IT is true that even though we (the ineffective and inactive middle class) have for long stopped believing in our political leadership, the recent announcement by the government to allow foreign direct investment (FDI) in print media came as a shock to us. The Information and Broadcasting Minister, Sushma Swaraj, was, in fact, building up arguments against the entry of FDI in print media till a short time ago. This volte-face by the government only confirms the fact that we can never be sure of our politicians.

The government has allowed 26 per cent FDI in newspapers and current affairs magazines. In addition, FDI in non-news, non-current publications will also be permitted. Besides, there are couple of dos and don’ts, like the editors have to be resident Indians, three-fourths of the board of directors have to be resident Indians and the single largest Indian shareholder must hold an equity of over 26 per cent in the management structure.

Now let’s have a look at the Indian print media, as it stands today. Its vulnerability and fragility can be gauged from just one example — that of Enron. Almost the entire print media built Enron as a god-sent firm, which was going to generate electricity to uplift the poor and bring prosperity to India. Was the print media armed with Enron’s credentials or was it ‘something else’ that drove it to lick Enron’s boots? Except for The Hindu and The Tribune, every other national English daily had accepted and carried Enron advertisements. No wonder that they had also campaigned for Enron through their editorials and news reports. Praful Bidwai was the lone crusader against Enron. He had launched a campaign in his columns.

The fragility of the Indian print media can also be gauged from the fact that journalists get recruited despite having criminal cases against them. Besides, the big players never hesitated in hitting the small players below the belt. For instance, reducing the price of the newspaper far below its cost of production. If we can indulge in such practices, what can stop us from not letting our neck be twisted by foreign investors?

Such decisions, as a result of the thoroughly corrupt or warped functioning of the system, are only going to fasten the pace of the ongoing degeneration. A glaring example is of the influence Dawood wields over the film industry. Besides the filtering in of his ill-gotten money into Bollywood, he not only controls the functioning of the film industry but also the lives of film personalities. He successfully made a mockery of all our systems of checks. Though the Indian Government failed to check this menace springing from its own territory yet it is boasting that it will be able to keep an eye on foreign investments.

I feel this decision will only worsen the ongoing degeneration. All these so-called measures are only superficial covers, which will be neither hard to pierce nor difficult to remove altogether. It will not be difficult for vested interests to get into the print media as investors. As for the verification of credentials that Sushma Swaraj is talking about, allow me to tell her a little story.

There was one Ripudaman Malik, whose family had migrated to Canada from Ferozepore in Punjab. This young brainy boy, who grew up in the open society of Canada, eventually made good money with hard work and opened the Khalsa Credit Society. This society ran business worth millions and nobody ever doubted that he could be a serious threat to the safety of innocent people. When Kanishka blew into pieces with 380 people on board, nobody thought that Ripudaman Malik could have any connection with it. But today, he is in jail and the Canadian Government is trying him for having funded the Kanishka blast. But that is Canada, which has successfully arrested him. India, till date, has not been able to arrest Dawood, who continues to exercise control over Bollywood and its people.

It is true that FDI in media is a much-practised concept. It has already been experimented with in a number of countries like the USA and the UK in a limited way. Australian Rupert Murdoch had to become a US citizen before he could dabble in the media there. But it is significant to note that FDI in the First World countries was never allowed to dictate or invade whatever editorial policies its media wanted to adopt.

In fact media in the USA is as good as an extension of the American authority. This does not mean that the American media is sold out to the American establishment or the American authorities arm-twist it. This enviable situation of the American establishment has roots in nationalism. American people are die-hard nationalists. Take, for example, the Vietnam War. The American establishment kept bombarding the hapless nation with the blind support of American media and its people till the casualty number of their own soldiers became alarmingly high. Eventually, the American media and the people forced the American establishment to withdraw from Vietnam.

Yet another example is of the Gulf War, which turned out to be the ‘first television war.’ The American media depicted the USA as a noble warrior, helping liberate Kuwait from Iraq. The American media covers up America’s vested interests in all international situations. So whether the attacks are for Kuwait’s oil or Bin Laden’s head, all the confrontations are painted as ‘holy wars’ by the American media. Now, the moot question is whether the Indian media is as faithful to the Indian establishment?

China has used FDI only selectively by permitting foreign entertainment TV channels. As far as the editorial policy, news and any kind of political commentary are concerned, China has prohibited FDI on its land. But policies are not so clear and direct in India. Wheels within wheels affect the functioning of our system. For instance, only five years ago the then government had introduced the Broadcasting Authority of India Bill to regulate the electronic media. But when the Lok Sabha dissolved in 1998, the Bill, to the shock of many, was also allowed to lapse.

Similarly, the way our government has changed its stand on the entry of FDI in print media in less than 20 months, despite opposition, is a clear indication that in our country people’s voice does not matter. In such cases, all our political leaders, irrespective of the party-tag, appear to be remote-controlled for some mischievous motives. Sushma Swaraj, justifying the decision, argued that once FDI had been allowed in electronic media, there was no need to forbid it in the print media. With this plea she has indicated that if a government does one wrong, it gains the authority to do a second wrong in order to make both wrongs sound right.

It may also be recalled that a report of the Parliamentary Committee on Information Technology was tabled in the Lok Sabha on March 22 last. It had rejected reviewing of the 1955 resolution of Nehru’s Cabinet, which had banned FDI in Indian media. Despite this, the Cabinet went ahead to take an authoritarian decision. The moral of the story is that Indian people are slaves and Indian politicians are their lords and masters.