Opinion

Shrewd move: India’s surgical strikes delivered the right messages to multiple audiences at once

India seems to be making progress in identifying and implementing strategies that will more effectively pre-empt and deter terrorism over the long run.

For the moment at least, India’s decision to launch “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control seems to have passed the Goldilocks test: neither too hot nor too cool, too hard nor too soft, too large nor too small. It was just right. The strikes plugged a big hole in India’s policy repertoire and simultaneously delivered the right messages to multiple audiences at once. Rarely has New Delhi managed such a shrewd response to terrorist provocation.

Facing political and strategic compulsions to respond to the Uri attack with force, Prime Minister Narendra Modi correctly judged that business-as-usual policies (such as cross-border artillery fire and diplomatic gestures) were unlikely to convince his Indian constituents that he was truly a tougher leader than his predecessor. Although some of Modi’s staunchest supporters might still prefer an outright war with Pakistan, surgical strikes – along with the way they were announced to the world – were sufficiently novel and robust to sate domestic appetites.

Unfortunately, managing India’s agenda with Pakistan is even more complicated than its domestic politics. A successful Indian strategy would need to end cross-border (or cross-LoC) terrorism and thereby set the stage for a negotiated path to normalisation. But as George Perkovich and Toby Dalton argue in their perfectly timed new book, Not War, Not Peace? Motivating Pakistan to Prevent Cross-Border Terrorism, to accomplish this end, New Delhi must compel Pakistani generals to shift course, primarily by convincing them that terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba bring more pain than gain. This has proven to be an extremely difficult task, and not just for India. Exhibit A: the United States has failed repeatedly since 2001 to compel Pakistan to turn forcibly against Taliban leaders who took up residence inside Pakistan after their overthrow in Afghanistan.

No one should expect that one round of surgical strikes could tip Rawalpindi into a fundamentally different approach with LeT or similar outfits. Even so, the strikes were smartly designed to hit militants that Pakistani leaders profess not to support, and in a manner that Pakistan’s generals were likely to downplay. In both respects, they resemble recent American strikes against Taliban leaders inside Pakistan, such as the one that killed Taliban chief Mullah Mansoor last May.

The Goldilocks test

Killing terrorists on Pakistani soil reinforces the message that India is not primarily engaged in a post-colonial territorial dispute with its smaller neighbour, as Pakistan would have it, but is determinedly defending itself against violent extremists in a conflict that affords little moral ambiguity. In an ideal world, this message would resonate with Pakistan’s own leaders, given that they are in the midst of a counterinsurgency campaign against groups whose animating ideologies are not, in fact, terribly different from the groups attacking India. So India is right to try to drive a wedge between the Pakistani state and anti-Indian terrorist groups, even if the effort does not yield immediate benefits. A sustained campaign of this sort could conceivably bear fruit over time, at a cost short of all-out war.

India’s surgical strikes also deserve praise for not forcing Pakistan into an immediate escalation of violence. Pakistan has decided to reject India’s version of events, presumably because the alternatives – admitting India’s success and coming up with a suitable military response of its own – were judged even more difficult or risky.

In addition to their other virtues, India’s strikes play exceptionally well in Washington, DC. As compared to the many other military actions New Delhi could have taken, United States officials can hardly criticise preemptive counter-terror missions that bear more than a passing resemblance to America’s own strikes inside Pakistan. Moreover, this episode unfolds just as US sympathies are clearly tipping in India’s favour. American attitudes began to shift after the September 2001 attacks. Whereas past generations of US policymakers viewed South Asia through the lens of the intractable Indo-Pakistani dispute (and Kashmir in particular), now they tend perceive India as a fellow victim of global terrorism. Mumbai was a particular turning point in the development of this narrative which, of course, is reinforced by other strategic, people-to-people, and ideological connections that draw India and the United States closer together day by day.

This is not to suggest that India must bleed at the hands of terrorists to win American affection. To the contrary, it is India’s unreserved commitment to fighting terrorism that opens the door to closer US-India security cooperation, including sales and co-production of sensitive military technologies of the sort the United States now shares with close democratic partners like Israel.

Looking to the future, India should take care not to surrender the moral high ground that it enjoys in Washington with respect to Pakistan. Surgical strikes against terrorists are smart in a way that veiled threats to foment insurgency in Balochistan are not. As Perkovich and Dalton correctly point out, it is not in India’s interest to have people think it is engaged in the same sort of ugly proxy war games as Pakistan.

Ultimately, policymakers in New Delhi must appreciate that the utility of surgical strikes – or any similar approach – will be judged by whether they begin to reshape the cross-border security dynamic in India’s favour. Although it is possible that we will remember these strikes as a single-shot tactic or even as the precursor to a new round of devastating violence, their initial successes offer encouraging reasons to hope that India is making progress in identifying and implementing strategies that will more effectively pre-empt and deter terrorism over the long run.

Daniel Markey is Senior Research Professor in International Relations and Academic Director of the Global Policy Program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. He is the author of No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Islamabad.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Putting the patient first - insights for hospitals to meet customer service expectations

These emerging solutions are a fine balance between technology and the human touch.

