• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

THERE is one view which holds that the politicians of this country actually do not want the media to be "stronger" than it is today, which is why the parliamentary standing committee on information and technology does not want FDI to be allowed into the nation's print media in any proportion whatever. The point of view may be nothing more than a figment of the imagination, but if it is not what it essentially means is that the politicians fear that an economically stronger print media will become an even more powerful force for them to contend with, which — in Indian conditions at least — is never a comfortable situation to be in for those who hanker after political power.

But, of course, if the published accounts of the standing committee's report are considered, there is no mention of this very base sentiment, "base" because it deals with the nuts and bolts of "power politics", an area where there is no room for the niceties of "proper behaviour" expected of a republic like India, which has one of the best Constitutions in the world, as a written document.

Briefly, a financially well-off daily or magazine will be less amenable to the pressures exerted by politicians (which, any way, they are free to exert in a democratic society, provided such pressure is exerted within the bounds of the law as distinct from those of propriety), which certainly cannot be a happy thought for those practitioners of the art of politics who, because of the force of circumstance, routinely find themselves in a position where they have to take advantage of the unsatisfactory state of the finances of a large part of the national printed media.

The infusion of FDI in whatever quantity will only have the effect of strengthening the printed media economically, making it (certainly theoretically) less dependent on the support of powerful political interests. The fact that it has been known for a long time that some newspapers and journals — purveying news and opinion on current affairs — are close to certain political parties and individual politicians is proof enough of the fact that there is scope for such links to be altered in quality and character in the event of a change in the economic situation of the owners concerned.

The question is: Is such alteration (or scope for such alteration) good for the printed media as a whole and (since the printed media plays such an important part in the life of the country) the nation? If the chances are that the alteration will be towards a more independent streak (which is usually what greater economic strength leads to), there can be no hesitation in backing a move to open up the national printed media to FDI.

Seen against the wider canvas of economic liberalisation, on economic grounds per se, there can be no valid objection to allowing FDI to enter the printed media sphere. But, as the world knows, the Press is different from industry generally in the same way that the Defence sphere is looked on differently. Both relate to national security (in the case of the Press in the broadest sense of the term), and it can be no one's case that "economic liberalisation" should be permitted in these areas when it is demonstrably proven that such investment will lead to a weakening of that security. Here the important question is: Is there any scope that FDI in the printed media will go against national interests?

Arguing its case, the parliamentary standing committee has said (as reported): "The argument advanced by those who supported the entry of foreign media or foreign investment in the print media is that since the foreign entry into the electronic media has been permitted, there is little sense in insulating the print media against foreign entry.

According to them, the hold of the electronic media on the public mind is far greater than that of the print media. On the other hand, those who are opposed to foreign investment argue that the influence of the print media on the public mind is far greater than that of the electronic media, and the entry of foreign media companies in whatever form will ultimately succeed in manipulating the minds of the people and destroying our culture".

The considered stand of the committee (as reported) on the issue is that it "felt that a foreign investor, even with a minority shareholding, could gain effective control of management and the editorial board of the newspaper through shareholders agreement or loan agreement". Further, the committee was of the view that "a foreign investor who comes forward in the Indian newspaper industry would do so not merely for returns but `because of the tempting prospect of gaining enormous clout in the socio-political life of this country".

An important offshoot of this would be the great potential foreign owners would enjoy "of `polluting' the cultural life of the country and altering the `basic orientation' of the Indian mind in the long run". On the contrary, the committee reportedly emphasised the need to "ensure healthy growth of the sector, taking care of the information needs of society while protecting the essentially cultural traditions of the country and its ethos".

These are all very easily acceptable tenets of a national media policy, generally speaking. But when applied to the specific case of whether to allow FDI in the national printed media, the effort smacks of two basic infirmities that do not speak well of those who are involved in policy-making (say, MPs) in the general sense of the term.

First, the argument relating to the "pollution" of the nation's cultural life and alteration of the "basic orientation" of "the Indian mind in the long run" should be applied equally to both the visual and print media. If FDI in TV is thought to be safe, there is simply no reason to single out the print media (where the impact is less direct) as the greater potential culprit and, on that basis, prevent FDI in it.

Second, if having a financially strong print media means serving the national interest better, it passes comprehension why proper legal instruments cannot be drawn up to control the unacceptable tendencies of FDI-fed print media. Or are the recommendations of the standing committee some sort of confession, albeit implied, that even the best of Indian laws cannot be implemented effectively because of inherent weaknesses in Indian governance and administration?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section
Unfair claims

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line