme (INEP).^{The INEP news service was provided free to its subscribers in India and elsewhere with the expectation that it would subsequently become self-sustainable. However, it was not able to mature into a viable news service (Adrian White, General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, in Cameron et al. 2005, 15).}

The India-EU Joint Action Plan (JAP, 7 September 2005) reiterated the need to make ‘a conscious effort’ on both sides to inform each other’s public opinion and stressed ‘a constant need to update the media image on both sides’ (India-EU Joint Action Plan 2005, 9). However, the word ‘visibility’ was conspicuous by its absence in both the Implementation Report on the JAP (30 November 2007) and the revised JAP (29 September 2008). Since then, ‘visibility’ has not really figured in any major EC document on India.

Research on Perceptions of the EU in India

The Indian literati’s perceptions of modern Europe have been the product of a specific historical experience of a cultural/colonial encounter with the West and a selective admiration of Europe (Halbfass 1988; Raychaudhuri 1992, 160–161, 163). The idea of the Other has different meanings and has to be contextualised both geographically and historically (Arora 2009, 31). After independence, there has been a clear domination of Anglo-American imagery in the Indian media. Contemporary Europe has, in fact, been studied and analysed only by elite elements of Indian society—those who travelled abroad or otherwise came into contact with Europeans. For the great majority of Indians, most of continental Europe is a strange land, an exotic place for tourism, to which only a privileged layer of society has had access (Jain 2007, 38). There are considerable difficulties in comprehending the essential character of the European Union. Most Indians confront the ‘3 Ds’—distant, difficult, different—in trying to understand a complex entity like the EU. To them, the EC stands for the ‘Election Commission’. And if the EC Delegation is said to be an embassy, the usual query is for which country does it issue visas (R.K. Jain, in European Commission 2001b, 26).

There is an ‘enormous information deficit’ about the EU in India largely because of mutual indifference and neglect (R.K. Jain in European Commission 2001b, 26). There is ‘a permanent lack of mutual knowledge’ with Europe being still ‘marginal in the Indian collective memory’ (Goddeeris 2011, 7). In the absence of primary sources on Indian perceptions of the EU and the non-existence of opinion surveys and comprehensive media reviews, the information that exists tends to be ‘impressionistic, haphazard, ill-informed and lacking scientific empirical evidence’ on how Asian citizens and media perceive the European Union (Holland et al. 2007, 24).

One of the earliest studies of how a foreign country (the United States) was perceived in the Indian Press was undertaken as early as 1954 (Trumbull 1954, 69–77). It is only recently that some studies have been undertaken on the EU’s perceptions in India. There have been only a few studies on how the Indian print media portrayed individual EU Member States (for example, Vaugier-Chatterjee 2002, 2006). These studies comprised of historical overviews (Subrahmanyam 2005), reminiscences of former diplomats (Dixit 2001) or assessments based on conversations and elite interviews (Lisbonne-de Vergeron 2006, 2011). Some describe Europe as ‘the hub of the West’ or express great admiration for the creation of a peace community and collective prosperity of the Community (Vivekanandan 2001, 241). Others seek to explore how public opinion, the political elite and civil society organisations have perceived the EU (Fioramonti 2007; Fioramonti and Poletti 2008; Mitra 2006), but without conducting a primary public opinion survey or face-to-face elite interviews.

This article meets a long-felt need and fills a major gap in existing studies on how Asians perceive the EU. This study is of considerable significance and relevance to EU policy-makers, as it provides the most comprehensive and detailed overview about the perceptions of the EU in India undertaken so far by tapping information from three sources, namely, the press, ‘elite’ interviews and a public opinion survey. Public opinion has hitherto hardly received much attention due to the conventional emphasis on the activities of political and business elites. Thus, the content analysis of the generated data provides a holistic analysis of how the EU is perceived in a Third World country like India.

This article examines the perception, representation and visibility of the European Union in the Indian media, among the ‘elites’ and in public opinion. It explores whether the Union’s self-proclaimed representation as a global actor, a normative power and a leader in environmental negotiations conforms to how it is actually perceived in third countries. Has the proliferation of dialogue and consultation mechanisms and more than a decade of summitry led to greater visibility of the EU in the Indian media? Is the image of the EU changing in India or do old representations still persist even though the Union is acquiring a new personality in world politics?

