CHAPTER - V

National M edia P o licy— Evolutiono f the Broadcast B ill

59

(1) The Central Government shall have the authority to prescribe such eligibility

conditions and restrictions with regard to accumulation o f interest at national,

state or local level in the broadcast segments o f the media by the print or other

media as may be considered necessary from time to time, to prevent monopolies

across different segments o f the media as well as within the broadcast segments,

to ensure plurality and diversity o f news and views.

(2) No content broadcasting service provider together with its interconnected

undertakings shall have more than the prescribed share o f paid up equity or have

any other financing or commercial arrangement that may give it management

control over the financial, management or editorial policies o f any broadcasting

network service provider. Provided that this condition will not be applicable in

cases where a content broadcasting service provider requires a teleport or such

other infrastructure fo r captive use to make its content available to other

broadcasting network service providers.

(3) No broadcasting network service provider together with its interconnected

undertakings shall have more than the prescribed share o f paid up equity or have

any other financing or commercial arrangement that may give it management

control over the financial, management or editorial policies o f any content

broadcasting service provider.

(4) No content broadcasting service provider together with its interconnected

undertakings shall have more than the prescribed share o f the total number o f

Restrictions on accumulation o f interest:

60

channels in a city or a state subject to a prescribed overall ceiling fo r the whole

country.

(5) The restrictions as required under subsections (1) to (4) above shall be laid

down by the Central Government in consultation with the Authority, on the basis

o f a review to be conducted every 3 years by the Authority.

Provided that till such a review is done by the Authority and restrictions revised

by the Government the prescribed share under subsection(2) and (3) shall be

taken as 20% and the overall ceiling on the total number o f channels under

subsection(4) as 15%.

Provided further that in a subsequent review the Central Government shall not

reduce the prescribed share to a level below that prescribed under firs t proviso.

Provided further that any broadcasting service provider, in breach o f the

restrictions as provided under the first proviso o f this subsection, shall submit his

compliance plan to the Government within two months and shall come into

compliance within one year o f the coming into force o f this Act.

(Section 12, Part II o f the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2007 on Cross

Media Ownership)

After going through the laws regulating media ownership in a majority of

countries in the world, one way or the other, it is quite logical to have a look at the

Indian Media laws or Media policy, to be specific, as being practiced on date. But

do we have a media policy at all? The answer is no. There is no specific and

comprehensive national media policy in vogue in the country since its birth some

six decades ago. There are some guidelines and codes in case o f television and

61

cable, a cabinet decision (now almost reversed) in case o f foreign investment in

media, a censor board o f film certification (known much for generating

controversies than regulating content) for cinema and a Government nominated

Press Council o f India which also has not been able to register its presence.

This situation even led the judiciary to intervene in 1995 in Cricket

Association o f Bengal vs Union o f India case followed by a Supreme Court

observation and the Delhi High Court seeking an assurance from the Government

on the subject. But even after the passage o f 20 year that pro-active piece of

legislation on media is still awaited.

But does the situation warrant any laws or it was so sudden that the need

for a law was felt now?

During the early years o f independence while broadcasting remained a

state monopoly the press was privately owned. Some concern was expressed even

at that time about ownership o f the press by big business houses. It was felt that

the tendency would be to protect their own business interests first than show

regard for objectivity and balance. In recent years scholars have shown concern

over growing monopolies. Even as the numbers o f newspapers have increased

they are owned by fewer and fewer number o f proprietors leading to increasing

concentration o f media ownership, though with increased circulation, reach and

ad revenue (Karkaria: 2004, Jeffrey: 2001).

In the advertising world too the consolidation among the front-

runner companies has been at its peak (Thomas: 2004). The report o f the

eighth PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Global Entertainment and Media Outlook

6 2

(January 2, 2008) has ranked India as the fastest growing market in the world for

ad spends in entertainment and media in the next five years (Kumari: 2008).

At present there are H industan Thompson Associates (HTA), Mudra

Com munications Ltd., M cCann-Erickson India Ltd, Ogilvy & M ather Ltd.

and Rediffusion -D Y& R, a blend o f local and multinational agencies

working as major players in this Rs. 41, 400 crore industry. The world’s

largest agglomeration, the US $ 40 billion Interpublic Group, plans to

consolidate the buying power o f all its Indian agencies with an integrated

media service unit called Magna Global which will represent the aggregate

media negotiating interests o f Interpublic's Indian entities (FICCI-KPMG:

2015, Kohli: 2005).

