To get the full picture, in the European Union (EU), the Competition Authority is the Competition Commissioner of the EU, who is empowered to investigate cases, issue summons, and levy heavy penalties. In the UK, the chairpersons of the Compensation Commission, and the Office of Fair Trading are both economists. The US Commission combines investigation, prosecution and adjudication. The chairmen of all the above bodies are experts in the field, from different disciplines, with broad-spectrum experience of corporate issues; none of them is a judge.
It will be myopic to look at the issue of a major oversight body like the proposed CCI, from the limited perspective that only a judge shall head the same, as if there is a divine right to do so. Of course, there needs to be sufficient safeguards to ensure that only persons with adequate background, experience, knowledge and familiarity with the complexities of management and regulation in the corporate world, with high integrity should man the CCI. Unfortunately, large national issues are seen either as an encroachment on judicial territory or attempts to foist ex-bureaucrats into plum positions; the latter should certainly be avoided with stringent safeguards. In all this wrangling the CCI, sorely needed by the country at a time of expanding FDI, had been in limbo for four years or so. One wonders if this was indeed deliberate! The reference to the CCI issue is merely to illustrate the need for a change in the mindset of all the players who see large national issues in narrow, petty, partisan terms.
Incidentally, this is not the only agency which has remained headless, and thus ineffective for long periods of time. A reference can be made to the National Environment Appellate Tribunal (NEAT), which has not had the benefit of having a chairman for about five years now. That is indicative of the interest and attention given to our major bodies engaged in implementation of government policies.
Sectoral Regulatory Agencies – horses for courses . . .
With the rapid diversification of the economy in the post-liberalisation phase, many service sectors have seen much rapid growth. With the stress laid on infrastructure, sectors such as telephony, including mobile phones, financial services, etc., have expanded rapidly. Along with increased FDI, and a higher degree of globalisation, many foreign players have also joined hands with Indian private entrepreneurs to undertake many tasks essential to take the economy forward. Indeed many public sector enterprises have undergone creeping or full disinvestment, or have had their assets handed over for management by the private sector.
It is after all the basic role of the government to provide a secure ground for the citizen to undertake his activities without fear, and also to promote the social sectors relating to education, public health and the like; leaving much of the running in the industrial and other economic space to private players. This is broadly the development model being followed, in contrast to the first four decades after Independence, where much of the thrust in the economy was generated by the public sector. With larger all-pervasive private activity, the need for 'regulation' in the various economic sectors is paramount.
Besides, in the process of providing a certain service, there are many stakeholders and different kinds of players engaged in that activity. Thus, while arranging for electric power to the public, many parties are involved – the power producer, the state electricity boards, the transmission system, the local distribution network – all are players who play a vital role in efficient provision of service, not to speak of the consumer. At a time, when electricity was primarily provided by the public sector, all the attendant agencies and players were also in the sphere of public investment; their commercial interaction and adjustment of their mutual terms was relatively easier. However, with larger private involvement as befits a modern economy, it is essential to provide a regulatory framework so that the various private players as well as the public bodies concerned can interact in a fair and legitimate manner, giving each comfort, and ensuring that their legitimate financial aspirations are reasonably well met. This has been the rationale for introducing the concept of 'Regulator'. Indeed in the developed countries, the regulator in each sector plays a vital role, acts as an enlightened umpire whose word is respected and followed, and who arbitrates and settles inter se disputes quickly and effectively, so that the 'show goes on' in the best interest of all, particularly the consuming public.
In the mid-1990s this concept was translated to practice with the establishment of the TRAI and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), along with the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions. While the TRAI as established in 1997 was subsequently modified in 2002, effectively trifurcating its mandate, this institution has played a significant role in ensuring the orderly development and growth of the telecom sector over the past decade. At a time of rapid growth of telephony, especially mobile telephony, a critical supervisory watchdog role has been well performed by this agency. It is possible to find this fault or the other in its performance; overall the agency has been a significant beneficial addition to the system.
The CERC and the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions were expected to play a similar role in the power sector, assisting in establishment of a proper tariff, fair to the consumer as well as to the various agencies which constitute the supplier-group. However, while there has been some beneficial impact of these agencies, they have not yet been able to play the envisaged significant role in regulating or managing the power sector. A variety of reasons can be adduced for this state of affairs; this is primarily due to the lack of will in state governments to rationalise working of the state electricity boards, as well as the inability of the Central Government to understand the critical role of managing the sector better; these failures have ensured the lack of provision of a basic daily need countrywide.