This article comprises of three parts. The first part explores the Indian print news media representations of the EU in terms of visibility and framing. The second part highlights the EU perceptions among Indian ‘elites’. The third part presents results of the public opinion survey. In conclusion, the article compares EU imagery between media, elite and public opinion discourses and makes several recommendations on how the Union can seek to improve its visibility in future.

Media Images of the EU in India

The image of one country or an entity like the European Union presented by the mass media is rarely, one might say never, a full or accurate one. The media is intrinsically concerned with what is news: what already interests their public and what can be made interesting. The media also tends to be principally concerned with domestic issues and international coverage is patchy. For decades, dissemination of the bulk of foreign news in the Indian press was based on foreign wire services whose items were distributed through the Press Trust of India—the largest news agency in India. Most of the major Indian dailies also had arrangements with leading British newspapers to reprint their ‘foreign specials’ and interpretative dispatches (Trumbull 1954, 70). The vernacular press, which has a far greater impact on the man-in-the-street than the English press, do not even have access to the sources that the English dailies do. Thus, opinions of the Indian elite tend to be conditioned by despatches in Indian newspapers which originated in or were transmitted by Western wire agencies. While some observers feel that Europe’s popular media serve as ‘reflecting mirrors’ and stimulants of India’s perception of Europe (Mitra 2006, 3), others bemoan the lack of Indo-centrism in the Indian elite’s thinking about foreign policy and its continued intellectual dependence on the West (Subrahmanyam 1988, 253).

The continuous and unabated flow of information disseminated by the media is a critical element in ensuring the sustenance of the world’s largest democracy in India. With a population of 1.2 billion, 18 major languages and over 1,600 regional dialects, India has the largest number of newspapers in the world. As of 31 March 2008, there were 69,323 registered newspapers (English language: 10,000; Hindi language: 27,527) with a total circulation of 207,108,115 (Government of India 2010).

Taking into account the enormous diversity of print media, this study limited its focus to only three leading Indian newspapers—Dainik Jagran,¹ The Economic Times² and The Times of India.³ Despite a low number of monitored papers, the selection included the most representative, respected and popular dailies in the country and they are widely acknowledged as leaders in readership ratings (Indian Readership Survey, November 2009, cited in Rathore 2009). The Dainik Jagran continues to be the most popular newspaper with a readership of 54,791,000. This paper was selected not only because it is the most popular newspaper in India but also because it is published in Hindi, one of the official languages of India. The Economic Times is the leading and most widely read business daily (circulation 757,000). The Times of India retained its number one position among English-language dailies with its readership of 13,347,000 (English is one of India’s official languages) (Livemint 2009). Coverage of the EU in these three dailies was observed over a period of six months (1 July to 31 December 2009).

Originally, the monitoring focused on the reportage of the European Union and its institutions (European Commission, European Parliament, European Central Bank and the European Court of Justice), as well as Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM). A total of 235 news items referencing the EU and its institutions were identified in these three reputable newspapers over the six months—by no means a sizable volume of reportage.

Puzzled by the mismatch in the EU’s print media visibility and actual importance of the EU to India, this analysis turned its attention to the Indian newsmakers who were asked to comment on the nature of the EU coverage by the Indian print media. Their unanimous view was that no special budget allocation is made to keep track of developments taking place in the EU. Newspapers do not assign additional staff and/or hire experts to cover specific issues. They tend to mostly rely on foreign wire services if and when the need for more expertise on EU issues is required rather than sending their own correspondents which invariably proves to be an exorbitant proposition. None of the editors replied in the affirmative when asked as to whether they had an officially formulated policy on covering foreign news or news items on the EU. They considered the marketability of a news item to be the decisive factor in its inclusion or exclusion in the newspaper. One of the editors of a prominent Hindi newspaper acknowledged that given space constraints, ‘various events have to compete with each other for finding a space in the newspaper’.

One important reason why the Indian media does not view itself yet as an active player in foreign policy, according to a former Media Advisor to the Prime Minister, is that it has not found a business plan to justify greater foreign coverage and the posting of foreign correspondents. In fact, among the world’s major powers, the Indian media has the least number of foreign correspondents (Baru 2009, 282). The spread of Indian correspondents in Europe has been very uneven. There are almost a dozen full-time correspondents based in London with a couple of them writing on a part-time basis out of Brussels and Geneva. As a result, the Indian media tends to regard EU affairs with scepticism, underestimating the unification trends because of the undue bias towards British thinking (Rana 2000, 389).