Given such developments, it would seem likely, that before too long,

media buying power in India will be in the hands o f two major players,

each sharing a substantial transnational base, along with three smaller

groups (Thomas: 2004).

In this context to argue that the ownership o f Indian media is relativelyV '

diverse seems somewhat untenable. From the 1950s critics constantly argued that

Indian newspapers were largely controlled by "monopoly capitalists". In 1954 the

First Press Commission contended that the power o f the holder o f a monopoly to

influence his public in any way he chooses should be regulated and restrained

(Jeffrey: 2001, First Press Commission Report: 1954).

Eleven years later the Inquiry Committee on Small Newspapers urged

“maintaining (the) outcry against the growth o f newspaper chains”. In 1973 the

63

Indian Federation o f Working Journalists decried “the vested interests of tiie

monopoly houses which own the biggest newspapers with the biggest

circulations” (Indian Federation o f Working Journalists (IFWJ): 1974, Jeffrey:

2001).

In the early 1980s veteran journalist Pran Chopra argued that

concentration o f ownership was growing. And a report written for the Second

Press Commission in 1982 advocated public takeover o f the top eight newspaper

establishments to delink the press from the monopoly Houses” (Noorani: 2008,

Jeffrey : 2001, PCI Report: 2001).

Table 04

Share of dail:if circulations of flve leading chains, 1953-93Year 1953 1973 1979 1993% share in daily circs, o f top 5 chains

31 29 31 33

(Sources: Press Commission: 1954, vol. I. p. 309, fo r 1953, IFWJ: 1974, p. 38

fo r 1973, Goyal, Rao: p. 15 fo r 1979, Je ffrey: 2001 fo r 1993.)

The picture o f the Indian press as it emerged from the report o f the First

Press Commission, which was as judiciously worded as a judgment, caused

concem."Of a total o f 330 dailies, five owners controlled 29 newspapers and

31.2% o f the circulation, while 15 owners controlled 54 newspapers and 50.1 %

circulation (PCI Report: 2001).

The early preoccupation o f Indian Governments and politicians with

“monopoly house” control o f newspapers was reflected in the annual reports o f

6 4

the Registrar o f Newspapers in India (RNI). At the start in 1956, “many

publishers...did not disclose effective common ownership,” the then Registrar

had noted. But “on the basis o f further information collected during 1957 ... a

large number o f groups and multiple units came to notice”. P ress in India, as

the Registrar's reports came to be called later, each year contained a chapter

compiling statistics on ownership. Changing little over forty years, the

chapter listed owners who published more than one title-135 in 1955 and

142 in 1995 comprising 810 news and non-news interest newspapers. The

figure rose to 504 units comprising 2006 news and non-news interest

newspapers during 2006-07 which further escalated to 1874 units

comprising 6769 news and non-news interest newspapers in 2013-14

(Table 06) (RN I A nnual Reports: 2007, 2013-14, Je ffrey: 2001).

Table 05Concentration of Owr ership of Daily Newspapers Mid-1990s

Category RNI (1994 & 95) ABC (1995)No. o f daily newspapers 1,056 165

Total cir. In millions 35.5 16.5

Daily cir. o f 5 largest companies in millions

5.5(17%) 5.5(33%)

Daily cir. o f 10 largest companies in millions

8.3(27%) 8.8(50%)

Daily cir. o f 20 largest companies in millions

12.4(39%) 11.7(71%)

(Sources: RNI: 1995, p. 73-74, RNI: 1996, p. 27, ABC January-

June: 1995 and ABC January-June: 1993)

65

Table 06N um ber o f publications under com m on ow nership from 1995 to 2013-14

Year No. of Units

No. of ‘news-

interest’ newspapers

No. of ‘non­news interest’ newspapers

Total

1995 142 676 134 8101996 144 710 120 8301997 144 725 124 8491998 146 754 137 8911999 148 772 138 9102000 164 780 111 8912001 171 817 103 9202002-03 351 1292 126 14182003-04 332 1302 96 13982004-05 307 1174 101 12752005-06 427 1550 167 17172006-07 504 1761 245 20062007-08 609 2174 247 24212008-09 818 2955 125 30802009-10 962 3397 250 36472010-11 1145 4137 189 43262011-12 1256 4632 294 49262012-13 1516 5448 298 57462013-14 1874 6726 43 6769

(Source: RNI49^''' 51^‘ & 58'^ Annual Reports: 2005, 2007, 2014)

It won’t be out o f place here to take a look at the ownership pattern as

emerging on the ground by analyzing the findings o f the latest RNI report,

released for the year 2013-14(58'’’ Annual Report) for the purpose of

understanding the problem o f media ownership as it is evolving in the country.

