Read the small print

I don't see any rationale in the proposal to increase foreign equity in the print media. The present limit of 26 per cent has already given ...

I don8217;t see any rationale in the proposal to increase foreign equity in the print media. The present limit of 26 per cent has already given sufficient participation to outsiders in a field where they should be least welcome. They are not Indian citizens and they have no stake in the country8217;s ethos of responsible journalism. That some of our newspaper magnets have spoilt it by reducing newspapers to a commodity like soap or talcum power does not mean that we have abandoned the ethos. It may mean that discriminating readers have not yet asserted themselves.

When India became independent its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, saw to it that all foreign-owned newspapers were transferred to Indian hands. Not only that, he had the Cabinet pass a resolution in 1955 banning foreign participation in the print media. It is comical that the Congress was the first party to try and change the resolution. Some 12 years ago, the P.V. Narasimha Rao government set up a committee to go into the question of foreign participation. Congress ministers Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee and N.K.P. Salve were members of that committee and it decided to allow foreign investment in the print media and undo Nehru8217;s legacy. I remember meeting Salve on behalf of the Editors Guild of India at that stage. With great difficulty I was able to persuade him to postpone the implementation of the committee8217;s recommendations until after the elections, which were due a few months from then. The Congress never returned to power to implement the decision. The BJP-led government did so.

It is, however, ironical that the decision to open the door to foreign investment was announced on June 25-26, the dates when the emergency was imposed 27 years ago. It was an interregnum when the press was gagged, free information blacked out and an array of journalists detained without trial. The BJP-led government, which approved the 26 per cent equity, never saw the writing on the wall. The press was responsible for its recent defeat. Most newspapers never liked the dangers to which they were exposed because of foreigners who might have their own axe to grind. Freedom of expression was guaranteed under the Constitution to the Indian citizens, not to outsiders.

Strangely, the BJP-led government had assured the nation at the beginning of its tenure that it would not allow foreign entry in newspapers or current affairs magazines. But it went back on that promise. Foreign newspapers benefitted considerably under the NDA government. Today, they are bringing out Indian editions of their publications. Nehru was so particular that he did not allow the New York Times to print the paper in India. They can now print here and also have their own editorial content. They have their agenda or politics and are generally opposed to our point of view. In fact, some foreign papers are said to be considering bringing out their own publications. One only hopes that they are not in Indian languages. Still more disconcerting is the 8220;anxiety8221; of NRIs to buy shares in Indian newspapers. Some of them have already acquired equity in a few newspapers.

It is more than a coincidence that the BJP-led government opened the print media to foreigners through an order it issued after the Gujarat carnage. Was it because the press had vehemently criticised the party? With 26 per cent share, NRI stake-holders will have a veto power on the board of a newspaper and can influence it. Maybe the Vajpayee government felt that this was one way to chastise the press which was critical of it.

Suppose some terrorist outfit abroad acquires shares in a newspaper under a false name and have Indians as their editors and managers? In the hawala case, there was an Indian as the kingpin. He was the one who was behind financing terrorists in Kashmir and in some other parts of India. The government8217;s proposal to enhance foreign equity further is fraught with dangers, the consequences of which may harm the nation. This may also have disturbing implications for the quality of democratic discourse in India.

I may not like it, but I can understand the government bringing foreign capital to a field which requires high-grade technology. There is no such justification in the case of the print media. The Indian press has the best of machines. Our journalists are inferior to none. What is foreign capital supposed to do except interfere in the running of newspapers? It looks as if the government8217;s agenda is different. The whole operation has been mounted without any public debate. That was the case when the BJP-led government decided to allow 26 per cent foreign equity and that is the case now, when the Congress-led government wants to enhance the quantum. Not surprisingly, the ministry of information and broadcasting, always willing for a hatchet job, has been made the authority to permit investments in the print media.

Story continues below this ad

There is an argument that when TV channels have not been stopped from having foreign investment, there is no reason why the print media should be. Newspapers fall in a different category. TV discussions are like fleeting pictures and make very little impression on viewers. The printed word is taken far more seriously. Readers digest articles, mull over the problems discussed, and then make up their mind. In India, the printed word is sacrosanct. People still say: woh akhbar mein nikla tha it appeared in the newspaper. Their faith in what appears in print is overwhelming. That is why newspapers cannot be compared with TV.

Why is this Congress-led government 8212; despite having the Left as an ally 8212; suddenly thinking of increasing foreign equity? What could be the reasons? One could be the pressure of the World Bank which is promoting globalisation without concern about the harm it is causing in various developing countries. Another reason could be the anxiety of the ruling establishment to ensure that the press is no longer a profession but an industry. But what about the government8217;s supposed commitment to strengthening democracy? That, obviously, is no longer a priority.