Leela Samson, chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification or    CBFC, resigned last week. She cited governmental interference    and the inability to make changes without any funds being    released. Twelve members followed her. Soon, a war of words    ensued with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting    (I&B), under which CBFC falls.    On Monday, the ministry appointed film-maker Pahlaj Nihalani as chairman. Besides films    such as Aankhen (1993) and Shola Aur Shabnam    (1992), Nihalani has made a six-minute video campaign for Prime    Minister Narendra Modi. Nine more members, reportedly    sympathetic to the current government's right-wing ideology,    have been appointed. The tussle between the liberals and others    has been played out in the media, extensively.  
    This drama seems pointless. When has any government - whether    it is led by the Congress    or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) - ever believed in letting    any "body" operating in media and entertainment be? There is a    fig leaf of autonomy bestowed through some act, but essentially    every government, since independence, has been loath to give up    control over anything to do with media. That also explains why    the I&B ministry continues to be the policymaker, regulator    and one of the biggest advertisers on media, all rolled in one.    This creates a conflict of interest that doesn't exist in most    free markets in the world.  
    Take Prasar Bharati, the "autonomous body" that runs Doordarshan and All India Radio. It is not allowed    to hire people or fire them and it cannot leverage its    considerable assets to raise money without the approval of the    I&B ministry. In fact, it does not even own its assets,    including 1,400 transmission towers, spectrum and real estate,    because no government ever formally transferred them to the    corporation after enacting the legislation to create it in    1997. It remains abjectly dependent on government dole - either    as budgetary support or advertising.  
    A quick read through the Sam Pitroda Committee's 2014 report on    Prasar Bharati, the fourth in a decade, will tell you that and    more. Every government, irrespective of the party in power, has    treated Doordarshan as an in-house mouthpiece meant to be    controlled. They have studiously ignored all talk of financial    and administrative autonomy.  
    In the early part of 2014, there was a ruckus over the alleged    selective editing of an interview of BJP's then prime    ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi. He referred to    Doordarshan's struggle to maintain its freedom. The (then)    I&B minister, Manish Tewari, retorted that the government    keeps an arm's length distance from Doordarshan. But most    politicians forget their worry about the "freedom of    Doordarshan" once they are in power. The result of successive    governments ignoring, abusing or suppressing the power of    Prasar    Bharati has made it the pathetic body it is today.    Doordarshan has the same not-for-profit funding model as BBC or    an Al Jazeera, but it is nowhere close to them in quality or    reach.  
    Then there is the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai),    the broadcast carriage regulator. While it has brought a lot of    order to the chaos in the Indian television industry, it is    clearly not as independent as the Act that created it would    suggest. Almost every sensible paper or recommendation that    Trai has/has made, is either ignored or put    on the back burner. Digitisation, which could make India's    television industry a force to reckon with globally, began very    well in 2011. And Trai did a good job getting it going despite    the madness that typifies India's on-ground TV distribution.    But its deadline has been pushed back by the ministry largely    because local cable operators, many of whom are politically    affiliated, lobbied against it. That puts at least several    millions of dollars worth of investment on hold. Not to mention    the two billion-odd dollars that could be released as fully    white, taxable pay revenue, if digitisation goes through    completely.  
    CBFC is a statutory body under the I&B ministry to regulate    the public exhibition of films under the provisions of the    Cinematograph Act of 1952. The ministry, therefore, has the    right to hire and fire people within. And most governments have    used that power. Why then this lip service to "autonomy"?  
    It is time governments gave up on that fig leaf and admitted    that they like controlling the media and other creative    industries. At least then industry will know where it stands.  
        Twitter: @vanitakohlik  
See the original post here:
Vanita Kohli-Khandekar: The fig leaf of autonomy