66

Pattern of ownership in Indian MediaThe office o f Registrar o f Newspapers o f India (RNI) is the nodal agency

for registration o f publication titles in every category in the country. The figures

released by this agency in the form o f its annual reports give a reflection o f the

trend or pattern evolving on the ground.

The report for the year 2013-14 reveals that individuals owned a majority

of publication titles in India. Out o f 19,499 publications which furnished Annual

Statements with RNI for the year under review, individuals owned 16, 737 (85.84

per cent), followed by Joint Stock Companies 1, 936 (9.93 per cent). Societies and

Associations 323 (1.66 per cent), Trusts 257 (1.32 per cent). Firms & Partnership

168 (0.86 per cent), etc.

Table 07

Ownership o f publicationsForm of Ownership Number of Newspapers %ge of TotalGovernment 43 0.22Others 35 0.18Firm/Partnership 168 0.86Individuals 16737 85.84Joint Stock Companies 1936 9.93Society/Association 323 1.66Trusts 257 1.32Total 19499 100

(Source: RNI,58' Annual Report: 2014).

The remaining 78 publications were owned by other categories (Table 07)

(RNI,58'^ Annual Report: 2014).

Periodicity-wise, among 6,730 dailies, 5,332 (79.23 per cent) were owned

by Individuals, followed by Joint Stock Companies 1150 (17.09 per cent) and

67

Firms and Partnerships 102 (1.52 percent). In case o f Tri/Bi-weeklies, Individuals

owned 11 newspapers (44 per cent).

Individuals also owned a sizeable number o f other periodicals. Weeklies

and Fortnightlies owned by individuals were 6,574 (93.47 per cent) and 1,732

(93.37 per cent) respectively. Out o f 3,425 Monthlies, 2,817 (82.25 per cent)

belonged to Individuals and 268 (7.82 per cent) to Joint Stock Companies.

Out o f 55 Annuals, Joint Stock companies owned 32 (64 per cent)

followed by individuals with 19 (34.55 percent) (RNI, 5 8̂ ̂Annual Report: 2014).

Language-wise, out o f 11,184 Hindi publications, 10,396 (92.95 per cent)

were owned by Individuals, followed by Joint Stock Companies, 536 (4.79 per

cent) and Society and Association, 94 (0.84 per cent). In English, out o f 1,889

publications. Individuals owned 1,018 (53.89 per cent) followed by Joint Stock

companies 705 (37.32 per cent). Societies and Associations 87 (4.61 per cent).

Individuals owned the maximum number o f newspapers in all the languages

except Malayalam in which Joint Stock Companies owned 101 (49.51 per cent)

out o f 204 titles. In Manipuri, Kashmiri, Bodo, Sindhi, Dogri and Santhali

languages. Individuals owned 100 per cent publications.

State-wise, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi retained the 1®‘ and 2"** positions in

publishing the maximum number o f publications respectively for the year under

review. In Uttar Pradesh, out o f 4,827 publications, 4, 566 (94.59 per cent) were

owned by Individuals and 175 (3.63 per cent) by Joint Stock Companies. Out o f

2, 343 publications published from Delhi, Individuals owned 1819 (77.64 per

68

cent) publications, followed by Joint Stock Companies 304 (12.97 per cent) and

Society/Association 113(6.21 percent).

In all states Individuals owned the largest number o f newspapers except

Kerala and Goa where Joint Stock Companies owned 130 (51.18 per cent) out of

254 and 12 (66.67 per cent) out o f 18 publications respectively. All the six

publications brought out from Andaman & Nicobar Island and all 13 publications

from Daman & Diu were owned by Individuals (RNI, 58‘'’ Annual Report: 2014).

Consequently, the circulation o f publications, owned by individuals in

2013-14 was the highest with 30,31,29, 981 copies (67.27 per cent), followed by

Joint Stock Companies 12,15,76,810 copies (26.98 per cent) and Firms and

Partnerships had a circulation o f 90, 91,346 copies (2.02 per cent).

