A political storm erupted after a senior minister publicly criticized a directive allegedly issued by a director at Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), instructing officials to increase revenue by selling non-telecom products such as underwear and hair oil. The directive, described as “shocking” and “misplaced,” has triggered debate about the state-run telecom company’s strategy and leadership priorities.
According to internal communications that surfaced recently, certain regional officials were encouraged to explore unconventional revenue streams, including the sale of everyday consumer goods. While diversification is not unusual for public sector undertakings seeking financial revival, critics argue that the move reflects deeper structural confusion within BSNL.
The minister, reacting sharply to the reports, said that telecom professionals should not be burdened with responsibilities unrelated to their core expertise. “Engineers and technical officers are appointed to strengthen network infrastructure, improve service delivery, and compete in the telecom market—not to run retail counters for unrelated products,” the minister remarked.
BSNL has been facing stiff competition from private telecom giants for years. Declining market share, mounting losses, and delayed technological upgrades have placed enormous pressure on the company to innovate and find alternative income sources. However, the idea of selling personal care items appears to many observers as a sign of desperation rather than strategy.
Industry experts note that diversification can work if aligned with existing infrastructure and brand value. For instance, telecom companies globally have ventured into digital payments, broadband entertainment, and enterprise cloud services. But branching into unrelated fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) requires supply chains, marketing expertise, and retail frameworks that differ vastly from telecom operations.
Employee unions have also expressed concern. Many staff members reportedly felt demoralized by the directive, viewing it as a distraction from urgent operational challenges such as network modernization and customer retention. Some insiders suggested that the instruction may have been exploratory rather than mandatory, but the optics have already caused reputational damage.
Supporters of the director argue that public sector firms must think creatively to survive in a competitive environment. They point out that several government-linked organizations have successfully monetized their brand presence in unconventional ways. Yet, critics counter that any diversification should be carefully researched and piloted—not abruptly assigned to telecom officers.
The controversy has reignited broader discussions about governance in state-run enterprises. Analysts believe the real issue is not the sale of underwear or hair oil per se, but whether leadership decisions are grounded in long-term strategic planning.
As scrutiny intensifies, the ministry is expected to seek clarification from BSNL’s management. Whether this episode results in policy correction or fades as a one-off misstep remains to be seen. For now, the episode stands as a stark reminder of the pressures facing public sector undertakings in a rapidly evolving marketplace.