Welcome, Mr. Murdoch - (Indolink.Com, 25/06/2002)

-- By Dasu Krishnamoorty

Ignoring the stiffest opposition ever to the entry of foreign capital into the country´s print media sector, the government approved foreign direct investment up to 26 per cent. It is a stunning blow to the domestic media delivered from behind. Foreign investment is a Trojan horse that has unleashed forces of economic subversion in the country. Nobody has been able to tell how and whom foreign investment has benefited. Neither the media nor the political parties mattered with the government. A small lobby of tricksters hustled the government into taking a decision it has been fighting so long to dodge. The doors are now wide open for the foreign marauders to have a free run of the Indian media. The ceiling is no hurdle because the raiders are assured of the collaboration of the pro-FDI lobby in their takeover maneuvers.

The cabinet decision in deference to the greediest section of the Indian society caught the majority of the print media off their guard. Several governments in the past have shied away from reversing a judicious decision taken by Jawaharlal Nehru´s cabinet in 1955 to keep the media sector out of bounds for foreign investment. Most of the country´s leading newspapers, accounting for more than 75 per cent share of circulation, is not in favor of scrapping the earlier arrangement. All political parties, ruling as well as opposition are against FDI. A parliamentary standing committee on information technology headed by Somnath Chatterjee collected overwhelming evidence to indicate the level of suspicion and distrust among the print media about allowing a foothold to foreign investors.

Here are some of the reactions of political parties, ignoring which the Vajpayee government has dismantled a previous set-up. "We are not in favor of FDI in the print media that will lead to the death of local newspapers," said BJP president Kushabhau Thakre. Samata Party spokesperson Shambhu Srivastava said his party was against it for security considerations. On several occasions, the Congress Party refused to permit FDI in print media. The Trinamul Congress and the TDP too are against it. According to CPI general secretary A.B.Bardhan, the presence of foreign players would distort our political and economic orientation apart from trying to influence foreign policy. The government breached its promise to the media that it would continue with the old order if the parliamentary committee recommended such a measure.

The sudden and secretive strike smells of a major scandal. In hindsight the appointment of the Somnath Chatterjee committee seems a formality to bide time and induce the anti-FDI media to lower their guard. It also appears that the government cannot do without the goodwill of India Today which spearheaded the campaign to permit FDI. There are others too salivating for the crumbs that the foreign investor will throw in their way. What has happened is bound to delight not only the profit-hungry overseas invader but also the enemies of the freedom of press inside the country. Not content with industrializing newspapers and their content, this small band of media conspirators has succeeded in forging links with foreign saboteurs.

For this avaricious group, the logic for supporting foreign capital is simple. Globalization and liberalization have improved the performance of the Indian economy. There is no point in insulating the newspaper industry alone from global trends. How innocent! We have to believe that this India Today group has more interest in the country´s economy than, say, Yashwant Sinha. They see a paradox in permitting foreign TV channels to freely beam signals and yet denying the same privilege to newspapers. Are we to suppose that they do not know the distinction between print and TV media in terms of audiences and nature of content? Newspapers and magazines reach the literate sections of the society and decision-makers. TV is regarded as an idiot box and shunned by serious print audiences.

TV is an entertainment medium with news as the only component that supplies meaningful information. Also, there is no way of stopping people from receiving TV signals. There is very little that the government could do about it. Even in their limited content area, TV channels played havoc with people´s passions in Gujarat. They have in the last ten years accomplished a cultural upheaval Macaulay and his successors could not in one century. If the government has the will it was not impossible to block these signals as China has done. European countries, more developed than India, have put their foot down on the entry of foreign capital.

Hear what the chairman of the United States Federal Communications Commission Reed Hundt says on foreign investment: "Even today, there is a concern over foreign ownership in this (media) sector. We are still vigorously debating the issue in our country." Yet the small FDI lobby favors foreign crutches because without them "Indian newspapers and magazines remain starved of capital and new technology." Several single edition newspapers of the pre-independence era have multiple editions today and added more units to their groups. There are great language newspaper chains today. All this was possible without foreign capital for more than half a century.