Amongst the three newspapers, the EU was found to be the most visible in the business newspaper, The Economic Times, with a total of 142 EU news items over a period of six months (23.5 items per month on an average). The higher coverage in this paper is somewhat expected as the EU is India’s largest trading partner. Unsurprisingly, the EU was predominantly reported in this paper as an economic actor. There were 83 EU news items in The Times of India (14 news items per month on an average). The EU coverage in this English-language daily touched upon wide-ranging themes stressing both political and economic news. In stark contrast to these two outlets, the most popular Indian paper Dainik Jagran contributed only 10 EU news items to the dataset (1.7 news items per month on an average). Arguably, this low EU profile is due to the paper’s marked preference for national and local news. The daily’s discussion of international issues was confined to events unfolding in India’s problematic neighbourhood. Subjects such as non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, climate change and the World Trade Organization were discussed on its Op-Ed page where the EU was mentioned only in passing.

In addition to low numbers, the intensity of EU reportage was low. Most news items portrayed the EU as a minor actor—a portrayal which does not bode well for a wider and deeper understanding of the EU among Indian news readers.

This analysis also considered the nature of EU news sources. It found that local and international sources had almost an equal share in EU coverage contributing 39.2 per cent and 37 per cent, respectively (the remaining 23.8 per cent of EU news stories were unattributed). Among international news sources, Reuters had a commanding presence across the three papers. This finding seems to confirm an opinion that Indian news readers tend to learn about the EU primarily through the British prism.

The papers differed in terms of the featured EU official actors: the Dainik Jagran did not mention a single EU official and the Times of India presented an extremely limited picture of the EU’s leaders. The most visible coverage of EU officials was in The Economic Times. Baroness Catherine Ashton (the then Trade Commissioner) was most frequently mentioned in this paper (11 times). She made news when she was urging all sides to conclude the Doha Round talks. She was also reported to have dealt with the crisis surrounding the seizure of Indian drugs at European ports. The paper ran only one news item on the Baroness assuming the post of High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Other less visible faces were those of Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, President of the European Central Bank Jean-Claude Trichet, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, Chief Observer of the EU Election Observer Mission General Phillipe Morillon and EU’s Economic Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia. Very often, an EU official would figure in the Indian press only when a dignitary visited the country. However, the overall visibility of EU officials was extremely low and thus for the Indian news readers, the faces of EU leaders continue to remain blurred at best, and unknown at worst.

Amongst EU institutions, the most visible EU institution was the European Commission with 27 news items in The Economic Times and 15 news items in The Times of India. The Dainik Jagran failed to profile yet another facet of the EU architecture. The Commission was featured dealing with numerous issues, such as expediting the Doha Round, guarding against greenhouse gas emissions, garnering support for the Lisbon Treaty and conducting anti-trust investigations. It was, by far, the most reported EU institution in India. The rotating EU Presidency held by the Czech Republic during the second half of 2009 was acknowledged only peripherally (in particular, when President Barosso expressed his satisfaction with the Presidency endorsing the Lisbon Treaty). Other EU institutions were barely visible in the reportage across the three papers. The European Parliament and the European Court of Justice did not get a single reference.

Turning to the thematic priorities in the EU reportage, predictably almost three-quarters (73.2 per cent) of the news items in the business daily The Economic Times portrayed the EU as an economic actor. This framing suggests that India’s economic engagement with the EU is seen as comprehensive and that the EU is recognised as one of India’s major economic partners. Half of the low-number sample from the Dainik Jagran dealt with EU environmental issues in the light of the Copenhagen summit in December 2009), while 40 per cent of the news reported fell in the economic frame. In contrast, EU news reported by The Times of India was almost evenly balanced among the political, economic and environmental frames (28.9 per cent, 27.7 per cent and 26.5 per cent, respectively). Of the news items reported by The Times of India, 15.6 per cent fell within the category of social affairs and mainly dealt with crime, multiculturalism and migration to and from the EU. The overall framing of the EU by The Times of India shows a gradual recognition of the EU not only as an economic global actor but also as an environmental, political and social actor. Importantly, even though the EU is a significant donor of developmental aid to India, not a single news item appeared on this topic in the three leading national papers.

