Autonomy for Prasar Bharati (PB), the public broadcaster, has again been raised after a series of letters dashed off by its CEO, Jawhar Sircar, bemoaning the lack of control the broadcaster has on news it puts out and the manner in which officials are transferred or posted to it, as part of a complaint of government interference. This debate is revisited every now and then, without much progress despite successive governments apparently agreeing on the need to reform PB.

First, there is nothing wrong with having a public broadcaster that can reflect the views of the government. The BBC is often cited as an example. But does the BBC not often represent the UK government's views on, say, conflicts around the world?

The idea, rather, is to have a public broadcaster that can embody the spirit of a free, fair and independent media but that can, where needed, articulate governmental and national positions on some matters; not an utter mouthpiece of the ruling party. And, daresay, as a fringe benefit, it would be a rather nice change to have such a broadcaster, given the high-pitched sensationalism-prone approach of many private news channels!

The Sam Pitroda-led committee that looked into the revamping of PB recommended financial independence as a necessary part of that real autonomy, just as it made another valuable suggestion that a professional board should supervise PB's functioning and to make the board answerable to a parliamentary standing committee, which comprises both ruling and opposition members.

Hiring the right talent, coming up with quality programming would become all the more easy, were these recommendations accepted. And they should be, at the earliest. The point is to finally make PB really autonomous, not just merely debate it periodically.

  |||||| Thank you for your interest.||||||