Analyzes how the media and bureaucracy have come together to scratch each others backs while governance declines

1. Trial by Mediacracy: New Age Mercantilism
Barun Kumar Basu
In his acclaimed 1970 book, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era,
the Carter Administration‟s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski prophetically wrote
“In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of
millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive
personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate
emotions and control reason....Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control
information....Human beings become increasingly manipulable and malleable.” Indeed Indians
have become “manipulable and malleable.” How has this happened in India?
1991- the year of India‟s liberation from the ghost of socialism – set the privately owned
media against the monopoly of a colorless Doordarshan. Staffed by experienced men and
women who did not have even the freedom to dress attractively or speak otherwise than robots,
the state-owned media, in the next twenty years Doordarshan has struggled to barely stay afloat.
Similarly, the print media that was frequently throttled by poor or elusive newsprint, power cuts
to its presses, withdrawal of government advertisements, the absence of the Internet and the
ubiquitous state censors, presented a picture of 19th century journalism. Ajit Bhattacharjee,
Moolgaokar, Chalapathi Rau, Frank Moraes, CR Irani, Khushwant Singh, Sham Lal and many
others kept the print media‟s spirit alive, if by nothing else, by the power of their pen and the
depth of their understanding and investigation of current affairs. However, 1991 threw open the
doors to the digital era, removed curbs on imports of newsprint and materials and allowed the
private media houses to open up a whole new world of the electronic media. Even as India‟s
electronic news juggernaut rolled, it was plagued by complaints of irresponsible reporting, paid
news, high decibel marketing, low level of ethics in news-gathering, etc. Notwithstanding all
these severe limitations, governance by media has become the norm, rather than an exception. In
time, a “you scratch my back while I scratch yours” culture has pervaded the corridors of power.
As politicians and media have used each other in mutually gainful manners, the biggest loser and
casualty are governance and the common citizen.
Recent media reports suggested that the Union Defense Minister had clasped his head in
his hands when his army chief informed him that the latter had been offered a bribe of Rs. 14
crore two years back in return for passing defective Tatra trucks for the army. The fact that these
trucks were not indigenized even after 26 years and had performed sleaze-free for the same time
limitedly found its way on TV channels. Instead discussions now moved to obliquely suggest
that BEML was a „conduit‟ for sleaze money. Neither was the government‟s failure to indigenize
these trucks and opening defense supply networks to the domestic private sector discussed at
length nor was the reportedly poor performance of bullet-proof jackets and many other items
manufactured locally by our private sector highlighted to bring out the limitations of this sector.
Instead the media launched a witch-hunt for the alleged money-launderers that soon degenerated
into a civil-military face-off attributed to a weak-kneed Defense Minster who was awarded the
unflattering sobriquet of St. Anthony. Now the army may not even have any more Tatra trucks to
carry their men and war materiel.
1

