Prasar Bharati । প্রসার ভারতী

মৃণাল সেনের ফিল্মের সঙ্গে আগেই পরিচয় ছিল, তবে বাক্তিগতভাবে আলাপ হল ১৯৯৭ সালে। 'ক্যালকাটা ফিল্ম ফেস্টিভ্যাল'-এর কমিটিতে আমার নাম অন্তর্ভূক্ত হওয়ার পর। সেই সুবাদে ঘনিষ্ঠ পরিচয় গড়ে ওঠে। প্রচুর আড্ডা মেরেছি ওঁর সঙ্গে। মাঝে মাঝে দেখাসাক্ষাৎ না হলে গৌতম ঘোষকে ডেকে বলতেন — তোমার আইএএস বন্ধুটির খবর কী?

When I first met Shivendra Singh Dungarpur in 2014, he had just started his Film Heritage Foundation (FHF) in Mumbai. I was then the Chief Executive Officer of Prasar Bharati in Delhi and he wanted archivists from Doordarshan to join his proposed workshop on restoration and preservation of films and audio visual materials. He had captioned it as the ‘first Film Preservation and Restoration School India’ which was to be held in February 2015.

The recent public fight between A Surya Prakash, Chairman of Prasar Bharati and Smriti Irani, the minister for Information and Broadcasting reveals that even when both swear allegiance to the same BJP and its parent, the RSS, their interests and differences can be deadly. It rudely belies the fond hope of the ruling establishment that peace and harmony would reign once a ‘dissident’ CEO was smoked out before the end of his protected tenure. From the self goals made by both sides emerges an interesting case study of how the Indian state functions after the biggest historical electoral mandate brought Modi to the Centre.

Exactly 20 years ago, when Inder Kumar Gujral, then prime minister, set free the two arms of the State-controlled media, All India Radio and Doordarshan, he had sincerely hoped to insulate them from government control. He knew radio and television as he had been India's information minister 22 years earlier till he was evicted by Indira Gandhi. In this interval, every political party had sworn to liberate the two State media but they reneged once they captured power.

While episodic outbursts when the public broadcaster commits some sin of omission or commission are natural, they usually peter away after some self-righteous indignation. Such transient interest can hardly achieve anything beyond a few column centimetres, as we need to look at what heavy chains bind Prasar Bharati before calling it a poodle.

It was sad to see Prasar Bharati getting into an avoidable controversy and, as its former CEO, I was asked endlessly: was it legitimate and proper to ‘censor’ the pre-recorded Independence Day speech of the chief minister of Tripura, Manik Sarkar? Legitimacy and propriety are two distinct issues, but let us first look at the legal aspect.

In the normal course, one would like to stay away from any controversy surrounding an organisation that one has headed for over four and a half years. But since the matter has a bearing on India’s democratic traditions and its federal polity, I would need to clear the air.

If someone is serious about Doordarshan, it has to decide once for all whether it has to maintain some 50 mini-TV stations to produce just six hours of programming in an entire week.

Every major nation in the world has a public broadcaster and there must be some reason why they do. Before we can discuss the shortcomings of Prasar Bharati, the autonomous body that supervises Doordarshan (DD) and All India Radio (AIR), we may recall that even as its Act was passed by Parliament in 1990, its spirit of autonomy was vitiated by two sections, 32 and 33, which took away with the left hand what the right gave. They ensured that all its major decisions like manpower, recruitment, service conditions, salaries and critical issues would be decided only by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (I&B).

Prasar Bharati came into being on 28 th November 1997 after Prasar Bharati Act of 1990 was finally implemented by the Government and the Directorates of All India Radio (Akashvani) and Doordarshan were separated from Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and placed under an ‘autonomous body’. It was a momentous decision that came some seven years after Parliament had taken pains to conceive of a Public Service Broadcaster, whose character was eloquently worded in the Statement of Objects and Reasons.