| |
RIGHT
ANGLE
But
We Are So Different
Globalisation
is good for you but the print media is a class apart
By
Swapan Dasgupta
In
early 1979, when the morarji Desai government was still going great guns,
india today carried an interview with the then minister for steel and
mines Biju Patnaik. The first question posed to him was indicative of
the times: "When are you going to nationalise Tata Steel?" Today,
if the BJD minister holding Biju babu's old portfolio is quizzed by the
media, it is likely the first question will be: "What progress have
you made in the disinvestment of loss-making steel plants?"
 Yes,
the times have changed and the shibboleths of the past have found place
in the dustbins of history. The media too has changed dramatically. Gone
is the crippling newsprint shortage, gone is Doordarshan's monopoly and
gone is all the spurious talk of a Third World newspool to counter the
information stranglehold of the West. Today's Indian media may not be
perfect but is oozing with self-confidence, variety and glamour. In 1980,
Vasant Sathe was mocked for advocating colour TV, today the discussion
is over the modalities of direct-to-home telecasts. From Monghyr to Mumbai,
the market is crying out for more and more. The demands of a billion-strong
market are varied and seemingly insatiable.
Almost every
medium has responded to the imperatives of competition. Well, almost all.
The print media being the dishonourable exception. Despite many attempts
to usher in change, the government has steadfastly refused to review the
1955 cabinet decision to disallow any foreign investment in this sector.
National sovereignty, national security, the national ethos-every emotive
argument has been trotted out to drive home the point that globalisation
in this very special sphere will result in the end of Indian civilisation
as we know it. India, it is said, can withstand the assault of foreign
devils from the airwaves and cyberspace, from CNN, Star TV and BBC, but
come competition in the printed word and it will rip apart at the seams.
It's not
the utter absurdity of the arguments that is galling. What is truly offensive
is the persistent willingness of the Government to pay heed to them. Last
month, Information and Broadcasting Minister Sushma Swaraj floated a trial
balloon about the possibility of the Government reviewing the 1955 cabinet
decision. She called for a national debate. But even before such a debate
could get under way, the organised pressure of the protectionists forced
her to announce that the Government would maintain the status quo. The
jute press was mollified, the Kuldip Nayars placated and the Press Council
chief reassured. Like vocational education, globalisation was decreed
to be good only for the neighbour's children.
It will
be the same story the next time too. So powerful are the forces in favour
of limiting choice and competition and so awesome is their political reach
that the print media is always going to be treated as the great exception.
Governments will always be coerced into following the line of least resistance.
Today it is the print media, tomorrow it will be Maruti and the day after
it will be a bleeding public-sector unit. The same arguments, about the
endangered honour of India, will be proffered. The Government won't pay
any heed. Maruti will be disinvested and the ailing PSU privatised. But
the 1955 cabinet resolution will remain. Unless, of course, the consumers
themselves begin to question the logic of exemption. If rational arguments
and fairness are to prevail, the debate will have to be taken out of the
incestuous purview of the presiding deities of the editorial classes.
Top
|
|
Orthodoxy in economic thought is as odious as obscurantism in the socio-religious context. INDIA TODAY Associate Editor, V Shankar Aiyar, offers a contrarian take on the stock markets and the cause and the impact of policy and practice. 
