Union Minister for Information & Broadcasting Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi’s biodata describes him as a “consultant, advocate, sportsperson, political & social worker.” What it does not mention is that Dasmunsi — Priyo to his friends — is the author of three novels and three collections of poems. The political novel Anek Rakta, Anek Naam must have been easy, given his vast political experience. As early as 1970 he was a member of the All-India Congress Committee. The next year he became an MP, and was Youth Congress president from 1971-75. He is passionate about football, and has been running the All-India Football Federation (AIFF) since 1988. Feisty, combative, and expansive about his myriad responsibilities — he’s also the Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs — Dasmunsi took time off to meet the Express team. Excerpts from the interaction. PriyaRanjan Dasmunsi: I am still trying to learn the art of running a coalition, being the Union Parliamentary Minister. When I was in the counting hall on the election result-day, before my election was announced, the ultimate mandate of the people of India was declared. I was told by a friend, you are now winning, but you will have to share a room with CPM in the Centre. I responded by saying that in Bengal there are two rival football teams, Mohan Bagan and East Bengal. who never compromise. But when a national team is drawn up, the best from both the teams are taken. So while the rivalry between the two teams continues, when they have to combat a common force, the best team is composed of the two teams. That was liked by Jyoti Basu also. So that is the kind of beginning of my learning the art of coalition. The additional task of Union I & B Minister is a huge challenge. The more the media try to provoke me, the more happy I feel. If they feel that a stick is coming against the media, I will prove that it is not a stick but a cup of tea. PAMELA PHILIPOSE: Do you think we really need an I & B Minister in this day and age? I will counter this with another question. Do you feel there is any need for an editor when there are competent correspondents and sub-editors. What is the need to have an editor? PAMELA PHILIPOSE: The editor gives direction. But I&B minister only means control. At least that is how it has been. I do not agree. Why is there security staff in the airport? Why not trust the people in India to travel properly? Questions of control and regulation are a matter or of interpretation. The answer is that every nation should be guided by the rule of law, according to the Constitution. In India who will register a newspaper? The District Collector, the Chief Minister, or the Press Council of India? Should there be no censor board for films? Is there any need to check whether the level playing ground is being compromised or is it being preserved? In a free society, there will be accidents. SHEKHAR GUPTA: Why can’t that be done by independent regulators? Which other democracies of the world, US, Britain or France have an I &B ministry? You are right that many democracies have a different approach in the matter of media and entertainment programmes. I request you to download the UK law and Australian law pertaining to control of the system in matters of national importance. India is more transparent and friendly than the stiffer laws of the UK and Australia. Yes, it is true that the kind of ministry of I & B we have is not there. But it’s there in Canada and Belgium. The regulation part is there in the UK. I wish that someday there will be no need for my office. But we are not yet responsible and liberal enough. But I fully share your judgment in one matter. Regulatory mechanism should be left to the stakeholders and not the government. Hopefully, the Broadcasting Bill that I am introducing will change that. I will see that the entire mechanism of electronic media will be dealt by electronic media itself and not by government. I &B Ministry’s so called regulatory and monitoring mechanism should be, step by step, withdrawn. And when the comprehensive bill comes the stakeholders should decide the matter. Even if they fail, their own appellate authority should deal with it. SUJIT BHAR: This is about Nimbus, the global economy, and a level playing field. By pushing for Doordarshan getting the entire feed free from Nimbus, which has paid a huge amount to the BCCI, have you created a level playing field with Nimbus paying $ 612 million to BCCI? Is it fair? Why don’t you put that question to Nimbus? In 2006 why did they agree to follow the guideline on 75-25 ad-sharing ratio without going to court? What is the new development in 2007 that they did not agree? BCCI realised in 2006 that the rights they are selling for that year, also includes terrestrial rights in India, which rightly or wrongly belongs to Prasar Bharati and not to any private station. So, therefore, if I am to use the Prasar Bharati terrestrial platform, I will have to have an arrangement with Prasar Bharati. Those arrangements were made between Prasar Bharati and BCCI. Before 2007, the full rights again were sold — satellite and terrestrial — at an exorbitant price and someone bought it with the definite understanding that if I buy the rights, I will only exploit the satellite rights. Nimbus asked for the license, they asked it should be given in the name of BCCI. We cannot give it. The guidelines say we have to give it in the name of the channel. If the channel is licensed, the tax liability is of the channel. The guidelines say you have to share the territorial rights with Doordarshan. Who says it’s free? It’s not free. Doordarshan is losing money. Because there is tremendous pressure of the people. They want the government to do something. We negotiated with Nimbus and asked for 25 per cent back. For what? Because we have the operating cost for the 1,400 transmitting stations to show it to the people. Which is 9 per cent of the 25 per cent. With the balance, we put it into Doordarshan’s coffers. Games like kabbadi, archery, women’s hockey. So this 16 per cent should go to these sports. The UK law says that the first offer should be given to a government terrestrial. The minister decides which are the important public games to be shown. This is the UK and Australian law. In India everyone will say free market khatra mein hai. Eighty per cent of the revenue of world cricket goes from the Indian market. And the terrestrial right you will sell without consulting an agency and deprive the people. SHEKHAR GUPTA: Isn’t this something you should raise with BCCI, as they sold the rights. Why go after Nimbus? Of course, we took it up with BCCI. They said they sold the rights to Nimbus, so negotiate with them. SHEKHAR GUPTA: ‘One man, one job’ is not a principle followed in India, in most parties and in our politics. You can head the football federation, your cabinet colleague can head the cricket federation, somebody else heads boxing, weight lifting — these cut across party lines. Is there a contradiction and where does the idea of collective responsibility come in? First of all, football is in my blood. I got less