01
indiantelevision.com Team
NEW DELHI: Even as Prasar Bharati is claimed to be an autonomous body, Information and Broadcasting minister Manish Tewari today made it clear that the government cannot be expected to maintain "an arm?s length" when it foots the bills for the pubcaster.
The minister was responding to criticism by Prasar Bharati Board chairperson Mrinal Pande who spoke of ?intricate circles of bureaucratic power? surrounding the institution.
Both were speaking at the inaugural session of a meeting of a recently-constituted Expert Committee to review PB?s functioning headed by the Prime Minister?s advisor on Public Information Infrastructure Sam Pitroda.
Tewari said the key issue was whether India needed a public broadcaster, and its relationship with the government.
"Two-thirds of the I and B ministry?s budget ? Rs 18.85 billion out of Rs 28 billion ? goes to Prasar Bharati. I am the recruiting authority, the disciplinary authority, the sanctioning authority. Yet, I am supposed to have arm?s length. I am not God," he It needs to be noted here that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) had in December stated that the government should further strengthen the arm?s length relationship between the public broadcaster Prasar Bharti and the central government.
While submitting its recommendations on "Issues related to entry of government or government entities into the business of broadcasting and/or distribution of TV channels" Trai had said that measures should ensure functional independence and autonomy of Prasar Bharti.
The option was to follow the ?Comptroller and Auditor General-Finance Ministry? model if the vote was in favour of having a public service broadcaster, the minister said. "If you want to take it out of the government?s ambit, PB can be directly accountable to Parliament. This will then allow me to have another full spectrum communication agency which puts the government?s viewpoint in the public space. Communication is a part of the development remit."
Tewari emphasised that for any change to be ?sustainable?, reforms had to be ?incremental and gradual? so that it could deal with the resistance within the system. But Mr Pitroda said he believed in ?disruptive approach and generational change?. "If it is not disruptive, it is not worth doing."
Earlier, Pande had rejected the proposition of remaking AIR and DD as government departments as ?rubbish?.
She asked the Expert Committee to focus on programming issues, where the problem was a ?dual control system?, with the government retaining ?final regulatory powers? on a range of issues. "Committed professionals and innovative artistes are replaced by grim men and women behind desks who tell us not how change can happen, but why it must not."
She also highlighted the ?systemic mis-alignments? in the ?hastily crafted? PB Act 2000, where the government picks the top three members of the PB executive, even though the Board is supposed to be supervising and managing the corporation?s affairs. Much to its ?embarrassment?, the Board learnt of certain PB-related issues from the next day?s newspapers, she added. She spoke of met hardware needs that were not being met.