A neutral tone dominated EU reportage in the three newspapers without a detailed assessment of EU actions. However, stories critical of the EU were also to be found. The Economic Times and The Times of India both had nearly 20 per cent of negative news about the EU, while half of the low-volume reportage of the EU in the Dainik Jagran was in a negative tone. Interestingly, the positively evaluated EU news had the lowest share of news items with the Dainik Jagran carrying not a single news item in this category.

EU Perceptions among Indian ‘Elites’

While media imagery of the EU represents one important facet of Indian public awareness of the EU, this analysis also pays attention to the opinions and visions of the EU among the national policy- and decision-makers. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews of 38 Indian stakeholders were conducted during the second phase of the project (1 January to 30 June 2010) in New Delhi, which is the country’s capital, in order to identify their perceptions of the EU. Of these, eight were former/present members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha including Union Ministers, 10 were affiliated to big businesses, 10 belonged to civil society and the remaining 10 were media elite.

Thus, a number of eminent personalities who are well known all over India have been interviewed as part of this study. The questionnaire comprising 18 questions (16 open-ended and 2 close-ended) produced rich discursive comments. We are limiting our discussion to responses given to a limited number of questions. The first was about the perceptions of the EU’s importance to India when compared to other countries and regions. The political elites were of the view that EU-India relations were on an upward trajectory. Interestingly, irrespective of their political affiliation, all of them refrained from specifying the relative importance of the EU in relation to other countries/regions. The business elites acknowledged the importance of the EU to India although many of them declared the United States to be the most important country for India. They, however, claimed the EU to be a better economic partner than China. The civil society elite considered the United States to be more important than the EU as it plays a more vital role in Indian foreign policy. They also highlighted the importance of other countries such as China, Japan and Russia and felt that more intense engagement was evident in the case of India’s bilateral relations with EU Member States than with the Union as a collective.

The elite across all cohorts declared the EU to be a formidable economic actor on the international scene. Many of them, however, felt that the Union tended to toe the American line on global political, military and security matters. Some ‘elites’ described the EU as a major player in terms of agenda-setting and regulating the norms of international behaviour. Some even felt that the EU was still at an ‘experimental level’, while others considered it to be an ‘emerging power’. The EU was believed to have the potential to emerge as a leader in international politics. The elite described the Union as a unique and desirable/positive experiment, but felt that it lacked cohesion and adequate political will as was evident during the Iraq war as well as during the Copenhagen climate negotiations. It was surmised that the EU would continue to be regarded as a ‘big player in a great game but not the leader’. However, some ‘elites’ recognised the EU as a leader in international politics. They cited the European Union’s contribution in Afghanistan and efforts to improve relations with Iraq as well as its role in the democratisation of Central and Eastern Europe.

Commenting on India-EU relations, ‘elites’ across all categories invariably expressed the view that economic issues continue to be crucial in defining EU-India relations. The business elite asserted that the EU’s attempts to link trade with ‘extraneous’ issues like labour standards and environment created obstacles in negotiations. Unresolved issues pertaining to the textile, spice and pharmaceutical industries, they pointed out, needed to be resolved on a priority basis. The business elites also felt that China’s exchange rate and burgeoning trade surplus was a cause of common concern for both the EU and India.

The media elite highlighted that discussions pertaining to civilian nuclear cooperation and technology transfer had emerged as issues of considerable importance, whereas the political elite mentioned terrorism, tourism, development, free movement of labour, WTO and climate change negotiations as the main issues of current concern. Facilitating the movement of students seeking education as well as efforts towards non-proliferation and disarmament also found frequent mention.

Free trade was seen to take precedence over all other issues to be kept in mind in the course of developing India-EU relations. It was asserted that trade imbalances that tended to favour the EU should be done away with gradually. Given India’s competitive advantage in skilled manpower, the Indian elite urged that efforts be made to ease visa restrictions and legalising greater immigration of the skilled workforce in the EU. Some elite suggested that EU standards ought to be kept in mind in the course of policy-making relating to manufacturing, sale and distribution of goods and services.