beatings from the police in my political movement than the beating I got from the mounted police in the maidans of Calcutta while watching matches. Once I told Indiraji that she cannot have a meeting in Calcutta on a particular day because that is when there is a football match. The issue is not what post you hold in your private life, the issue is what is most important in the Constitution of India, the public morale that should not suffer by conflict of interest. When I am in the government of India I am to take care of the policy of the Government of India not for the football federation. I must thank Sharad Pawar who stood by the ordinances. SHEKHAR GUPTA: Will you let FM stations bid for cricket commentary? Absolutely. I am coming up with a policy that FM station will be allowed to cover the sports commentary very shortly. SHAILAJA BAJPAI: Isn’t part of the problem here that you own exclusive rights to terrestrial broadcasting? Is there any plan to open it up to private players? There is no plan. Because I personally feel that the Indian television industry, entertainment industry, news content channels are all doing very well but we consider that it is not time to open terrestrial rights to private groups at this stage. Maybe in a few more years. We will have to take the decision collectively. With the ministry of internal security, taking cognisance of the existing IT laws and so forth. Teething time is still required. SAUBHIK CHAKRABARTI: When the Church wanted The Da Vinci Code not to be shown, you were there with them and expressed your sympathy with their point of view. Whatever happened later, you said that they had a point. In Gujarat, the Bajrang Dal is allegedly not allowing Parzania to be screened. Why aren’t you in Gujarat? Part of your job is to ensure that films get shown and not banned. All films are cleared by the Censor Board of India. If there are complaints, they can go to the board. When The Da Vinci Code came out, I read the book long back and found nothing wrong. Seven states did not show it at all. The showing part is left to the state, rightly or wrongly. It was my duty to dispel the apprehension of those who complained. I said there is nothing wrong. This is the job of the government, to facilitate on any sensitive matter without interfering. In Parzania again, it is in the hands of the state as a law and order case. Again (like in Fanaa) I negotiated with Narendra Modi. Exhibiting a film is not in the hands of I&B ministry. We can negotiate and facilitate. SAUBHIK CHAKRABARTI: I know it is the state government’s responsibility. I am saying you are a practiced politician, and there is that sense of determination which we have seen on other issues. So why aren’t you there in Gujarat as the I&B Minister, telling the people there this film must be shown and this is wrong. You are right. Before Parzania, I was in Gujarat. That time it was not cleared. Now if every state bans something then the I&B Minster rushes there as the national security advisor, it will be impossible. I concede that in Parzania, I have not shown the agility I did when the Church complained against The Da Vinci Code. I want to show Parzania in the current Parliament session. And I still hope that some courageous group in Gujarat will say that we are showing Parzania, come what may. But as a minister I cannot command them to show it. As a politician I can say it. You are trying to say that as a politician I am afraid to say it in Gujarat. I am not. UNNI RAJEN SHANKER: We have read several reports that Sarika got the national award for her role in Parzania. There were several stories about national awards, but you have not announced the national awards. Why are they stuck? There was a big controversy about the Lifetime Achievement Award, and lot of jury members say that you tried to influence the decision. National awards are as per the regulations of the I&B ministry. It was all completed in Mumbai. Immediately after that somebody went to the Bombay High Court with a PIL and it ordered a stay. We went to Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court is yet to dispose of the petition. The Dada Saheb Phalke (Lifetime Achievement) Award is conducted by a group of previous winners of the award appointed by the ministry. If one member of the group can say that the ministry told me to support a particular person, I will resign from public life. SUJIT BHAR: How long will you continue as the chief of AIFF. It has been too long. Shouldn’t you concentrate on important ministries such as I&B? In every democratic organisation, no one stays according to his will. I think I have done some good work — introducing the national football league for the first time in India, building a Football House without the aid of the government, setting a new trend for growth and development. When my term ends, I will answer your question. SAUBHIK CHAKRABARTI: You were talking earlier about sports in radio. What about news on radio? FM radio news we have not yet decided. May try later for the metro cities. I cannot predict now what shape the broadcast bill will take. But on FM I have decided to allow sports commentaries. COOMI KAPOOR: As a Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, you are supposed to be cordial with the opposition parties. But there has been an accusation that your government and party have an authoritarian streak - first shown in Jharkhand, Bihar and in Goa and now in UP? It is the perception that matters. The Minister for Parliamentary Affairs has nothing to do with the action that is being taken in UP or Jharkhand. That is the job of the government of the day and the party. As a minister, I do feel that all the issues that are today before the Parliament are not very palatable issues. Some are difficult issues. A minister should not just represent the government but also act as a PR to all sections of Parliament. And bring about harmony among parties. I do not think we act in an authoritarian manner. Each acts according to their role. Jharkhand — I am partly responsible. When I found that 41 (MLAs) are ready and the 42nd sent a letter. I thought the 42nd was OK, I didn’t know that after the 41st is ready, the 42nd is hijacked by aircraft and brought to Delhi and taken to someone else. I would say that was a bad innings. So it is not authoritarian but wrong judgment. SHEKHAR GUPTA: Are you open to the idea of getting bills passed by getting votes from even opposition parties on a particular bill? Or would you keep certain parties’ support completely out? You have many bills pending like the Pension Bill, the Banking Reform Bill. BJP leader Sushma Swaraj said that if you introduce the bill they would support it unconditionally with no amendments. But the Left opposes it. Do you now rethink your entire policy in times of coalitions and broken mandates ? I emphatically say that the UPA mandate is for the common minimum programme. We will have to carry on with the UPA first. Dislodging and letting down any ally of UPA for passing a bill is sheer political opportunism, which I would not like to perform. So I am confident that all bills will be passed.