2. In an alarming turn of events, the Indian Express impliedly insinuated an attempted coup
d’état by two military columns that advanced, without prior authorization, on the national
capital. While most derided this report and again spoke of a civil-military face-off, few debated
whether this was a deliberate ploy to embarrass the embattled army chief or whether such
maneuvers required prior clearance, whether live ammunition was used, etc. There being no
clarity on any of these points, one may even surmise that disaffected elements in the army used
this opportunity for a dress rehearsal of a larger possibility in future, a dangerous future
probability.
Likewise, irresponsible disclosure of India‟s alleged unpreparedness for war was leaked
by a leading vernacular daily heightening the civil-military face-off. What was never discussed
was the fact of India‟s emergence as the largest single buyer of arms in the international market.
If these were true, and China reportedly objected to it, then why were India‟s defense forces so
ill-prepared for war? Here too, media glare centered on civil-military politics by introducing
voluble retired army officers into every nationally televised debate. Neither is there any
systematic analysis of how war materiel shortage came to this pass and what emergent palliative
measures should be taken considering our hostile and inherently unstable neighborhood. The
capacity of India‟s private sector to fill such critical shortages, diversion of funds from obsolete
Plan schemes to defense purchases, the system of provisioning and procurement, roads, bridges
and rail tracks to reach our borders, even lightweight combat fatigues for our soldiers, all have
been drowned by the media in a growing cacophony of irrelevant debate. No one discussed how
and why the Defense Ministry, audit, vigilance and investigation were also partly responsible for
the absence of decision-making in such a critical area of national defense.
Trial by the twin fires of media and anti-corruption agencies have caused the Home
Ministry to expend only 21% of its Plan funds for modernization of police forces in 2011-12
when a third of the nation is under Maoist control. The media has become the happy hunting
ground for bureaucrats in their endeavor to paint politicians in adverse light. The unseemly
manner in which the battle over our army chief‟s age was waged by the Defense Ministry and the
chief himself is another instance that could have been easily resolved amicably had both the
Defense Ministry and the army chief not indulged their slugfest in the media. Similarly, the
media inference of the Home Minister‟s complicity with the jailed former Telecom Minister in
allowing sale of 2G spectrum at throwaway prices interfered with the ongoing judicial process.
What is never considered in the 2G debates are the facts of BSNL and MTNL‟s impending
insolvency and the increasing likelihood of divestment of government holding in them being
bought over by the four major private telecom providers in India, new operators having been
legally knocked out of the fray for new spectrum licenses. The current service providers‟ licenses
are running out in a few weeks but the government may be unable to re-auction 2G spectrum by
then. The media does not answer if cellular networks will go off the air or hike their rates by as
much as 30%, defeating the very purpose for which telecom policies were framed by successive
governments. In a like manner, media debates on coal blocks for power generation black out
discussions on the viability of such projects if coal prices were higher than imported ones,
quality of domestic coal and economic mining, the affordability of power that would be
produced in these plants, the effectiveness of state power regulators in determining tariffs, etc.
Instead a cacophony of inane discussions, solely for high TRP ratings, that never center on
critical issues of governance hogs the limelight.
2

3. Yet it is perhaps unfair to hold the media alone responsible. Senior bureaucrats have
consciously been selectively leaking privileged information at critical times in the media debate.
Highly visible press conferences at which official findings in reports are selectively presented
create an adversarial relation between the government and its agencies. This is when conduct
rules of the government perhaps do not permit such publicity at the drop of a hat. The media is
only too willing to play favorites as India Today’s recent list of ten most „powerful‟ top
bureaucrats in India, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, shows. In its failure to
distinguish between collective achievement and individual projection, India Today created an
impression that all the organizations behind these super achievers were moribund - a gross
fiction. Neither did the report highlight the failings of these achievers nor did it state how India
Today arrived at their rankings based upon selective and evidently opaque criteria, unless
sensationalism was the sole objective, which it indeed was. Bureaucrats are therefore governing
through sound bytes to a willing media only eager to savor the fruits of their new found reflected
authority. Evidently, institutions and governance are subordinate to self in a ship of state that
leaks from the top. This is when the nation is yet to see the ultimate impact of their
achievements, other than post-retirement MP/MLAship. The traditional anonymity of a
bureaucrat and collective responsibility of the Union Cabinet, all envisaged in India‟s
Constitution, subordinate rules and regulations, have been willfully subverted by an inferior God
of cheap personal publicity by top bureaucrats, oblivious of the steadily deteriorating plight of
the common man. India‟s march to the status of a nation of salesmen, bureaucrats and media,
sacrifices good governance at the altar of self-seeking.
In the end, obfuscation of issues in the national media by willing and selective
participation of bureaucrats creates sensational news but blacks out relevant information. This, in
turn, causes people to believe in horror stories about government that are not entirely grounded
in fact. Biased perspectives are wrought upon government by the same set of bureaucrats and
politicians who use the media to settle their scores against their opponents and peers. A weak and
helpless central government can only stand by and hope that all will eventually turn around and
good sense would prevail. Unfortunately, the common citizen remains the biggest casualty of
turf wars aided and abetted by a media eagerly counting its pennies from TRP ratings. Imperial
projection of self, rather than issues of governance, assumes priority. Needless to add, the
common man continues living with high prices, uncertain water and energy supply, limited
quality higher education opportunities, lack of housing and social security, even better-paying
jobs. What greater travesty of truth and justice is there, as Professor Brzezinski pointed out?
The author is a former Ambassador of India. The edited version of this article was
published in The Statesman on 22nd Apr, 2012 and is available online at
http://thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=408224:special-
article&catid=38:editorial&from_page=search
3