The Delegation of the European Commission in Delhi (established in 1983) was almost completely invisible to the political elite. None of the business elite interviewed had any interaction or direct contact with the Delegation. The business elite expressed their willingness to get in touch with the Delegation and were in favour of exchange of information to facilitate a better understanding of the European market. Civil society ‘elites’ were the most aware of the activities of the Delegation through its publications, website and by means of assistance provided for developmental activities. However, a number of civil society ‘elites’ complained that the Delegation was excessively bureaucratised, which hindered any meaningful engagement with it.

The ‘elites’ were also asked to rate the importance of the EU to India both in the present and future. There was a uniform increase across all categories from the present to the future. Business ‘elites’ were the most optimistic for the present as well as the future and seemed confident of a robust growth in India-EU trade relations. Conversely, the media elite were the most hesitant in acknowledging the importance of the EU in areas other than trade and climate change negotiations. This finding is consistent with the less than adequate coverage of EU by the Indian print media.

The ‘elites’ painted an overwhelmingly positive picture when asked about the three spontaneous images that came to their mind when thinking about the EU with a few negative comments made by one or two elites across all categories. The dominant images of all ‘elites’ were clearly the Euro, the Schengen visa, borderlessness, the brotherhood and unity that emerged after the Second World War and of the EU being a unique experiment. There were only a handful of negative notions about the Union. The elites in general were sceptical about the political strength of the EU as an actor and about its relative significance and strength compared to the United States. The negative images of ‘elites’ were as follows: the EU was economically strong and politically weak, lack of cultural engagement between India and EU, the TRIPS agreement, seizures of generic pharmaceutical products, arrogance about its prosperity and stability and about human rights, not very understanding about the compulsions of the other parts of the world, and political questions regarding Turkish membership of the EU. The Internet turns out to be the most important source of information followed by the newspapers across the three categories of elites.

Key Findings of the Public Opinion Survey

The analysis of public opinion by and large confirms the trends already identified in the elite opinions in the previous section. The research methodology adopted was similar to the one followed in other locations across the Asia–Pacific under the ‘EU through the Eyes of Asia’ project (see Chaban and Holland 2007, 35–36). Thus, an established Asia–Pacific survey company, TNS-Global.com, was contracted to administer the fieldwork and collect the data, ensuring a high level of methodological precision. Like other locations in Asia, a public opinion survey comprising 403 Indian citizens was conducted. The sample size was governed by budgetary constraints and gave a ±4.9 per cent degree of accuracy. The sample size was stratified by age (18–64) and gender for the local population.

At the outset of the survey, its participants were asked to mention the countries or regions which they considered to be of utmost importance to India. The respondents considered the United States to be the most important partner of India. They regarded China to be the second most important country. Interestingly, the UK ranked fourth and was perceived to be much more important than the EU, which was ranked a distant sixth.

The majority of the respondents viewed India-EU relations positively: Approximately 58 per cent described the relationship to be improving, while another 33 per cent considered the relationship to be steady. Only a miniscule percentage of the respondents regarded the relationship to be tilting towards the negative side.

The respondents felt that economic issues including trade, business, finance and currency ought to be given the highest priority in dealing with the EU. The elite across all categories stated that economic issues were most important in EU-India relations. The media findings have also reaffirmed the views of the elites, and the findings of the public survey in this context as the coverage in the news outlets overwhelmingly tilted towards economic issues. A distant second was the category ‘Others’—a myriad of subjects including policies related to corruption, the military, discipline in policy-making, human resource development, transport and welfare of the orphaned and aged people. Education and peace were identified as the third most important topic in policy-making towards the EU. Indeed, European educational institutions are a popular choice among Indian students, while maintenance of peace and stability is deemed to be a common cause of concern for India and the EU due to the rising number of terrorist attacks and the constant threat to India’s internal security. However, the ‘Don’t know’ criteria exceeded all other categories, thereby revealing the general public’s lack of awareness about issues that are critical for EU-India relations.

The respondents were also asked to rate the impact that the EU was likely to have upon India on certain issues (on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is considered to be ‘no impact at all’ and 10 is considered to ‘be a huge impact’). The survey found out that among the most impacting EU actions are its actions in the field of economic growth, carbon emissions, human rights and democracy and EU as a donor of development assistance.