Table 08

Circulation of publications under diverse ownershipForm of Ownership Number Circulation % of cir.Government 43 1180112 0.26Firm/Partnership 168 9091346 2.02Individuals 16737 303129981 67.27Joint Stock Companies 1936 121576810 26.98Society/Association 323 7705210 1.71Trusts 257 7361267 1.63Others 35 541493 0.12Total 19, 499 45,05,86,219 100

Societies and Associations owned publications circulated 77, 05, 210

copies (1.71 per cent). Trust-owned publications circulated 73, 61,267 copies

(1.63 per cent), Government owned publications circulated 11,80,112 copies (0.26

69

per cent) and those owned by others circulated 5,41,493 copies (0.12 per cent)

(Table 08).

Cross Ownership/Common Ownership, the RNI findings

>^As per the RNI study under evaluation, there were 1874 cross ownership

or common ownership units (as the study used the term for) during 2013-14,

which owned 6, 726 ‘news-interest’ publications. O f these, 4, 429 were dailies

and Tri/Bi-weeklies, 1533 weeklies and 764 o f other periodicities. Out o f 6,726

annual statements furnished with the RNI, 5, 288 belonged to Individuals, 1,245

to Joint Stock Companies, 62 to Firms and Partnerships, 73 to Trusts and 58 to

other Units (Table 09).

Table 09

Ownership pattern o f ‘News & Current Affairs ’publications

Form of Ownership No, of UnitsNo. of

Newspapers CirculationJoint Stock 112 1245 91825209Individuals 1705 5288 140310622Firms/Partnerships 38 62 4958549Trusts 8 73 4527236Others 11 58 2127817Total 1874 6726 24,37,49,433

(Source: RNI, 58“ Annual Report: 2014).

Apart from “News & Current Affairs” publications, says the report, these

1874 cross ownership/common ownership units also brought out 43 newspapers,

which had non- news content like specialty magazines. Thus, total media titles

owned by these units were 6769 in number (RNI, 58‘̂ annual report: 2014).

70

Out o f this, dailies published by these units had a total circulation o f 18,

69, 52, 472 copies per publishing day, i.e. 70.74 per cent o f the total circulation of

all dailies published in India (ibid).

Table 10

Number o f ‘News & Current Affairs ’publications under CROSS/COMMON OWNERSHIP UNITS (Periodicity wise)

(1995 to 2013-14)

Year Dailies, Tri & Bi-weeklies Weeklies Others Total

Growth over previous year (%)

1995 535 115 26 676 11.181996 559 123 28 710 5.031997 576 124 25 725 2.111998 604 125 25 754 4.001999 628 119 25 772 2.392000 659 105 16 780 1.042001 668 128 21 817 4.52

2002-03 972 268 52 1292 58.142003-04 970 246 86 1302 0.772004-05 870 235 69 1174 (-)9.832005-06 1106 323 121 1550 24.262006-07 1257 347 157 1761 13.612007-08 1485 515 174 2174 23.452008-09 2021 652 282 2955 35.922009-10 2367 741 289 3397 14.962010-11 2801 949 387 4137 21.782011-12 3070 1097 465 4632 11.972012-13 3648 1268 532 5448 17.622013-14 4429 1533 764 6726 23.46

The circulation o f publications, owned by Common Ownership Units

during 2013-14 was 24, 47, 55,882 copies per publishing day i.e. 54.32 per cent o f

the total. Out o f these, ‘news-interest’ publications circulated 24, 37,49,433

71

copies and ‘non-news-interest’ publications circulated 10, 06,449 copies per

publishing day(RNl, 58^ annual report: 2014).

Out o f a total circulation o f 24, 37,49,433 copies per publishing day

claimed by ‘News & Current Affairs’ publications in this category, 14,03,10,622

copies (57.56 per cent) were claimed by Individuals, followed by Joint Stock

Companies 9,18,25,209 copies (37.67 per cent). Firms and Partnerships 49,58,

549 copies (2.03 per cent), Trusts 45,27,236 copies (1.86 per cent) and Others

21,27,817 (0.87 percent) (Table 09) (RNI,58‘̂ annual report: 2014).

Cross Media Ownership:History and Evolution of the Broadcast Bill

,Jhe problem of media concentration, as discussed earlier in the chapter,

has been existent in the country since long and the relevant reports o f Press

Council o f India, RNl and 1st and llnd Press Commissions give an idea o f the

heavy concentration in the Indian media. The freedom of press is not merely a

professional right that involves journalists but an essential right o f the readers to

get fair, accurate, objective, balanced and truthful information. The control o f the

newspapers by big business results in the distortion o f news and also in projecting

the ideology o f the owners o f the newspapers.

