And while the government has sought to justify the decisions as a step in the right direction, critics have pointed out that this is just one more excuse to delay the grant of autonomy to the already beleaguered Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India).

The government had on November 22 set up a four-member committee (including a member secretary) to `carry out a comprehensive review' and make recommendations about organisational structure and legal framework `keeping in view the responsibilities of a public service broadcaster' and to ensure quality, credibility and professionalism'. The same day, the government had under Section 6(3) of the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 curtailed the term of two part-time members -- Romila Thapar and Rajendra Yadav -- totwo years and retired them.

Information and broadcasting minister Arun Jaitley had said in a recent interview that any review would have to keep in mind the primary objective of Prasar Bharati, which should be `credibility, quality, commercial viability, and non-corruptability'. Prasar Bharati should strengthen its marketing and quality and take full advantage of its reach and captive viewership by properly packaging its educational, informative and entertainment programmes.

The review committee, which is to submit its report within three months, comprises NR Narayanamurthi, chairman and chief executive officer of Infosys, Discovery Channel India chief Kiran Karnik and marketing consultant Shunu Sen. RC mishra, who is joint secretary (broadcasting) in the information and broadcasting ministry, will be member secretary, and Prasar Bharati chief executive officer Rajeev Ratna Shah will be a special invitee.Section 6(3) of the Prasar Bharati Act provides for retirement of one-third of the part-time membersevery two years.

The government says that decision for fixing the terms of the remaining three part-time members has been done on certain fixed criteria. These include the experience, expertise and background of the members, their contribution to the effective and harmonious working of the board, and their relative indispensability at the present-stage and the necessity of taking the benefit of their services by their retention for a further period of time.

Denying criticism that the criteria were subjective, ministry sources said that methods like draw of lots or `toss of a coin' could have resulted in more experienced people like BG Verghese (who is to sit for his full six-year term), or UR Rao and Abid Hussain (who have four-year terms) being retired. This would also have led to criticism, especially since Verghese was one of the architects of autonomy and Rao is a renowned space scientist.

In any case, it was pointed out that the Supreme Court in many cases had rejected the system of draw of lots orthe lottery system as this obviates application of mind. In any case, Section 6(5) of the Act gave the President the power to make such provision as he thinks fit to curtail the term of office of some of the part-time members in view of the requirement of Section 6(3).

Unfortunately, the criticism of the government move stems from media describing Thapar and Yadav as being of leftist leanings. Added to this, promises of autonomy have always remained on paper and have failed to take off despite the fact that the first steps in this direction were taken just over 20 years ago in the late seventies in the wake of the national emergency.

And the present criticism is being directly linked to the statement made by Jaitley's predecessor Pramod Mahajan that he was in favour of winding up Prasar Bharati as the government cannot lose its control at a time when there are so many other television channels airing into people's homes. He had said the proposal for granting autonomy to Doordarshan had come at a time whenit was the only television channel available to Indian viewers. But it had no relevance at the present time.

While the government gropes for a new shape and role for Prasar Bharati, the corporation is in a limbo right now. It has been functioning under an acting chief executive officer for several months, and the positions of the chairman, member (executive), member (finance) and member (personnel) are vacant. In addition, one part-time member was earlier sent on gubernotarial assignment and now two members have been retired.

The confusion on various issues has led to Prasar Bharati -- despite its large reach in the country -- losing out on several fronts. Doordarshan's revenues have been falling over the past two years, from a peak of Rs 572.73 crore in 1996-97 to Rs 490.15 crore in 1997-98 and Rs 399.32 crore in 1998-99. In addition, cable operators still do not telecast Doordarshan's main channels despite a government notification.

The idea of autonomy for DD and AIR was first mooted in 1977 in theaftermath of the emergency and a bill drafted at the time could not be passed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1979. The present Prasar Bharati Act was passed and received presidential assent in late 1990, but notified only from September 15, 1997. And now 22 years after the first stirrings of autonomy, the issue seems to have come back a full circle with the role of the state-owned electronic media being debated anew.

-- UNITED NEWS OF INDIA