The EU was recognised as a development actor only by a modest 10.2 per cent of the respondents. In contrast, the US was perceived to be the most significant developmental actor in India. Assessing what EU initiatives contributed to the image of a capable developmental actor, the overwhelming majority of respondents (83.87 per cent) did not have any clue whatsoever about the activities of the EU as a development actor in the region.

Newspapers were found to be the main source of information about the EU. The print media was closely followed by news broadcasts on television. The Internet was named the third most important source of information about the Union. These findings underline the importance of newspapers for the formation of public opinion. Newspapers exercise a tremendous impact upon the level of awareness of an average Indian about international affairs. Newspapers are the prime source of information about the EU for the elite after the Internet. This reinforces our choice of analysing newspapers to assess how the EU is portrayed in India.

Conclusion

A systematic in-depth analysis of ‘elite’ interviews, public opinion survey and print media content of the three leading dailies presented in this article revealed a considerable information deficit about the EU in India. Indian perceptions of the EU have been and continue to be essentially influenced by the British and American media sources, which arguably impede a more nuanced understanding of the processes and dynamics of European integration, as well as of the intricacies and roles of EU institutions (Jain 2009a, 2009b). The EU circa 2010 suffered from weak visibility and a low profile in India. The EU was found to be under-reported in India. Most of the articles on Europe/EU are informative and descriptive, rather than critical; they tend to record the event rather than analyse it. The coverage of the EU in the three most popular reputable newspapers was both sparse and sparing and often tended to be event-driven. Because of the acute competition for space, the Union always tends to be accorded the lowest or last priority. In most cases, when EU news items do appear, an Indian angle is imperative. There is virtually no interest in the ‘nitty-gritty’ of EU’s internal evolutions, because the Union is perceived as ‘a hive of technicalities, proliferating regulations and as flat as the Brussels landscape’ (Jain and Pandey 2010). Both EU officials (with the exception of Catherine Ashton) as well as EU institutions (with the exception of the European Commission) were hardly noticeable.

The results of the study further confirmed that the image of the European Union in the Indian media remains fragmented and partial. The baggage of images of the EU still persists. The earlier image of the EU as a global economic actor and that economic issues play a decisive role in defining India-EU relations remains deeply anchored in Indian perceptions of the EU. It was the United States, not the EU, which was considered in India to be the most important international actor. The EU is neither perceived as a major factor of consequence in South Asia nor is it considered critical to the security and economic discourses within the region. Newspaper reports generally portrayed the EU as a minor actor and its role was generally categorised in neutral terms. The Union is recognised as an emerging power. India-EU scientific and technological collaboration was largely ignored, even though the two sides are cooperating in a growing number of prestigious projects. The negative connotations attached to the relationship were minimal.

A much more startling finding was that the Commission Delegation and its officials find virtually no mention in newspapers and all political and business elite were clueless about the Delegation and its activities when asked about the degree of familiarity with the Delegation and its role and functions.

For the EU, ‘ignorance or partial awareness of how Asian societies recognize (or do not) the Union may potentially affect the quality of its foreign policy-making’ in the region (Chaban 2009, 214). Since perceptions do matter in cementing or retarding ties, EU policy-makers must address this concern more effectively if they seek to become a player of greater consequence in Asia. Several recommendations can be made:

Launch a research project: Since existing communication strategies have not been very successful in enhancing the profile of the EU in India, the EU should launch a research project, as envisaged in its 2004 Communication, ‘to identify target audiences, key messages, main instruments, and how best to deploy them’ (European Commission 2004a, 10). The project could suggest more imaginative ways to market, package and disseminate information about the EU.

Strengthen the Press and Information section of the EC Delegation in New Delhi, which has been overstretched and short-staffed, by an increase in local professional staff. This would serve a number of purposes: given the size and diversity of the country, it would facilitate the adoption of a more focused and nuanced strategy beyond the leading English-language newspapers; enable continuous liaison and follow-up with journalists, etc. A special effort needs to be made to cultivate media at the second level, that is, not merely mainstream dailies like the Times of India, but newspapers like The Asian Age, Business Standard and The Telegraph. The EU has generally tended to focus on English-language dailies which are read by the elites with the result that Hindi and vernacular language dailies have been largely ignored. One needs to explore possibilities of preparing and circulating news items on the EU in Hindi and key regional languages (as in Bangladesh). Ready-made stories have a better chance of publication than bland press releases. But the challenge is to find a balance between EC constraints and needs of the Indian media.

