Telescope 8212; One helluva position

But now, more than a month after taking over, Reddy8217;s position is becoming untenable. When he told India Talks ABNi, last week, that he didn8217;t have any position on the Bill, it was alarming, to say the least. Mr.Reddy8217;s reasons for having no position, for claiming that every provision of the Bill was open to change, is roughly this: first, it isn8217;t his Bill, it was the previous government8217;s 8212; which was also a UF government presumably, therefore, the Bill has the endorsement of the present government. If it doesn8217;t, why did he present it?. Second, his government survives on the support of many diverse, political parties and consequently, every policy decision has to be based on a consensus.

Neither of these two reasons should prevent the Minister from speaking his mind. Mr.Reddy has said he8217;s got an open mind and that is not the same thing as a blank mind. So let8217;s see what8217;s on his mind. Remember, he can always change his mind, depending on the opinion of others, the prevailing political, social, economic climate, la-di-da-di-da8230;

On India Talks and subsequently at a seminar organised by the National Telematics Forum, the Minister spoke of the need to pass a Broadcast Bill even if it were not perfect. He gave the example of the Constitution of India, as near perfect a piece of legislation as you8217;re likely to find. Yet, it needed amendments. Similarly, he seemed to suggest, the Broadcast Bill can be amended.

Mr.Reddy should apply this logic to his own position or lack of it. His thoughts about the Bill8217;s provisions, could be provisional. By voicing them, however, he won8217;t loose face, the Bill won8217;t die on him. On the contrary, he would be articulating the present government8217;s policy with regard to broadcasting. If indeed, it has any.

By his silence on the matter, Mr.Reddy strengthens the suspicion that this is a government in search of a broadcast policy; the Gujral Doctrine doesn8217;t seem to extend to the electronic media. If true, this is a very disturbing and unsettling position for everyone concerned. If everything in the Bill is subject to change, then there are no certainties: different lobbies, pressure groups, vested interests could change everything. How can Mr.Reddy allow such a situation to prevail? And what are we to understand by his maun vrat? That he doesn8217;t believe in the Bill he has tabled? That he doesn8217;t want to be the one to throw it out, or change it? That he wants the Select Committee, headed by Sharad Pawar, to do the job for him?

Even more worrisome: is it Mr.Reddy8217;s position that all suggestions made by the Select Committee will be accepted by his government? If not, which are the provisions his government stands by, believes must feature in the Bill? And what exactly is his government hoping to achieve with the passage of a consensual Broadcast Bill?

Mr.Reddy need not have a position. He must have a vision. A vision of the future of broadcasting, communications. A vision beyond 49 foreign equity, cross media restrictions, license eligibility8230; Those, as has been pointed out, are decisions to be taken by the proposed Broadcast Authority. Mr.Reddy should not be wasting time on them. He should be thinking about the convergence of technology in broadcasting, telecommunications, computers, satellite, etc. And how that will change everything. Any policy initiated now must be holistic in nature, a blueprint for the next century. Not a rubber stamp for existing situations.

So, Mr.Reddy is wrong: at this stage, there is no point simply passing a Broadcast Bill for the sake of a moment8217;s passing glory. By all means give DD autonomy. But a Broadcast Bill in isolation, without vision, is worse than a man without a position.