Accordingly, the fact finding committee o f the Press Commission in 1973

recommended that a person carrying on business o f publishing a newspaper

should not have an interest in any other business in excess o f 10% of its

subscribed share capital. Secondly, a person having an interest in any other

business should not have, in the business o f publishing a newspaper, an interest

72

that is in excess o f 10% interest. According to the Commission, such delinking

and diffusion will not be violative o f either article 19(1) (a) or 19(1) (g) o f the

Indian Constitution (PCI Report: 2001, Goyal, Rao: 1981).

v/But with the onset o f first phase o f economic reforms in the country in

1990s, media too began expanding its operations and reach. With the opening o f

Indian skies to private broadcasters and increased cross media interests among

media barons in the absence o f any media policy regulation or law in the country,

the problem assumed a serious dimension and for the first time it generated a

public debate including intervention from the judiciary.

First Broadcast Bill

However, it was only in 1997 when the then Government rose to the

occasion and the issue took a legislative shape with the preparation o f a first ever

draft Broadcast Bill by the then Information and Broadcasting minister, Jaipal

Reddy. The bill, among other things, proposed a cap o f 20% equity on cross

media holdings in the country. However, the bill could not be taken up by the

parliament as the Government o f the day fell resulting into elections that brought

in a BJP-led regime, which had a different set o f priorities in media. But it did set

in an enthusiastic debate on the pros and cons o f cross media holdings in the

country.

But much before the introduction o f the Broadcast Bill, an eight-member

parliamentary sub- committee, headed by Ram Vilas Paswan, had been

constituted on March 30, 1994. This was following the recommendations made by

73

the consultative committee attached to the Ministry o f Information and

Broadcasting (Report, The Pioneer: March 30, 1996).

In its 104-page report that the committee submitted in March 1996, It

made 46 recommendations encompassing almost all areas o f media including

cross ownership. The committee made a strong plea to put an end to cross media

ownership in Indian media. “Care should be taken to prevent monopolies.

Television programming should be more decentralised and five zones could be

constituted as recommended by the Verghese Committee”, the committee

suggested (Raman: 2008, Report, The Pioneer: March 30, 1996).

Following this, the Union cabinet started an exercise to prepare a draft bill

to govern the broadcast companies in the country. A committee headed by the

then Prime Minister broadly cleared the bill after a thorough review. It, however,

framed a high power panel o f Secretaries to deliberate on three contentious issues;

Cross media holdings. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and equity share o f

advertising companies in broadcast companies (Sinha: 1997, Swarup: 2007).

^Initially the panel was o f the opinion that cross media holdings in the

Indian media should be put to an end. But subsequent pressures and hectic

lobbying by media giants, including Hindustan Times and The Times o f India, and

political leaders o f the ruling United Front, including a minister, led the panel to

recommend otherwise. The particular minister had a stake in a Chennai based

broadcast company, which was being promoted by a South based newspaper

company. The panel o f Secretaries, later submitting to the Prime Minister,

74

recommended that cross holdings be allowed between broadcast and newspaper

companies (Report, Business Standard: February 22, 1997).

But Nitish Sengupta, then I«feB Secretary and chairman, Sengupta

Committee on Prasar Bharti Bill maintained that the checks on cross media

holdings were necessary for a healthy media scenario. “The objective (behind the

restrictions) is to prevent the same group o f people controlling both print and

electronic media. If the same people who control print media also branch off into

electronic media and attempt to dominate it, it will not be healthy in the long run,

he contended (Uniyal: 1998).

In March 1997 the Union cabinet cleared the draft o f the Broadcast Bill to

be tabled in the next session o f parliament. Among other things it proposed a cap

o f 20% on cross media ownership. A media company would not have more than

20% o f equity share in any other branch o f media if it ventures into that stream;

the bill had proposed (Report, Business Standard: April 30, 1997).

The bill, as written above, was to be tabled in the parliament in its next

session. But during the time the United Front Government fell and a new alliance

Government led by BJP came to power.

Again the UFA in its first term of government also planned to introduce the

bill (Broadcast Bill, 2007). The bill, in the present form which is its 19**' amended

version, has almost repeated the cross holding provisions o f Broadcast Bill o f

\991(mib.nic.in/bills\ 2008).

Better late than never before, as they say. It took the Government almost

12 years to come up with a draft broadcast bill about which every political party

75

or formation had more or less similar opinion. It was only the pressure from the

industry and operators that things got delayed. Otherwise, every political

combination, left, BJP or Congress vowed to bring in legislation, set up a media

policy and regulate the FDI, as is evident from their party perspectives on Media.