Establish the requisite systems within the EC Delegation to facilitate a more efficient and effective information policy: While there have been some welcome improvements recently (for example, flyers on the EU in Hindi), information efforts have too often suffered from the lack of leadership from the Head of Delegation, whose enthusiasm levels have usually determined the pace, scope and degree of engagement with the media and not the lack of funds, which have never been fully spent.

Revive media seminars for journalists from the print and electronic media: Launched in 2001 and discontinued in 2009, these media seminars were a pioneering, innovative programme and unparalleled in the Asia–Pacific. While gains from such events cannot exactly be quantified in terms of whether they generated more news items on the EU, they contribute significantly in overcoming the information deficit among journalists who are multipliers in raising awareness about the EU.

This article clearly indicates that there is a communication gap in how the EU communicates and explains itself to a major Asian country. There is undoubtedly a visibility issue to address. There is also a big gap between self-perceptions of the European reality and how ‘Outsiders’ perceive it. A conscious effort must be made to overcome perceptional differences. It is essential to explore innovative ways of how the EU can better target and synergise its media, communication and public diplomacy strategies with strategic partners like India in order to enhance its visibility and overcome stereotypes and misperceptions. This is a task which the Union has to do by itself; it cannot expect that others would do it on its behalf.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Arora

(2009). ‘Cultures of governance in plurilateral civilisations’, in Arora

de Souza

P.R.

Liberatore

(Eds), Culture of governance and conflict resolution: A Euro–India workshop (pp. 31–33). Brussels: European Commission.

Baru

(2009). The influence of business and media on Indian foreign policy. India Review, 8(3), July–September, 266–285.

Cameron

Berkofsky

Bhandari

Halley

(Eds). (2005, 9 June). EU-India relations (including EU-India journalists’ conference report, 30–31 (EPC Issue Paper No. 35). Brussels: European Policy Centre.

Chaban

(2009). ‘“Soft power” and a “human face”: Images of the EU as a social, environmental and developmental actor in the Asian media and public discourses’, in Chaban

Holland

Ryan

(Eds), The EU through the eyes of Asia, Volume II, New Cases, New Findings (pp. 159–215). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Chaban

Elgstrom

Holland

(2006). The European Union as others see it. European Foreign Affairs Review, 11(2), 245–262.

Chaban

Holland

(2007). ‘Research methodology’, in Holland

Ryan

Nowak

A.Z.

Chaban

(Eds), The EU through the eyes of Asia: Media, public and elite perceptions in China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Thailand (pp. 245–262). Singapore: Asia Europe Foundation.

Dixit

J.N.

(2001). ‘India and Europe: Perceptions and misperceptions’, in Jain

R. K.

(Ed.), India and Europe in the new millennium (pp. 73–88). New Delhi: Radiant.

European Commission (1994). Communication, Towards a new Asia strategy. COM(94) 314 final, 13 July.

European Commission (1996). Communication, EU-India enhanced partnership. COM(96) 275 final, 26 June.

10.

European Commission (2001a). Communication, Europe and Asia: A strategic framework for enhanced partnership. COM(2001) 469 final, 4 September.

11.

European Commission (2001b). Proceedings of the EU-India think tank seminar, 15–16 October 2001, Text of final proceedings.

12.

European Commission (2004a). Communication, An EU-India Strategic Partnership. COM(2004) 430 final, 16 June.

13.

European Commission (2004b). Commission staff working document, Annexe to the Communication, An EU-India strategic partnership. SEC(2004) 768, 16 June.

14.

Fioramonti

(2007). Different facets of a strategic partnership: How the EU is viewed by political and business elites, civil society and the press in India. European Foreign Affairs Review, 12(3), 349–62.

15.

Fioramonti

Poletti

(2008). Facing the giant: Southern perspectives on the European Union. Third World Quarterly, 29(1), 167–80.

16.

Goddeeris

(2011). EU-India relations. Policy Brief No. 16, May. Leuven: Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies.

17.

Government of India (2010), Registrar of Newspapers for India. Retrieved 31 July 2010, from https://rni.nic.in/

18.

