news details |
|
|
| Whither Indian broadcasting? | | Need to free it from ministerial clutches | |
WELL over a year ago, the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting constituted a committee to draft a “Content Code” for television programmes to be aired in India. This group was allotted three months to complete its task. Earlier this year, its recommendation was circulated to the stake holders. Amazingly, it only took into account free-to-air television and overlooked the key aspect of conditional access TV, with parental lock and pin code control. More frustratingly, no code is yet to be notified.
Meanwhile, the Mumbai High Court passed a judgement banning adult feature films on the airwaves in response to a public interest application. At the time of the interim verdict in this case, the central government had indicated to the honourable court that a Content Code was imminent. Yet, even after several months, the Centre failed to produce this, thus making the drastic decree inevitable.
The industrialised world, which watches India rather inquisitively these days, reacts with horror and hilarity at such developments. It finds it obnoxious that in the 21st century the Maharashtra police has nothing better to do than undertake raids on cable operators, sealing their decoders and even arresting some of them. It wonders if India is free of serious crimes, of terrorism.
As a consequence of the judicial order, the whole of India, particularly the intellectual and intelligent Indian, is being held to ransom because of the whims of a puritanical petitioner.
It goes without saying that authorities must protect children. At the same time, they must not deny liberty of access to its mature citizens. The issue is not whether a grown up person should watch adult programmes, but that he or she must enjoy the freedom to do so. It is also not for a government to pontificate on eroticism (not to be confused with pornography) or explicitness, when technology can impose conditional access to such viewing, with additional safeguards like parental lock and pin code control.
Any programme available on such basis is, arguably, not in the public domain. As the Israeli Supreme Court famously concluded, a citizen cannot be censored in the privacy of his home.
The Kama Sutra is prominently displayed and briskly sold. India’s Tourism Ministry spares no effort to internally and internationally trumpet the erotic sculptures of Khajuraho and Konarak. In any case, the Internet, now, makes a mockery of censoring television. Is it feasible for governments to be moral policemen to a billion people? Is this desirable in a democracy? Is it not an utter waste of law enforcement time and money to even attempt it?
Prohibition never works; it only triggers illicit trade. Realistic regulation will ensure that adult content is either transmitted after a watershed hour or on conditional access terms.
Introduction of conditional access on cable was announced in 2003, but is yet to be officially implemented, except half-heartedly in Chennai. In fact, it’s only after the Delhi High Court ordered the MIB to redeem its pledge that the latter has authorised this from January 1 next in parts of Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata. Addressable systems, for one, will deter corrupt cable operators from under-declaring subscribers.
A fresh Broadcast Bill, which was withdrawn from the monsoon proceedings of Parliament, and, according to Mr Priya Ranjan Das Munsi, Minister of Information and Broadcasting, may not be introduced until the budget session, has a laudable intent - the setting up of a regulatory authority. But broadcasting is a specialisation; and needs to be de-linked from the clutches of ministers, MPs and bureaucrats. Mobile phones and private airlines arrived in India after multiple channel TV; yet they have galloped past broadcasting, with world class structures and services.
The language of the proposed Bill is, sadly, authoritarian, clumsy and convoluted and at odds with a much-needed enlightened approach to the information order. Contentiously, there is no definition of what is “obscene and vulgar” as stated in clause 4.(2)(a) of the draft. One person’s obscenity could well be another person’s art! Besides, eroticism should not be confused with either obscenity or vulgarity.
Mandatory sharing of coverage of “national and international” sports with Doordarshan (DD) and All India Radio (AIR) would be tantamount to a restraint on a rights holder’s ability to recover its investment. The corresponding organisation in Britain, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), often a role model for public service broadcasters, has never adopted such a policy. It has, in fact, lost prestigious cricket and “live” premiership and Champions League football licences. It retains international soccer, Wimbledon tennis and British Open golf rights by successfully bidding for these. Admittedly, “listed” events are expected to be on terrestrial TV (which includes ITV, Channel Four or Channel Five), but not necessarily on the BBC.
It might be reasonable of the MIB to request a rights holder to “listed events” (which need to be independently categorised) to also broadcast free-to-air or disseminate on DD’s direct-to-home platform. But it would be unethical of DD or AIR to demand any share of revenue, if it has made no investment on acquisition.
Then, the attitude to registration of channels appears to be one of indirect control. Licencing of channels should be on the basis of an applicant’s competence and experience and not on any other consideration, barring matters of national security.
Besides, why, for instance, should AIR continue to enjoy a monopoly over news, current affairs and live sports coverage. Furthermore, the last thing a government should indulge in is to shield corrupt politicians from “sting operations” mounted by the media as long as privacy laws are not violated.
Any new legislation or regulation in the realm of broadcasting should be a landmark leap forward, not a preservation of the status quo, let alone a step backward. Delhi must appreciate that in a true democracy the information order is as much an institution as the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. India will not be taken seriously unless it reforms its broadcasting sector.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
