The founding fathers of our democracy fully realised the
value of building up and supporting the institutions of the country. Whether it
was Parliament or the judiciary, the answer to having a healthy democracy which
could not recede into despotism was to have strong and vibrant institutions. I
believe that it is this thought that has kept India alive as an island of true
democracy, when it could have easily succumbed to the pulls and pressures of
various types and become one of the many floundering post colonial nations.
The Parliament is a body where we (supposedly) send our wise
men - who get together and debate, and hammer out policy and direction which is
the best for the country. Unfortunately, the reality is far from that ideal.
When was the last time when we heard or saw a meaningful
debate in parliament? I scratch my head and the only occasion I can think of is
during the proceedings to impeach Justice Saumitra Sen. We heard good speeches
from various members. Both the treasury benches and the opposition seemed
united in the view that Sen J. was required to be impeached for his
transgressions as a lawyer. I for one (in my humble existence), could not
agree, for I thought the transgressions in his previous life did not warrant
impeachment since there was nothing wrong pointed out against him in his
functioning as a judge!
I do not recall a good debate ever since.
Rummaging through my old papers, I came across this
manuscript about the time when television cameras were first allowed inside
parliament in India. V. N. Narayanan was the Editor-in-Chief of The Tribune, and he offered the wisdom
and sagacity which only a Tamilian in North India could offer in the post Prem
Bhatia years.... He was very kind to me and encouraged me.
The pathetic scenes in Parliament these days indicate that
the institution has indeed fallen sick and needs resuscitation.
IS PARLIAMENTARY TELECAST REQUIRED?
Whether to throw open the doors of Parliament to the TV crews and their equipment is a question now being considered by the Government of India. In fact, the Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting, Mr. Ajit Panja, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Mr. Shivraj Patil, the Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, and others had a meeting on 19th. November wherein it was decided that proceedings of Parliament will be telecast selectively on an experimental basis from the first week of December. It has also been reported that Mr. Shivraj Patil is especially keen that atleast the more important debates and discussions are televised on Doordarshan. It is also known that this will not be a live coverage; only edited portions will be telecast at a later pre-announced time.
This debate is not recent in origin. At least in the developed world it has been going on for the past few decades. In the U.K. this question was asked more than two decades ago and only recently have the TV cameras been allowed to enter the chambers of Parliament. I have particularly cited the example of the British Parliament because of the close resemblance our system has with that one.
That parliamentary proceedings are sought to be telecast now is also a sign of the times, when we have the media expanding its reach in all directions and becoming tremendously powerful in shaping the common opinion of the masses. That the public at large will have the opportunity to view and evaluate their representatives’ performance in the highest forum of the land in a first hand manner cannot but be welcomed.
So important has television become in the modern world that politicians occupying or aspiring for high offices devote considerable time, resources and energy trying to “look good” (and sound good) on TV. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagen employed specialists to tutor them in the art of appearing on TV and radio. Thatcher considerably toned down her shrill, shrewish manner of speech over the years into a much more resonant, pleasing voice. And so did Reagan.
Having politicians who are conscious of the fact that they are on television, is, in fact, a pitfall. They become more bothered about how they look and how they sound to the viewers rather than being earnestly concerned with getting down to business in the house and seeing that all decisions are taken for the good of the country. There is also the fear that in a country like ours where interests are sharply conflicting between various regions and between people of various denominations, the MP’s will all the time “play to the gallery” and continue with their purposeless harangues just to convince the people “at home”!
It is learnt that a live telecast of the proceedings is not yet possible due to the technical modalities involved and a shortage of hardware. In the circumstances involved and a shortage of hardware. In the circumstances a recording will be made and edited later, before being shown on television. The editing will be done according to guidelines framed by a special committee. As to how this committee is to be formed and who will actually edit the recordings is not known as yet. It is also unclear whether other private organisation will also be allowed to enter the halls of Parliament to do their own filming to be shown on television or video cassettes.
Even when the hardware does become available, it will never be practical to telecast parliamentary proceedings live, except in extraordinary situations, because of the fact that a session of Parliament is several days long, and very few viewers would be able to watch continuously and watch out for the important bits of debate. A complete live telecast would require much of one channel’s time, and in the Indian context where there is only one channel available to cater to all needs, this would not be possible. So a telecast of parliamentary proceedings has to be selective, and this function of selection is what assumes the greatest importance.
This issue has to be linked to the larger issue of autonomy for Doordarshan and All India Radio. One can understand that parliamentary proceedings can be safely edited by a thoroughly professional, independent and non-partisan body like the BBC and presented to the viewers in a manner so that the true shape of the debate comes across with all the different views including those from unknown backbench MPs being adequately expressed. I recall what a pleasure it was to hear the House of Commons debate broadcast live on BBC when British bases were used by the Americans to launch their air attack upon Libya. The best speaker on that occasion seemed to be a fringe labour Party MP, Tony Benn! In the Indian situation this would also mean that the views of the members of the minor parties are not ignored.
But to give the government controlled media the right to present Parliament to the public at large is fraught with danger. In our country it has frequently been seen that the electronic media becomes a tool in the hands of the ruling party which uses it to further its own purpose. The effort, therefore, could be (not necessarily, of course!) to paint a favourable picture of the treasury benches or of those who support the government view. In such circumstances it could just be another piece of armour for the government propaganda machine.
The power of editing members’ speeches can also prove dangerous. A few lines taken out of context could easily distort the import or direction of a speaker. A speech, therefore, should not be permitted to be edited.
There are other questions, such as what happens to the parts of proceedings which have been expunged by the Speaker: can they be allowed to be telecast? In a live telecast this is bound to happen. This should not be a cause for concern, because the fact that the speaker expunged certain remarks made by a member does not mean that the remarks were never made. It simply means that certain portions will not form a part of the record of the parliamentary proceedings. Whenever such remarks are made, all individuals sitting in the visitors gallery can see them being made and the public does get to know about them. The position of a TV viewer ought to be similar- just as he or she were watching the proceedings from the visitors’ gallery in the house. This may also be a healthy deterrent to the unruly members not to behave in an ugly fashion in the house.
The answer to the question whether parliamentary telecasts are required, yes, certainly they can be immensely helpful in assessing the performance of the various sections and members of the house, and to get a first hand feel of the legislative process of the country, but not until there is an independent body of unimpeachable professionalism to conduct the telecasts.
There is another alternative. One radio channel can be completely devoted to parliament when it is in session. Radio is a largely underestimated medium. It has been overshadowed by television, but if used properly it can be a very efficacious and live-wire medium. Its obvious advantage is that it is much cheaper to install and run. There should not be any problem in devoting a radio channel for the complete session of parliament which can broadcast both the live proceedings and a summary programme each day. Probably, this could be a guideline for the states also in the future.
By Amit Singh.