A number of regulatory institutions have been established in the financial sector, with varying impact. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), established in the mid-1990s has played an important role, in regulating the Indian stock market, which has seen a major boom in the first half of this decade. While the SEBI could not preempt a number of scandals and major frauds in the sector, and could not dispel the feeling that canny, unscrupulous actors could disrupt the system periodically, it has still played a salutary role in the field.
It should also be noted that most of the Indian regulatory agencies use 'hands-off ' methods and procedures in handling their respective sectors. To some extent, this is unlike the European or American model, where the regulator is actively involved in all the plays, gets his voice heard over the din, and enforces regulation with an iron hand. The Indian model, in contrast, is to have quasi-judicial proceedings in each matter, with a 'formal' inquiry procedure, leaving considerable room to the operators to squirm out of difficult situations. The reason for this contrast is probably that in the Western world, the regulator is carefully chosen for his deep knowledge of the sector as well as high integrity. He is entrusted with large powers to regulate the sector, and allowed to make the rules as he goes along. The tendency to invoke the courts against the regulators is limited in Western countries, and generally the regulator so appointed manages his field in a friendly manner while ensuring full compliance. In contrast, under Indian conditions, with the strong possibility of a political motivation in appointment of the regulator, as well as the tendency of the stakeholders to move courts at the drop of a hat (frequently with the objective of delaying proceedings indefinitely), and the outcome a lottery, the phenomenon we see is of an Indian regulator who is generally very cautious, rule-and-procedure bound, and non-committal in a hands-off manner. No wonder that the regulator is less effective in such circumstances. It also needs to be understood that the government or the ministry concerned will not give a free hand to the regulator to do his job; the administration would generally retain overriding powers, and will tend to be the final arbiter, even in individual cases, for reasons discussed elsewhere.
There are a large number of other agencies not discussed or referred to above, from the perspective of the import
ance and significance. Some of them have pulled their weight. Alas! most have not.
9
OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND PRIVATE AGENCIES
n the earlier chapters, the role of various constitutional and executive institutions and agencies has been briefly covered, insofar as they contribute to governance. It would be noticed that there has hardly been any reference to the defence forces or the para-military forces, as well as the intelligence agencies; and no discussion generally on internal security issues. All these aspects are vital to national well being. However, any detailed public discussion, with insight and analysis of past performance would probably not always be useful; opening up of certain territory in the public domain may be counter-productive to national interests. A vigilant government should normally take great care to ensure that these agencies and institutions are 'fighting fit' at all times, and are fully prepared and ever alert to respond to any situation. We shall leave it at that, not delve deeper at this moment.
A number of agencies outside the governmental sector also influence aspects of governance in one manner or the other, to a small or large extent. In the following paragraphs, a brief reference is made to three such institutions/agencies – the media, the private corporate sector and the NGOs.
The Media – the medium is the message . . .
Even a casual observer can see that the range, scope and depth of media coverage has sharply increased over the past fifteen years or so, especially over the past five years. Much like the telecom sector, which has taken rapid strides in the last fifteen years, the media, especially visual media has seen runaway growth. Just as competition to Indian Airlines dramatically improved the quality of air services available to the general public, the breakup of the monopoly of AIR/ Doordarshan and induction of a number of new television service providers, with multiplicity of channels has provided a dramatic fillip to the range and content of visual media coverage. Latest technologies have found their way to the Indian media scene. Again, as in the telecom sector, the sound policies pursued by government have paved the way for this development. It should be mentioned that the policy initiatives were undertaken in mid-'90s, particularly during the period of the coalition governments of Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral, are probably the most significant contributors to this success story.
Unlike the telecom sector, rural coverage is still quite low – much of the explosive expansion has taken place in the metros and other cities and towns. Again, unlike the civil aviation sector, where reform contributed to strong improvement in the performance of the nationalised airlines due to competition pressure, a similar impact has not taken place on AIR, and its later Doordarshan avatar; these remain as moribund as before. Perhaps the real reasons are twofold: firstly, government as before continues to use the nationalised channel purely to propagate its own point of view; to use the medium more or less as a propaganda vehicle, without concern for viewer acceptance, whereas the private channels developed programmes which met the entertainment needs of the urban Indian, and found ready acceptance. The second reason also is that Doordarshan is still the largest entity in non-urban, remoter areas, and the pressure of competition has not really touched them. In a sense, unlike Air India/Indian Airlines, Doordarshan has, ab initio, not tried to compete with private channels for viewer attention in urban areas.
Since it is a booming industry, new entrants join nearly every month; new TV channels are announced with regularity. There is now strong coverage in regional languages, which again is expanding dramatically in every part of the country. With expansion and competition, channels vie with each other to provide content which is acceptable to the viewing public. The viewership ratings are fought for with ferocity, as these dictate the advertisement rates, which is the key contributor to profitability.
