Draft broadcast policy

The world is moving towards openness and transparency, and opacity is being decried by all quarters. The operating word is the unfettered right of the people to know. At such a time our government, in its wisdom, has drafted a retrogressive, backward looking, outmoded and archaic national broadcasting policy that if pursued would put our clock of progress back by decades, if not more. We will dwell on some of the proposals.
For example, the proposed policy seeks to put public figures and political personalities beyond criticism, which no body can be. Not only should public figures be open to strict scrutiny, it is the duty of the media also to assess their performance and expose their shortcomings.
We feel that national ideology, national interest and indeed national security are matters that do not lend themselves to subjective interpretations of any particular authority. These are axiomatic and normative values recognized by all. Is it for the government to arrogate to itself the task of defining what our national interest is, or for that matter can issues of national security be confined to the interpretations of those that deal with it directly? And are the government and its agencies the sole guardian of our national security? It may so happen that the government may evolve policies that might impinge, unwittingly, on national interest. And media criticism, reflecting public opinion, helps the government to recast policies that serves national interest better.
The proposed fiat seeks to put a cap on the broadcast media to air programmes that might harm our relationship with a friendly country. What does the government mean by it? Are we to believe, for example, that we cannot air programmes that are critical of US policies even when it attacks other countries, or hold talk shows on Shia-Sunni killing in Pakistan or communal riots in India, or mistreatment of Muslims in UK, or human rights violations in Thailand?
Such policies are the last resort of a government that wants to hide its underperformance by stifling criticisms and dissent, which cannot work. These ideas are anathema to the Constitution, in spite of what some may claim, and abhorrent to democratic principles. The government must abjure this disastrous idea.