India’s National Media Policy: Political Parties’

Perspective

Indian polity in the current scenario is broadly divided into three groups of

opinion, each led by BJP, Left and Congress on expected lines. As such these are

the opinions shaping or influencing the policies o f the Government o f the day.

All these three groupings or political combinations framed their media

policies which were reflective o f their ideologies and predicaments o f the given

situations. Predicaments because foreign media or satellite television came to

India not just because they wished so (rather despite their objections to the same),

it just happened. Similarly allowing o f FDI in media was more out o f the

compulsive economic conditions o f the day and pressures from the industry than a

genuinely thought out policy initiative.

Here is a paraphrased account o f the media policies o f each o f these

political combines:

76

Left Parties

Left Parties, with CPI (M) as its dominant constituent, believe in

strengthening the Prasar Bharati Corporation so that it becomes a genuine public

broadcasting service.

The parties stand for prohibiting cross media ownership to prevent

monopolies and ownership expansion o f big media houses. It also demands

reversal o f the decision allowing foreign stakes o f print media in the country

(Report, The Hindu: January 24, 2006).

Among other things they demand the enforcement o f a media code for

satellite broadcasters and ensuring that states have a say in media policy and

programmes in the public broadcasting service and all national languages listed in

the Eighth Schedule o f the Constitution are encouraged and developed.

The parties deem it necessary to codify the laws relating to legislative

privilege to prevent any infringement o f the freedom o f expression o f the media

for which it expects the parliament and state

legislatures to undertake the initiative {cpim.org/search/node/Media%20Policies?

page= l: 2007).

Another major constituent o f the Left, CPI is also against any raise in the

FDI cap o f 26 % in the country’s media industry. With the ownership of media

houses passing into the hands o f large corporate entities, the party believes a

further increase in the FDI would not be in the national interest. The party

believes that news and views are not like any other commodity to be traded and

77

the media had the power and capacity to condition the thinking o f people and

influence their opinions {Report, The Hindu: January 24, 2006).

The party is also against any dilution o f the Union cabinet resolution o f

1955 under which foreign news agencies are required to distribute their news in

India through Indian news agencies. In fact, this resolution should be strengthened

in the interest o f domestic agencies, the party contends (ibid.).

CPI also demands the Government to initiate legislative measures to stop

publication o f foreign journals such as the International Herald Tribune in the

country. The party also voices its opposition to increasing volume o f syndicated

material from abroad {cpim.org/search/node/Media%20Policies?page=l: 2007).

Congress

Congress party doesn't have any written media policy. Since the party has

been in the Government most o f the time, the policy adopted by the Government

since independence largely reflects the party's policy as well. In this case

reference is often made o f 1955 union cabinet resolution restricting any foreign

investment in print media in the country (Tiwari: 2007).

The party believes in a free and vibrant media which is necessary for a

democracy. But, equally the party wants the same to come with some reasonable

restrictions as envisaged by the first Information and Broadcasting Minister of

India Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. These restrictions include relationships with

foreign media groups and their taking over o f Indian media publications and news

agencies (Moily: 2008).

78

The party claims to have dissuaded newspapers in India to take direct

feeds from foreign agencies. This, the party believes, has helped home news

agencies like the Press Trust o f India and the United News o f India or others to

grow and stand to the competition at local and international level (Tiwari: 2007).

Bhartiva Janata Party (BJP)

The BJP stands to ensure that ownership o f the media is in the hands o f

natural-born Indians only. While the party opines for a limited extent o f 20 per

cent foreign equity investment in the electronic media in view o f its large capital

requirements, the party is categorically against any investment in the other media,

including the print media {www.bjp.org).

On the use o f editorial matter from outside in electronic media, the BJP

vows to ensure that the safeguards present in Article 19 (2) o f the Constitution are

fully implemented to balance freedom and public interest.

To achieve this goal, the party intends to improve the provisions o f the

Prasar Bharati Act to let Prasar Bharati organize an effective public broadcasting

system, which would be accountable to Parliament but free from Government

control, immune from political influence but sensitive to the diverse needs of

Indian society (www.scatniag.com/govt.htm: 2007).

The party would ensure and encourage the availability o f a variety and

plurality o f views and diversity in programming by discouraging monopolies and

maximizing the number o f voices, which can use the mass media. It will,

therefore, impose appropriate cross-media and cross-platform restrictions and also

79

restriction on investment by media in cable cable-TV companies and vice-versa

(Party draft paper on the subject: 2007).

