THE GREAT INDIAN DEBATE — DAY 69 Should Doordarshan be made genuinely independent?
THE STAKES In June 2024, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a directive to Doordarshan (DD) and All India Radio (AIR) to "prioritise government schemes" in their programming, sparking fresh criticism from opposition parties and media watchdogs. The order came weeks after DD’s coverage of the Lok Sabha elections was accused of disproportionately favouring the ruling party—a charge the government denied, calling it "routine editorial guidance." The controversy revived an old question: Can a state-owned broadcaster ever be trusted to hold power to account, or is it doomed to serve as a mouthpiece? The answer shapes how 1.3 billion Indians receive news, history, and culture.
THE ARGUMENT FOR Proponents of an independent Doordarshan argue that a public broadcaster must serve the public, not the government of the day. The Prasar Bharati Act of 1990 was meant to grant DD and AIR autonomy, but in practice, the government retains control over appointments, funding, and editorial decisions. Countries like the UK (BBC) and Germany (ARD/ZDF) show that independent public broadcasters can thrive without state interference, providing balanced news, educational content, and cultural programming that private media often neglects.
Supporters point to DD’s golden era in the 1980s and 1990s, when shows like Bharat Ek Khoj and Surabhi fostered national unity without partisan bias. Today, with private news channels polarised and regional media fragmented, an independent DD could fill the gap for credible, non-commercial journalism. The Supreme Court, in Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995), ruled that airwaves are public property and must serve the "larger public interest." An independent DD would align with this constitutional principle, ensuring diversity of voices and shielding journalism from political pressure.
Critics of the status quo, including former Prasar Bharati CEO Shashi Shekhar, argue that government control stifles innovation. DD’s budget is slashed when its coverage displeases the ruling party, as happened in 2017 when funds for DD News were reportedly reduced after critical reporting. Independence would require structural changes: a fixed, non-lapsable budget (like the BBC’s licence fee), a transparent appointment process for the Prasar Bharati Board, and legal protections against arbitrary government directives. Without these, DD will remain a tool of propaganda, not a pillar of democracy.
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST Opponents of independence argue that Doordarshan is, and should remain, a government entity—not a rival to private media. The state funds DD to the tune of ₹3,000 crore annually, and in return, it has a right to ensure the broadcaster aligns with national priorities. Unlike the BBC, which is funded by a mandatory licence fee, DD’s revenue comes from taxpayers, making it accountable to elected representatives. If the government cannot influence DD’s programming, why should citizens fund it at all?
Historically, DD has played a unifying role during crises—from the Kargil War to the COVID-19 pandemic—by disseminating official information without sensationalism. Private media, driven by TRPs, often amplifies division; DD, in contrast, can be a neutral platform for government messaging. The argument for independence assumes that DD’s current bias is a flaw, but some see it as a feature: a counterweight to the commercial and ideological biases of private channels.
There’s also the question of feasibility. The Prasar Bharati Act already grants DD "autonomy," but successive governments have ignored it. In 2017, the NDA government appointed A. Surya Prakash, a former journalist with known political leanings, as Prasar Bharati chairman—a move the opposition called a "takeover." If the law is flouted, what stops future governments from doing the same? Independence would require not just legal changes but a cultural shift in how politicians view public broadcasting. Until then, calls for autonomy are naive at best, disingenuous at worst.
Finally, there’s the risk of mission creep. An independent DD might prioritise ratings over public service, chasing sensational stories to compete with private channels. The BBC, often cited as a model, has faced criticism for its own biases and commercialisation. Why replicate those problems in India?
THE HIDDEN DIMENSION The real battle over Doordarshan’s independence isn’t about journalism—it’s about memory. DD’s archives hold the first draft of India’s post-independence history: the Emergency, the Babri Masjid demolition, the 2002 Gujarat riots. Each government has used DD to rewrite or suppress these narratives. In 2015, the NDA government reportedly ordered DD to "minimise" coverage of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in its programming. In 2020, the UPA-era Rajya Sabha TV was merged into Sansad TV, diluting its independent voice.
This isn’t just about the past. With AI-generated deepfakes and polarised social media, DD’s role as a trusted source of information is more critical than ever. But trust requires credibility, and credibility requires distance from power. The hidden dimension is this: Doordarshan’s fate will determine whether India has a shared public sphere or a fragmented one, where every community consumes its own version of history. The debate isn’t just about a broadcaster—it’s about whether India can agree on what "truth" even means.
WHERE INDIANS STAND There’s no comprehensive survey on public opinion about Doordarshan’s independence, but a 2022 Lokniti-CSDS poll found that 63% of Indians trust government-run media (DD and AIR) more than private news channels. However, trust doesn’t equal satisfaction: the same poll showed that 58% believe private media is more "free and fair." The divide is generational—older Indians, who grew up with DD, are more likely to defend it, while younger viewers see it as irrelevant. Urban, educated Indians overwhelmingly favour independence, but rural audiences, who rely on DD for news and entertainment, are more ambivalent.
YOUR VIEW If Doordarshan were truly independent, would you trust it more than private news channels—or would you assume it had simply swapped one bias for another?
This newsletter aims to clarify genuine arguments on complex issues. It does not endorse any political position or party.