Author: Bhavdeep Kang
Publication: Outlook
Date: July 15, 2002
Union I&B minister defends the
decision in the face of opposition from some of NDA's allies and friends
like the TDP, the Samata Party, the Shiv Sena and the AIADMK
Union information and broadcasting
minister Sushma Swaraj has received both bouquets and brickbats for her
ministry's decision last fortnight to clear foreign direct investment (FDI)
in the print media. Though approved by the Union cabinet, the move has
been strongly opposed by the entire Opposition and some of NDA's allies
and friends like the TDP, the Samata Party, the Shiv Sena and the AIADMK.
In an interview to Bhavdeep Kang the minister defends her decision. Excerpts:
Q.: Why was it so important to overturn
a cabinet decision of 53 years standing at this particular juncture?
A.: It is not a question of 53
years. Opening up of the print media could be thought of only when the
government started liberalising. First of all, you open up manufacturing,
followed by the services. The media is always the last. You can't treat
media as a product. Therefore, you have to open it with caution. That way,
if you see, the timing is logical. Twelve years ago, the process started.
Media was opened last and print
even later. Every idea has its timing. It is neither late nor early. It
is just at the right time.
Q.: There was no mention of FDI
in news and current affairs in the note placed before the cabinet just
one month ago. Why was it suddenly added?
A.: It is not sudden. The standing
committee of Parliament was unanimous on (allowing FDI in) non-news, non-current
affairs but divided on news and current affairs, so we thought we will
do it in phases. In the first phase, we'll only bring technical journals,
then study the question of news and current affairs. But the cabinet thought
why do it piecemeal? They said let's bring a comprehensive policy, so the
cabinet gave me a mandate to study the committee report and the dissenting
notes and to effect the policy once and for all.
Q.: Why did you not wait for a consensus,
at least within the NDA?
A.: The policy has been on the
anvil for two years. The debate has been on since September 2000 in different
fora. I was invited by the Editors' Guild, where I thought the views would
be unanimous (on not allowing FDI) but to my surprise, the first dissenting
voice was that of Vinod Mehta, editor of Outlook. He pointed out that broadcasting
was open, so why not print. And one after another there were voices in
Vinod's favour. But consensus in the industry eluded us. It was the same
in political parties. Gradually, they came close to a consensus, but we
could not have expected unanimity, either in industry or among political
parties.
Q.: Why was the standing committee
report set aside?
A.: The report was never set aside.
If the standing committee's recommendations are unanimous, then the government
generally accepts them. But here the committee was sharply divided. Of
the 26 members, 16 were for and 10 strongly against-in fact, they struck
their dissenting notes.
We have addressed all the concerns
of the committee. The first was the source of money, because of security
concerns. So, we've not allowed fii investment, because it is faceless.
In non- news, we've used the word "foreign investment". Now, we've allowed
only FDI. We have not put it on automatic route, or the FIPB route, we
have put it on a case-by-case basis. From the security point of view, credentials
should be established. In the case of FM Radio, of the 29 firms that came
to us, we asked for security clearance. Two didn't get it and were disqualified.
There was a fear that isi can also come in, but it can only do so through
fiis.
The second concern was that 26 per
cent is a controlling equity, so it's as good as 49. We've said at least
one of the Indian investors has to have a significantly higher investment.
The third concern had to do with editorial policy. We've ensured neither
management nor editorial control would be in foreign hands.There can't
be more safeguards than this. To substantiate that we aren't treating the
media as a product, I must point out that in other sectors where FDI was
allowed, no safeguards were in place.
Q.: There's a view that the move
was intended to target three top newspapers which have been writing against
the government.
A.: There is no charge more baseless
than this. If you are talking about the coverage of Gujarat or hostility
by the media, then if you see all the papers, there's not one which has
been as bitter in its criticism as The Indian Express. Compare it with
The Hindustan Times, The Times of India, The Hindu. The Times of India
in Ahmedabad had written in total support. In Delhi, it was critical but
in Ahmedabad, it was in total support. But no edition of The Indian Express
supported the government. Yet, FDI was welcomed by them. They will benefit
from it. Nor did Aaj Tak (owned by India Today) support us. There's no
merit in this allegation that to control or reward or punish some people,
this decision has been taken. If anyone has been rewarded, it is the most
critical section of the press.
Jansatta never supported the government.
It is the most critical paper vis-a-vis the Sangh parivar. Then why has
it written in favour of the FDI? And why would we want to strengthen Jansatta
which is so critical? We did not take the decision in favour of any lobby.
We took it in national interest. It was illogical-in defence, space and
atomic energy and broadcasting, you have opened up but in print media,
you have closed the windows.
Q.: Isn't it true that the government
was unhappy with the three major newspapers even before Gujarat?
A.: Why should we be unhappy? The
people who are in government now are those who have always supported freedom
of the press. The question is: are only these three papers against the
government? Among those who have welcomed it, who supports us? Do Express,
India Today, The Telegraph, ABP, Outlook support us? Those who have taken
the lead in supporting FDI, like Vinod Mehta, have they ever supported
us? Outlook and India Today have been bitter critics...but these two are
both in support of FDI.
We don't think of newspapers as
hamara ya paraya (ours or not), we just want them to write the truth. A
newspaper should not be biased or prejudiced. Why should we, who have fought
for press freedom under the Emergency, curb it? We have never tried to
cultivate any section of the press. Kisiko apna kehkay paala nahin, kisiko
paraya kahkey chhoda nahin. (We have not cultivated anyone nor have we
rejected anyone.)
Q.: Is it true that Ramoji Rao of
the Eenadu group and others are pushing for a rollback? Will that happen?
A.: No comment. Government policy
is determined by larger national interests.
Q.: Doesn't the attack on the PM
in Time magazine discourage you from allowing foreign players a toehold?
A.: The government cannot base
its policy decisions on one article. A single article cannot be a guiding
principle. I'll pose a counter-question: if you say that because of Gujarat
we allowed FDI then why did we not stop it because of the Time article?
Q.: Isn't the decision to allow
FDI against the spirit of the NDA's 1999 agenda for governance which puts
a 20 per cent cap on FDI in private broadcasting?
A.: The situation in 1999 was such
that it seemed as if 20 per cent would be enough. But the way other sectors
opened up, we felt the circumstances had changed. For example, we never
thought defence procurement would open up.
Q.: Is there any amendment to the
RBI rule banning listing of print media companies on the stockmarket?
A.: The amendment will allow companies
to be listed in the stockmarket but only for Indian equity, not for FIIs.
Q.: We keep hearing 100 per cent
FDI in broadcasting being touted as a justification for opening up print.Is
that the case?
A.: There are different issues
in the electronic media. In uplinking it is 49 per cent. In telecom it
is 74 per cent. In dth it is 20 per cent. In FM radio it is 20 per cent.
When they say 100 per cent they are talking about software, because it
comes from abroad. You can't regulate it. Where we have opened up, we have
kept it at 20 per cent to 49 per cent.