As customers become more vocal and assertive of their needs, their expectations are changing across industries. Consequently, customer service has gone from being a hygiene factor to actively influencing the customer’s choice of product or service. This trend is also being seen in the healthcare segment. Today good healthcare service is no longer defined by just qualified doctors and the quality of medical treatment offered. The overall ambience, convenience, hospitality and the warmth and friendliness of staff is becoming a crucial way for hospitals to differentiate themselves.

A study by the Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions in fact indicates that good patient experience is also excellent from a profitability point of view. The study, conducted in the US, analyzed the impact of hospital ratings by patients on overall margins and return on assets. It revealed that hospitals with high patient-reported experience scores have higher profitability. For instance, hospitals with ‘excellent’ consumer assessment scores between 2008 and 2014 had a net margin of 4.7 percent, on average, as compared to just 1.8 percent for hospitals with ‘low’ scores.

This clearly indicates that good customer service in hospitals boosts loyalty and goodwill as well as financial performance. Many healthcare service providers are thus putting their efforts behind: understanding constantly evolving customer expectations, solving long-standing problems in hospital management (such as long check-out times) and proactively offering a better experience by leveraging technology and human interface.

The evolving patient

Healthcare service customers, who comprise both the patient and his or her family and friends, are more exposed today to high standards of service across industries. As a result, hospitals are putting patient care right on top of their priorities. An example of this in action can be seen in the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. In July 2015, the hospital launched a ‘Smart OPD’ system — an integrated mobile health system under which the entire medical ecosystem of the hospital was brought together on a digital app. Patients could use the app to book/reschedule doctor’s appointments and doctors could use it to access a patient’s medical history, write prescriptions and schedule appointments. To further aid the process, IT assistants were provided to help those uncomfortable with technology.

The need for such initiatives and the evolving nature of patient care were among the central themes of the recently concluded Abbott Hospital Leadership Summit. The speakers included pundits from marketing and customer relations along with leaders in the healthcare space.

Among them was the illustrious speaker Larry Hochman, a globally recognised name in customer service. According to Mr. Hochman, who has worked with British Airways and Air Miles, patients are rapidly evolving from passive recipients of treatment to active consumers who are evaluating their overall experience with a hospital on social media and creating a ‘word-of-mouth’ economy. He talks about this in the video below.

Play

As the video says, with social media and other public platforms being available today to share experiences, hospitals need to ensure that every customer walks away with a good experience.

The promise gap

In his address, Mr. Hochman also spoke at length about the ‘promise gap’ — the difference between what a company promises to deliver and what it actually delivers. In the video given below, he explains the concept in detail. As the gap grows wider, the potential for customer dissatisfaction increases.

Play

So how do hospitals differentiate themselves with this evolved set of customers? How do they ensure that the promise gap remains small? “You can create a unique value only through relationships, because that is something that is not manufactured. It is about people, it’s a human thing,” says Mr. Hochman in the video below.

Play

As Mr. Hochman and others in the discussion panel point out, the key to delivering a good customer experience is to instil a culture of empathy and hospitality across the organisation. Whether it is small things like smiling at patients, educating them at every step about their illness or listening to them to understand their fears, every action needs to be geared towards making the customer feel that they made the correct decision by getting treated at that hospital. This is also why, Dr. Nandkumar Jairam, Chairman and Group Medical Director, Columbia Asia, talked about the need for hospitals to train and hire people with soft skills and qualities such as empathy and the ability to listen.

Striking the balance

Bridging the promise gap also involves a balance between technology and the human touch. Dr. Robert Pearl, Executive Director and CEO of The Permanente Medical Group, who also spoke at the event, wrote about the example of Dr. Devi Shetty’s Narayana Health Hospitals. He writes that their team of surgeons typically performs about 900 procedures a month which is equivalent to what most U.S. university hospitals do in a year. The hospitals employ cutting edge technology and other simple innovations to improve efficiency and patient care.

The insights gained from Narayana’s model show that while technology increases efficiency of processes, what really makes a difference to customers are the human touch-points. As Mr. Hochman says, “Human touch points matter more because there are less and less of them today and are therefore crucial to the whole customer experience.”

Play

By putting customers at the core of their thinking, many hospitals have been able to apply innovative solutions to solve age old problems. For example, Max Healthcare, introduced paramedics on motorcycles to circumvent heavy traffic and respond faster to critical emergencies. While ambulances reach 30 minutes after a call, the motorcycles reach in just 17 minutes. In the first three months, two lives were saved because of this customer-centric innovation.

Hospitals are also looking at data and consumer research to identify consumer pain points. Rajit Mehta, the MD and CEO of Max Healthcare Institute, who was a panelist at the summit, spoke of the importance of data to understand patient needs. His organisation used consumer research to identify three critical areas that needed work - discharge and admission processes for IPD patients and wait-time for OPD patients. To improve wait-time, they incentivised people to book appointments online. They also installed digital kiosks where customers could punch in their details to get an appointment quickly.

These were just some of the insights on healthcare management gleaned from the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott. In over 150 countries, Abbott is working with hospitals and healthcare professionals to improve the quality of health services.

To read more content on best practices for hospital leaders, visit Abbott’s Bringing Health to Life portal here.

This article was produced on behalf of Abbott by the Scroll.in marketing team and not by the Scroll.in editorial staff.