There is also a sharp increase in quality of presentational skills. With new training institutions churning out young men and women specialised in every aspect of the media sector, the competition is strong; the viewer is the gainer. Especially in the news segment, the competition among reporters is fierce – this produces frequently high quality reportage; one also often sees trivial items blown out of proportion, and flogged in public repeatedly.
Despite the success story recounted above, some serious concerns have continued to emerge. As the media becomes more mature, suboptimal practices become routine and embedded in the system. The first relates to 'populism' as the only driving force of the visual media, with viewers' rating being the sole criterion. Indeed, to be facetious, if the law permits nudity and pornography, every channel without exception would jump in and have twenty-four hours of the same to the exclusion of all else, so long as the ratings are remarkably high. There is no ostensible social purpose inherent or underlying the philosophy of visual media – ratings are all. This is the other extreme to propaganda and presentation of a sovereign point of view, as practised by Doordarshan; pandering to the instincts of the minimum common denominator is the underlying philosophy of most private channels. As one has seen in so many other sectors, where there is unregulated pursuit of the profit motive as the sole driving force, the consequences over time can be quite negative.
It is also worth noting that television as a medium, particularly managed by the private sector, is mainly geared to middle-class audiences. The standard fare of sports, fashion shows, soaps, etc., indeed even the news channels are geared mainly for the consumption of the middle class. A creature of the middle class, managed and conducted by the middle class, primarily for the middle class, this medium focuses nearly exclusively on the issues of interest to this class. In a sense this is inevitable, since its reach is mostly to the urban middle class – even the arrival of cable TV or DTH has not extended the reach to the remoter parts of the country, and to the farmer and land labour class which constitutes the majority of the population of India. Thus a full portrait of conditions that exist in most of India cannot be seen through this medium – neither the makers of footage nor reviewers are keenly interested in such issues as poverty, public health, abysmal electricity availability or law and order in rural areas; these areas are covered perfunctorily if at all; the main focus is on urban middle-class issues. Sadly, even Doordarshan, which has a larger rural coverage, is unable to do justice to the role it supposed to play; the programme content is dismally poor.
Priorities – the titillation index
As mentioned, television addresses the lowest common denominator of the viewing public's tastes. The prioritisation of what is newsworthy leaves much to be desired. To give some anecdotal examples, twenty-four, yes twenty-four specially trained police commandos were killed in Malkhangiri, in mid-2008 clearing landmines planted by naxalities. While one may question the 'quality' of the police training, this event is not headline news – this rates eighth or ninth spot on the news of the day, for a brief ten-second mention. In July 2008, sixty trained commandos were reported killed by naxalite operations in Orissa, near Chilika lake area; this deserved a fourth or fifth ranking in the national news for a brief ten-second mention. The 'news' died out within a day – there were no 'brave' newsmen going for follow up studies, analysis and to give details of such a massive tragedy. On the same day, a car accident on the Delhi-Noida-Delhi Expressway, where two cars collided head-on resulting in two deaths had extensive coverage in all newspapers, including sketches, eye witness accounts.
A 'war' against naxalism has been waging in the country for many years now. At least ten states are affected and about six of them seriously. Large tracts of territories are within the actual administration and control of the naxalites. As counted two years back, a significant part of the country was affected by naxalism, very seriously or seriously or moderately. The relevant facts, issues, analyses, approaches, prospects have hardly been debated seriously in any national network. I would understand it if this were part of a grand national strategy, use of self-restraint or even on the fiat of government, where the channels have restrained themselves, for fear of alarming the pu
blic. My surmise is neither is true; the channels do not have a self-regulatory code, and government is neither capable of issuing such a fiat nor have it respected, in the current dispensation.
The most important features of India relate to the overall abysmal poverty, miserable living conditions and very low health standards in much of rural India, as well as endemic corruption. It's a moot question as to how much sustained critical analytical attention is devoted to these vital themes in the day-to-day coverage by our national channels. In 2008, the Parliament of India met only fourty-two days, the lowest on record in post-Independence history. Has this been discussed, elaborated, analysed and brought effectively into the attention of the nation? Right in the middle of the Mumbai terror crisis, V.P. Singh, an ex-prime minister died. While one is entitled to think well or ill of him, he has had a significant impact on the direction of Indian polity, mainly due to his Mandal decision, as well as the austere, pure image he projected (which of course many dubbed as a sham). His demise and funeral attracted one-line news coverage. There was no 'retrospect', analysis of his impact or lack of it, and images of his life and times, and of his death and later. The television as medium sees itself, apparently, merely as a titillation to provide instant ephemeral gratification.
Goverment In India Page 23
