Too much information

Why do we need two parliamentary TV channels?

The blunt language of Hamid Ansari’s farewell speech to Parliament and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s gratuitous response to them was a hot debate topic on the evening TV fight shows, but it is the former’s last acts as vice-president that urgently suggest a rethink of the need for two exclusive channels, Rajya Sabha TV and Lok Sabha TV, to cover parliamentary proceedings. The problem is an institutional one. Rajya Sabha TV is owned and operated by the Rajya Sabha, of which the vice-president is the constitutional head, and, likewise, Lok Sabha TV comes under the purview of Speaker Sumitra Mahajan, though both channels have chief executive officers. 

In principle, channels that exclusively cover parliamentary proceedings certainly conform to the best traditions of democracy. In a sense, these channels play the role of a public service broadcaster since they operate through taxpayer money, though in function they resemble the C-Span bouquet, which offers, among other things, “gavel-to-gavel” coverage of the US Congress. It should be noted, however, that C-Span is uniquely a private non-profit entity, financed by a small proportion of subscriber fees from cable, satellite and telecom networks. It is entirely independent; neither the networks nor the US Congress or the executive can dictate its programming. The two Indian parliamentary channels, on the other hand, have evolved into creatures of the vice-president and the speaker.

Yet their very control structure makes both channels vulnerable to becoming mouthpieces of the people who control them. This is evident in the exits of two Lok Sabha TV CEOs in 2014, one of them for programming critical of the government, and the appointment of the current incumbent from Ms Mahajan’s home city of Indore. Aashish Joshi, however, has experience in Doordarshan and private channels. On the other hand, Gurdeep Singh Sappal, CEO of Rajya Sabha TV under Mr Ansari, was also an aide and special advisor to the vice-president, indicating a direct line of control. Just as the government’s suppression of critical programming on Lok Sabha TV should be avoided, the outgoing vice-president’s use of Rajya Sabha TV to air his own criticism of the government did him no favour, either. 

Not surprisingly, his successor wasted little time replacing the channel’s senior staff with handpicked stalwarts. This is an absurd situation that does not serve the cause of democracy in a healthy way. Given the considerable time spent on rowdy conduct, it would make better sense to have just one channel covering parliamentary proceedings — on the rare occasions that simultaneous transmissions are needed, state-owned Doordarshan is always available — and close transmission when Parliament is not in session. For an economy that is struggling to grow, there are surely better uses for taxpayer money.