Re: Is India a model Democracy?

[Padmanabha Rao <kvprao@igidr.ac.in>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Srinath S wrote:
 ...So how is a private FM news channel different from a private TV news

 channel?

Isn't it the costs involved at the consumer level. We all know, the AIR
has a far greater reach than the DD in every city, town and village
regardless, and most of it simply because the radio receiver is a lot
cheaper. But there is more after that.  Being light in weight an FM
receiver is, for all purposes, mobile, and so *additionally*
instantaneous, unlike a TV receiver which we still keep in buildings. It

is potentially a bigger explosive than the TV channel in this sense. In
fact, one can anticipate the same problem as that of the FM when
cellular
phones become inexpensive, but that just amplifies what I am saying:
regulation can/should be called in when there is no mechanical
technology
to be had that can *rapidly* counter the power of the abuser if and when

it happens. We can rely on a simpler technology -universally sensible
behaviour from the producers- but that's a dumb thing to expect (?).

 In fact, private regional news channels pose less of a threat to
national
 interest rather than private international news channels...

Absolutely. As in Israel, Kosovo, and everywhere, exactly. And an
"India",
or an "US" cannot do much. And this as we know is the problem of the
transnational Co. (answerable to no one in particular but everyone in
general, giving two hoots to both time and space). But I think, it is
yet
a lesser problem (compared to the FM), *today*, in the sense a BBC or
CNN
or Radio Tibet don't yet produce for the people of Bangalore or the
residents of Jayanagar in Mysore. If and when that becomes
(economically)
possible, then of course the problem is bigger. However, whether the BBC

is producing for the people of *Bangalore*, or for the *kannadigas* of
the
world, in the end, it still is the same argument: lack of preventive
technology with the larger society leading to banning the *highly
probable* abuser. A Radio Tibet, BBC, Malaysia TV are considered less
probable and continue to get access; abuse once and it gets shut down.
"How" is again a problem and that as we know is at the heart of the
opposition to DTH (which however, while equivalent to the FM in a sense,

is also different in being expensive at the moment and therefore without

the mass base; aside, is there a better reason why we ought to
discourage
standards in technology?!). But here, I guess we can to an extent, take
solace in the economics, maybe. The economics in such large
interactions,
as in an India versus a BBC, perhaps ensures that both are decent enough

to each other. An India recognises the value of being judged by the
world,
a BBC values the access to an India for its profits, with the result
that
neither can try for a quick buck, and that's just as well for public
policy. This is of course only a hypothesis because we don't know what
would happen if the India doesn't have the counter technology and a BBC
was not at all catering to an India but the
*kannadigas*-around-the-world
or a Holland or a South-Asian_Network which might be havoc-mongering and

at the same time more profitable to the BBC. The national economics no
longer works and I guess something more drastic becomes necessary, like
banning by physical reach or whatever as it happens in an emergency. So,
I
think with TV networks, the cost factor, their current 'rating' and the
economics all combine to enable them be online. Do the FMs have any such

counter and counter-counter forces favoring full freedom to them ? Yes,
the economics still holds, but as I mentioned earlier, "India" doesn't
need to expose itself to Indians for any value; it *is* Indians, and so
the potential conflict itself and the ensuing play of economics is
redundant and from that point of view only the 'rating' and the cost
factor become important. And with 'rating' my judgement is as good as
anyone's, so the democratic and anonymous limit is 50%, and being
risk-averse you legislate to nip the whole thing in the bud. If the cost

factor is favourable you allow it, as in the regional TV channels. So,
we
either become risk-loving (well, actually risk-neutral would be better
for
all time to come) or the wannabe FMs deposit something to establish
their
goody goody-ness. Is there something missing in the model ?

Thanks.

Padmanabha Rao



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------