Time was when a product ? a pen, a watch or an electrical gadget ? marked ?Made in Japan? meant it was shoddy, came apart in a very short time or just stopped doing whatever it was meant to do. In fact, the word japani passed into the lingua franca of the country, meaning not the real thing, an imitation, something that was second-rate. Many years ago, a member of a tribe commonly found in the corridors of power in Delhi ? the suave, articulate carpetbaggers who flatter and fawn to get something they want ? accosted me soon after I had been appointed a secretary to the government of India and anointed me with flowery phrases of congratulation. Many did that at the time, but this creature added very slyly that what was a matter of great joy to the world was that I had become a real secretary. ?Some have been made special secretaries,? he said with a knowing smile, ?Those are the japani secretaries. But you ? you?re an asli secretary. Bahut khushi ki baat hai.?

Japani, that is, products made in Japan, were by then anything but shoddy and second-rate. They were among the most sought-after in the world. The finest cameras, watches, cars, electronic goods of all kinds, and hosts of other products were for the most part Japanese. But the word, japani, was obviously still current, shorn of its etymological attributes. In fact, the man?s using it was ironic, although he himself was obviously totally unaware of it ? it was a comment on where Japan had started and where it had arrived.

That, oddly ? or perhaps not so oddly ? is what often comes to mind when one picks up something marked ?Made in India?. So many decades have passed and we still get, in far too many cases, that feeling of depression when we see that label on a product. It has, over the years, sadly come to mean something less than the best, something second- rate. Locks that don?t lock, or which lock with difficulty and then stop working; toys that are a positive danger to children, electrical equipment that collapse after a few days, bulbs that fuse within weeks. And that?s just a random few; the range of toiletries, food items and other products is much, much larger.

One isn?t saying that everything made here is shoddy, certainly not. There are many products that are as good as any one can get anywhere in the world. Amul dairy products, for example. When Amul butter came into the market people were wary, even suspicious, till they tried it and found that, unbelievably, it was as good as the best. All right, it wasn?t as yellow, it wasn?t as deliciously salty; but I think everyone realized soon enough that the yellow was colouring and the extra salt was unnecessary and unhealthy. The revolution that Amul ushered in is history. Today there is a plethora of dairy products that are as good, as there are other products that are of excellent quality. And what Amul did to dairy products Maruti Suzuki did some years later to cars, as the old Ambassador and Fiat gave way to the spanking new Maruti 800

And there is the wonderful story of the development of our own space rockets, from hand-me-downs, given by indulgent first-world countries, to giant rockets, made entirely in India, that are taking international payloads into space. Even in the more humble world of domestic goods, there are products that are very much better than those made some decades ago, and which carry the stamp ?Made in India? with pride, knowing that they can hold their own with similar products made around the world.

But that said, the sad fact is that there are still far too many products made here that are shoddy and unreliable. And it isn?t only products. It?s the workmanship that goes into, say, a building or electrical system. In far too many cases the finishing is perfunctorily done, and needs to be done all over again to be reasonably good. Power and water systems develop faults that can be, and often are, dangerous, because those putting them together simply don?t take the care one would expect of a skilled worker.

These instances apart, there are others even more outrageous. Those of us who have had the misfortune of following a municipal garbage van on its way to the refuse dump, will know how these decrepit vehicles, that seem to be held together by strings and the mercy of providence, sway through the streets, depositing generous amounts of refuse along the way. It?s almost as if they do it as a macho act; rather like swaggering into a saloon, guns slung low on the hip.

One can differentiate between the kinds of shoddiness one encounters in day-to-day life. There?s the shoddiness of products that is the result of inadequate money spent on their making, or in a lack of expert knowledge on how to make them better; that, one hopes, will change as times change. But there?s the other kind, the result of mental flabbiness. When systems are put together or are managed badly, it?s not that the ones managing or supervising the systems, or indeed doing the hands-on work, don?t know any better. They do. But they won?t do it any other way.

This is what ought to be a matter of concern to those who are responsible for such systems. As for one of the examples cited ? construction ? there are some engineering and construction companies that give their customers excellent work, and are justifiably proud of their record of such work. The motivation is, obviously, the larger amounts of money they make, but excellence has always been expensive. The trouble with public service is that it is not only expensive, but it is also hopelessly inefficient. This is as true of garbage removal as it is of other services like roads and water supply. Not just in cities, but in the states as a whole.

One part of the problem is the management structures, which have not really changed very greatly from colonial times. The other part has to do with that nebulous concept ? in the public realm ? of human resource management. Simply put, no one, literally no one, feels that he has a personal commitment to his work in a municipality, or any other public body. That is, to his work in a larger sense, as a part of the larger objective that he and his colleagues are working for together. To the best of one?s knowledge, nobody has paid sustained attention to personalizing a system, making each individual feel that someone values his work because it is being done by him, and not by just a man sitting at a desk. Had this happened, a good many ills in our public services may have been greatly reduced.

It is this that induces the mental flabbiness that grows within many, far too many, of us: the inability to personalize systems. If it can be replaced by an interest in individual workers as persons, who can be persuaded not to compromise on quality, then it will help make those three words ?Made in India? mean the best, be it a product or a service. It worked for the Japanese; there is no reason why it won?t work for us.