While permitting, by license, the entry o f private enterprise and

investment in radio and television broadcasting, purely on commercially

acceptable terms determined by bids, the party intends to ensure that the up

linking o f television programmes is from India and the foreign equity investment

in audio-visual media is restricted to 20 per cent with management o f all types o f

the media is in Indian hands {ibid.)

The party intends to facilitate the development o f an efficient and

competitive Indian broadcasting industry by providing a level playing field to the

nascent Indian industry vis-a-vis a highly developed foreign-based broadcasting

industry (ibid.).

Politics o f the media apart, as the situation can be described, India’s media

policy, rather the lack o f it, has evoked an interesting debate among media

analysts, experts and general masses.

Cross Media Curbs—Diversity of Opinion

The subject has thrown open a serious debate to discuss the merits and

demerits o f cross media curbs.

No curbs

“Disallowing newspapers in television will restrict plurality and diversity

o f viewers’ choice” is the general opinion propounded by the adherents o f no-

80

cross media curbs school o f thought. Cross media curbs are unrealistic and against

public sentiment, they believe (Mullik: 1997). This opinion stresses against any

regulation or restrictions on cross media holdings and believes that newspapers

are better equipped to branch off into any other media stream, like television, than

any other entrepreneur.

“The fear o f monopoly in the Indian media marketplace appears

unfounded, since it is quite vibrant and competitive. There are hundreds of

newspapers in English, Hindi and other languages with substantial circulation. In

Delhi alone, there are as many as 170 registered newspapers, out o f which there

are 12 English and 9 Hindi mainline newspapers”, they maintain (The Times o f

India: July 31, 1997).

“The Indian media is responsible, self regulatory and self governing.

There is no need for external censorship as a lot o f self imposed restrictions

already exists”, believes Swati Chaturvedi, leading journalist and television host

(Chaturvedi: 2004).

Similarly another argument this school o f thought comes with is that a

good part o f the social role o f radio and television is news and current affairs

coverage in which newspapers have considerable expertise. To deny them

opportunity for lateral expansion is like saying that cinema artists are

automatically debarred from transferring their talents to the television screen.

Nationwide, they say, Hindi newspapers which account for the single largest bloc

of circulation still reach only 35 per cent o f the total Indian market. No individual

81

newspaper among them can enjoy an outsized share o f the readership that is even

more fragmented in case o f other languages, including English {Sarkar: 1997).

On the technicalities o f the issue, the relevance o f the cross media curbs

vis a vis technology also came to be questioned. “Significantly in the United

States and some other countries, satellite television, satellite radio, cable, DTH

and MMDS (Microwave Multipoint Distribution System) are outside the purview

of the cross media restrictions. Only terrestrial services are covered by cross

media curbs, Mullick opined in the series o f articles he wrote on the subject

during 1997.

The Times o f India conducted a survey in four cities o f New Delhi,

Mumbai, Kolkatta and Bangalore through a market research group Ess Pee

Associates (EPA). With a sample size o f 1023 respondents the survey had an

equal representation o f adult males and females in these four cities. According to

the survey about 70 per cent o f the respondents were against imposing any

restrictions on print media’s entry into broadcast business, 76 per cent felt

newspapers were better equipped to run the television companies and 63 per cent

felt newspapers should not be barred from entering the television business

(Report, The Times o f India: July 31, Nov 8, 1997).

Pro-curbs

As against this, the architects o f the Broadcast Bill propound that allowing

newspapers to diversify into other forms o f electronic media would lead to their

monopolising the entire market and audience to such an extent that public would

82

be deprived o f plurality and diversity o f news, views and information (Raman:

2008).

In fact, the Supreme Court in 1995 clarified that such regulations will not

imply any conflict with the constitutional provisions for freedom o f speech and

with the right o f citizens to do “business” (Rao: 1997).

In a separate but concurring judgment. Justice Jeevan Reddy, one o f the

three judges o f a constitutional bench o f the apex court, which set the pace for

subsequent developments in the broadcast scene in the country including the

proposed Broadcast Bill, observed; “By manipulating news and disinformation, to

suit their commercial or other interests, they would be harming and not serving

the principles o f plurality and diversity o f views, news, ideas and opinions.

Citizens should have the benefit o f plurality o f views and a range o f opinions on

all public issues (Rao: 1997).

“A successful democracy posits an aware citizenry. Diversity o f opinion,

views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable citizens to arrive at informed

judgment on all issues which can’t be negated by a monopoly, whether the

monopoly is o f the state or any other individual, group or an organisation”, the

court observed.