Halbfass

(1988). India and Europe: An essay in understanding. New York: State University of New York.

19.

Holland

Ryan

Nowak

A.Z.

Chaban

(2007). ‘Introduction: The EU through the eyes of Asia’, in Holland

Ryan

Nowak

A.Z.

Chaban

(Eds), The EU through the eyes of Asia: Media, public and elite perceptions in China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Thailand (pp. 23–29). Singapore: Asia Europe Foundation.

20.

India-EU Joint Action Plan (2005, 7 September). Retrieved 16 July 2012, from http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/india/documents/eu_india/021_eu_india_res_6th_summit1_en.pdf

21.

Jain

R.K.

(2007). ‘The pale continent’, in Koerber

Roth

Thelen

(Eds), Culture report: Progress Europe (pp. 38–41). Stuttgart: Institut fuer Auslandsbeziehungen.

22.

Jain

R.K.

(2009a). ‘Engaging the European superpower: India and the European Union’, in Limnell

Jokela

Gaens

(Eds), The role of the European Union in Asia: China and India as strategic partners (pp. 173–188). Aldershot: Ashgate.

23.

Jain

R.K.

(2009b). India and the European Union: Perceptions and policies. Paper presented at the European Studies in Asia (ESiA) Network Public Panel, ‘EU–Asian Relations: Policies and Perceptions of the EU in Malaysia’, Asia–Europe Institute, University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

24.

Jain

R.K.

Pandey

(2010). The European Union in the eyes of India. Asia Europe Journal, 8(2), October, 193–210.

25.

Lisbonne-de Vergeron

(2006). Contemporary Indian views of Europe. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

26.

Lisbonne-de Vergeron

(2011). Chinese and Indian views of Europe since the crisis: New perspectives from the emerging Asian giants. London: Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

27.

Livemint (2009). Top 10 dailies show growth in readership. Retrieved 16 July 2010, from http://www.livemint.com/2009/11/23224235/Top-10-dailies-show-growth-in.html

28.

Mitra

(2006, April). The ‘novelty’ of Europe as seen from the periphery: Indian perception of the ‘new Europe’ in a multi-polar world. Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics (Working Paper No. 28).

29.

Rana

K.S.

(2000). Inside diplomacy. New Delhi: Manas.

30.

Rathore

(2009). Top 10 dailies show growth in readership. Livemint and The Wall Street Journal, 23 November. Retrieved 16 July 2010, from http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/bgeWjwdUXh9SwGQ0Q4Wi7I/Top-10-dailies-show-growth-in-readership.html

31.

Raychaudhuri

(1992). Europe in India’s xenology: The nineteenth century record. Past and Present, 137(November), 156–83.

32.

Sridharan

(2001). ‘Regional perceptions of India’, in Grare

Matto

(Eds), India and ASEAN: The politics of India’s look east policy (pp. 67–90). New Delhi: Manohar.

33.

Subrahmanyam

(1988). ‘Defence policy and analysis: A trend report’, in Indian Council of Social Science Research, A survey of research in political science, Volume 5: International studies (pp. 245–293). New Delhi: Allied Publishers.

34.

Subrahmanyam

(2005). Taking stock of the Franks: South Asian views of Europeans and Europe, 1500–1800. Indian Economic Social History Review, 42(1), 69–100.

35.

Trumbull

(1954). ‘The United States in the Indian press’, in International Press Institute, As others see us, USA, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, India (pp. 69–77). Zurich.

36.

Vaugier-Chatterjee

(2002). Remembrance of things postponed: The image of France in the Indian press since 1989. Paper presented at the Indian Council of Social Science Research-Maison des Sciences de l’Homme seminar on ‘Indo-French Relations in a Changing World’, New Delhi.

37.

Vaugier-Chatterjee

(2006). ‘The image of France in the Indian press since 1989’, in Voll

Beierlein

(Eds), Rising India—Europe’s partner? Foreign and security policy, politics, economics, human rights and social issues, media, civil society and intercultural dimensions (pp. 244–254). New Delhi: Mosiac Books.

38.

Vivekanandan

(2001). ‘The West viewed from India’, in Vivekanandan

Giri

D. K.

(Eds), Contemporary Europe and South Asia (pp. 240–247). New Delhi: Concept Publishing.