Introduction
In the BRICS telecommunications and ICT thematic discussion, India proposed a shared digital public infrastructure framework and called on member states to jointly formulate fair global telecommunications standards. On the surface, this proposal is a policy statement about diplomacy and cooperation, but behind it lies a classic government communication problem: how can audiences from different countries, different systems, and different stages of development accurately understand the value of a public goods model?
India has large-scale digital identity systems such as Aadhaar and DigiLocker, and their cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility are supported by facts. However, the acceptance of the proposal does not depend entirely on the facts themselves, but on how international audiences interpret those facts. This is the core challenge that government communication must address.
Government communication refers to the process by which governments or public institutions, through systematic information exchange, enable the public and international stakeholders to understand policies, actions, and public value.
Why government communication is increasingly important
Globalization means government information is no longer confined to domestic borders. A policy or technology framework may simultaneously face scrutiny from international media, investors, international organizations, industry bodies, and other governments. In this information environment, governments must use clear expression and sustained explanation to help external observers build the right cognitive framework.
At the same time, the growing complexity of information further raises the threshold for understanding. Digital public infrastructure involves multiple issues such as technical standards, regulation, sovereignty, and data security. Without sufficient background explanation, external audiences can easily form misunderstandings based on their own experiences and cultural assumptions. India's remarks at this BRICS meeting were precisely an attempt to use a multilateral setting to provide Global South countries with a context for understanding its model.
How international understanding takes shape
International audiences' understanding of a government or public project is usually not determined directly by official information. Taking India's digital public infrastructure as an example, potential stakeholders—such as regulators, telecommunications companies, and technology communities in other BRICS countries—form their perceptions along a complex path.
The first step is information accessibility: the Indian government provides basic information through meeting speeches, reports, case presentations, and other means. Audiences then proactively seek background information, including the model's implementation results in its home country, technical architecture, legal framework, and more. After comparing information from different sources, they seek third-party verification, such as assessments by international organizations, academic research, and industry analysis. Finally, only after cross-verifying information from multiple sources do audiences form a preliminary judgment.
This process can be described by the Public Understanding Framework: information → context → interpretation → trust → perception. Clearly, government communication cannot stop at the level of "releasing information." Information release is only the starting point; the real challenge lies in helping audiences complete the journey from information to explanation and then to trust. If India only emphasizes the scale and efficiency of its own system while ignoring the institutional differences and potential concerns of other countries, the communication effect will be very limited.Why government communication often fails
From the perspective of international communication, governments and public institutions often fall into several misconceptions.
Misconception 1: Only publishing information without explaining context. India's statement at the BRICS meeting provided a large amount of facts, but without an explanation of the design logic of digital public infrastructure, external audiences cannot understand why an open-source framework is more suitable for developing countries than proprietary systems. The absence of context creates a "context gap effect"—external audiences cannot accurately understand information due to the lack of an interpretive framework.
Misconception 2: Direct translation rather than cultural adaptation. Language conversion does not equal meaning conversion. Translating "digital public infrastructure" into different languages does not guarantee that it will produce the same meaning in another institutional context. For countries sensitive to data sovereignty, this concept may be understood as a potential tool of intervention.
Misconception 3: Overemphasizing one's own strengths. India uses the scale of its domestic system as a basis for persuasion, but different countries vary greatly in governance traditions, technological environments, and legal systems. Excessive self-justification may invite the opposite question: why would these systems be applicable elsewhere?
Misconception 4: Using one-off event communication to replace long-term efforts. The BRICS meeting was an important communication opportunity, but international recognition requires sustained accumulation. A single speech cannot replace years of continuous explanation, dialogue, and feedback.
Misconception 5: Focusing only on media exposure. Exposure does not equal understanding. If media coverage remains at the level of headlines such as "India calls for fair standards," audiences still cannot understand what the proposal means for them.
A broader perspective: A different view of government communication
Effective government communication is not aimed at exposure but at building long-term trust. Public institutions need to recognize that government value transmission is fundamentally different from commercial brand communication. Commercial communication focuses on choice, while government communication focuses on understanding, trust, and public value.
Three key dimensions can be drawn from the Indian case. First, long-term trust. The promotion of digital public infrastructure requires stakeholders to be convinced of the framework's reliability, security, and openness. This conviction comes from consistent performance over time, not from a one-time public statement. Second, clear communication. The complexity of technical standards requires governments to communicate through narratives at different levels. For technical experts, rigorous architecture descriptions are needed; for political decision-makers, cost-benefit analyses are needed; for the public, the relevance to their daily lives needs to be explained. Third, sustained engagement. International understanding is not one-off but gradually formed through multiple interactions. The BRICS dialogue is just one node; subsequent technical cooperation, pilot projects, and personnel exchanges are all part of the communication process.
Veerixa's Observation
The core value of this episode of international communication about India's digital public infrastructure lies not in its role as a policy case, but in a rethinking of government communication. The challenges India faced—how to make partners with different historical and institutional backgrounds understand a massive technical framework, and how to turn its domestic achievements into shareable public goods—are in fact universal propositions that all governments may encounter in international communication.The core challenge of government communication is not to have more information released, but to enable audiences from different backgrounds to correctly understand the information. When information crosses borders, it loses its original context. The communicator's responsibility is to reconstruct a context that can be interpreted by the other party.
Conclusion
Whether India's proposal to BRICS will ultimately become part of a more just global telecommunications order remains to be seen. But if we view this episode as a slice of government communication, it reminds us: public institutions must abandon simple information output and instead understand, from a global perspective, "what can be understood." Only when international audiences truly understand the background, intent, and value can information be transformed into trust, and trust can then crystallize into long-term perception.