Indian print media have better technology than many of their counterparts in the United States like, for example, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The quality of printing in the country can match any that can be seen abroad. With multiple editions, newspapers reach all corners of the country by dawn. Hardly, two decades ago, the Hindu used to fly its Madras editions to other centers in the south. All newspapers had what were called dak editions reaching their destinations by rail. Thanks to technology, the scene is very different today. Where is the end to this thirst for technology? Why do not these guys talk about content? Do these FDI courtesans promise to channel foreign capital into increasing the content?

Some of them by habit repeat the rote of competition. Who among them is capable of competing with Rupert Murdoch? Read what N.Murali, joint managing director of the Hindu, says: "Look at Rupert Murdoch and how he dabbled in the politics of Great Britain, first supporting Margaret Thatcher and then withdrawing his backing to her successor publicly and then promoting Tony Blair. In the U.S., even Murdoch had to change citizenship to be eligible to own both newspapers and television channels because of cross-holding restrictions. And in Australia, which limits foreign investments to 25 per cent, look at the trouble Conrad Black, who is Canadian and owns The Telegraph in England, was put to in his bid for the Fairfox group of newspapers. Given the high rate of growth of regional media, I think the Murdochs of the world would definitely see the potential of investment here. I think if that happens it will really be damaging to the pluralism and diversity of our media."

There is also a loose talk about foreign competition increasing choices for the reader. There is certainly no need for choices in India because readers have already more choices than their counterparts in other countries. This is because our newspapers bring to our readers not only pictures of their country but also of other countries. A single newspaper serves 80 per cent per cent of American towns. Thanks to our distorted news values, we are overinformed. Also, foreign newspapers permitted to operate in India will give more of the foreign stuff plaguing the columns of our media. These smaller issues apart, the bigger danger is in allowing foreign media the right to freedom of expression, which is available to only Indian citizens. Imagine permitting a Pakistani newspaper to acquire 26 per cent of equity in any Kashmir journal sympathetic to liberation ideology.

Minister for Information and Broadcasting Sushma Swaraj says that the government had set some conditions to safeguard the interests of the domestic media. First, there is a ceiling of 26 per cent in news and current affairs media. Second, if the foreign investor tries to change the shareholding pattern, he has to compulsorily inform the ministry. Third, before allowing investment, the government will check the credentials of the investor. Fourth, the key controls in news and current affairs will continue to be in Indian hands and three-fourths of the employees will have to be Indian.

India is the eighth most corrupt country in the world. Journalists, including editors, are part of the Indian society and inherit all its failings. The corporate world is full of experts who know to skirt law to their advantage. With help coming from their Indian collaborators, foreign investors can easily increase their holding. Enron is a shining example of corporate morality. If the foreign investor has to inform the ministry of any change in investment pattern, he will inform. So what? All those claims about the government checking the credentials of prospective investor need not be taken seriously. The same persons who allowed massive quantities of RDX into this country for money will not suddenly become angels of virtue. The babus are the same everywhere and the Information and Broadcasting Ministry is no exception.

Editorial controls will be in Indian hands. Sushma, what are you talking about? Editors of Reader´s Digest in India were and are Indians. Did that make any difference in the contents of that magazine? Time magazine bureau in India has a number of Indians. How did the Alex Perry story go to town? Who gave him the health statistics of the Prime Minister? Today, all foreign newspapers and magazines have Indians in their bureaus. They do what their foreign bosses want them to do. So, let us forget about editorial control being in Indian hands.

We have opened the fourth estate to foreign predation and as K.K.Katyal of the Hindu asks "will the first three estates -- the executive, the legislature and the judiciary -- be opened later?" According to the FDI caucus, foreign investors are coming as business partners and not as colonialists. It is difficult to see any business logic in an industry where returns on investment are measly.