And for this reason, as earlier discussed, came up the Broadcast Bill with

cross media curbs to the tune o f 20% of the total equity. The proposed bill did not

disregard scope and strength o f cross media as is often made out. The bill only

sets certain limits on control, not on participation (ibid.).

83

As for the claim that cross media curbs were originally meant in United

States for the single newspaper TV cities, Rao maintains that for whatever reason,

historical or otherwise, there are certain cities and states (seven or eight) in India

where a single newspaper dominates, in a couple o f cases with more than 50%

market share, both in circulation and readership as in the cases o f Andhra Pradesh

or Rajasthan. Hence, he contended, the scope for limiting cross media holdings

(ibid.).

The question is not whether newspapers are better equipped or not to

operate broadcasting service, but what is good for the people and the country.

Also it is not a question of business interests alone. The creativity and

entrepreneurship potential in the country being what it is and the imbalance and

inequalities in access to media being what they are, certain cross media

regulations are more than desirable. Business interests o f a couple o f media

barons will no doubt get affected because o f such regulations. But a much larger

number o f people, readers as well as viewers, will eventually be the beneficiaries;

so also the journalists and the democratic process and civil society (Nathan:

2006).

Implementation, the practical wav

However on the question o f implementation o f the cross media curbs,

various opinions and formulae were being expressed and debated. J D Agashe, a

US based media analyst, recommended 3-slab cross media curbs based on a

newspaper’s market share in a particular city/town.

84

First, he suggests, there should be no equity curbs for newspapers with

less than 33% market share in a particular city/town wanting to invest in a

terrestrial news channel. Second, those newspapers whose market share falls

between 34 and 49 per cent should be allowed to hold up to 49 per cent stake in a

terrestrial news channel in the same city/town. No restrictions should be placed on

TV stations outside that town.

Third, those newspapers whose market shares are 50 per cent and above,

should not be allowed to hold more than 33 per cent stake in terrestrial news

channel in the same town.

A sort o f reciprocal arrangement, such an approach would safeguard the

interests o f small newspapers. For instance a newspaper whose circulation is just

1,000 will be allowed to invest freely in television instead o f being restricted to 20

per cent or so equity, as per the provisos of the Broadcast Bill (Agashe: 1997).

In the case o f equity restriction, it is relatively easy to ask for

disinvestments as and when a newspaper gets into broadcast service

(www. cmsindia. org/roundtable, 2008).

Bhaskara Rao, founder Director, Centre for Media Studies, New Delhi,

however, offered an alternative proposition. He suggested that instead o f putting a

restriction on equity participation for restraining media monopoly, it may be

better to use the market share concept either in terms o f circulation or readership

or both (Rao: 2006).

Whether one takes the equity or market share approach, either way it is

complex to keep track o f the composition o f equity and market share and the

85

changes therein. This calls for an effective monitoring mechanism with an

independent regulatory authority. The authority would not only maintain the

entire requisite database for the purpose but also play the role o f a watchdog in

the whole process, somewhat like Press Council and TRAI. That is also what

formed the dominant part o f the deliberations o f the 26**' meeting o f State

Information Ministers’ Conference on Broadcast Bill at New Delhi (SIMCON-

XXVI: 2007).

Defending the 20% cross media curbs in the proposed Broadcast Bill, Rao

observed that up to 5 per cent equity one could hold in inter and intra media

services. Even in the case o f newspapers, he says, the said bill does not

discourage holding of up to 20 per cent equity o f a broadcast service. In fact, the

newspaper can also hold 5 per cent in more than one broadcast services. Control

and participation, rightly, have not been mixed up. However, in reality, this may

not prevent manipulative control o f more than one media by the same entities.

'^But Dileep Padgaonkar, Chairman, Asia Pacific Communication

Associates (APCA), is much more realistic on the issue when he agrees to a

certain degree o f cross media restrictions. Though Padgaonkar does not visualise

a time when a real challenge on the issue is thrown up in the country and sees no

reason comparing the US pattern with that o f India. However, he does see an

aggressive Murdochisation o f the media going on (Padgaonkar: 2007).

The opinions continue till date. But in the meantime, media in India

continues to expand in the absence o f any national media policy or any regulation.

There are a number o f definitive trends visible in this ever expanding realm of

86

media turf in India. These trends suggest the changing contours o f the media

industry in the country forcing the Government to change its policies from time to

time. FDI is a case example.

87