Blameless views. However, the minister has also said the Cable Regulatory Act, Broadcast Bill and the Prasar Bharati Act require ``a comprehensive relook''. If one believes that regulation is still possible in the information industry, then the Cable Act and the Broadcast Bill need updating. But a ``re-look'' at Prasar Bharati and the autonomy of AIR/Doordarshan, raises a few fears.

Why does Jaitely wish to reconsider Prasar Bharati? First, the NDA electionmanifesto promised such a review. Second, Jaitley is concerned by the possibility of Prasar Bharati falling into the wrong hands. Third, in apparent agreement with former minister, Sushma Swaraj, Jaitely desires ``autonomy with accountability''. Oh-oh. Accountability is a worrying word: in official parlance it often signifies political interference the albatross strangulating AIR and DD.

Historically, governments have justified this interference by arguing that AIR and DD are public service mass media with a purpose to educate and inform millions. In the public interest, they need to be handled with care. Earlier this year, in a TV programme, Special Session (Doordarshan), Shivraj Patil (Congress) and Pramod Mahajan (BJP) insisted that the government and Parliament were the ideal `care'-takers. Thus have BJP and the Congress become strange bedfellows: in the past, the BJP was consistently and highly critical of Congress governments' misuse of the electronic media.

Jaitley's predecessor, Mahajan went sofar as to advocate the abolition of Prasar Bharati because it was effete, belonging to the era when Doordarshan enjoyed a monopoly on television and could be abused by governments. But competition from private cable and satellite TV channels, national and international, had thrust credibility on AIR/DD, so why have autonomy, Prasar Bharati, at all? Mahajan was agitated by the thought of the Prasar Bharati Board, presiding over AIR/DD's collective assets of approximately Rs 60,000 crore.

The current minister is worried by the Board too: what if a person politically sympathetic to the BJP (his example) became CEO of Prasar Bharati? Jaitley didn't mention names but said these things happened, a clear but indirect reference to the composition of the present Board, comprising Romila Thapar, U.R Rao, B.G. Verghese and Rajendra Yadav. `` A public broadcaster must be non-partisan,'' stated Jaitley and he is right: it is precisely what India needs but has never got.

Unintentionally, perhaps, he has voiced afundamental reason for autonomy: non-partisanship. However, he's not saying yes, and he's not saying no. Confusing. Does the BJP believe in autonomy? Yes, say Swaraj and Jaitley, we want autonomy with accountability; no, says Mahajan, we want accountability without autonomy. Which is it to be?

If AIR/DD are to fulfil Jaitley's stated aims, if they are to be credible, autonomy is not desirable, it is a necessary first step. Conversely, if greater accountability increases political involvement, it is highly undesirable and unnecessary.

The arguments for autonomy begin with technology. Technology challenges, defeats broadcasting controls and regulations. With the availability of 100+ TV channels, 500+ via Direct-to-home TV, the Internet and a convergence in communication modes, there is no foolproof way to shore up the movement of data, information and entertainment. At best, regulation may seek an orderly flow in their distribution.

Simultaneously, a government's ability to enforce regulations, isweakening. Video piracy via cable TV continues despite its illegality. However, the case for autonomy goes beyond technology. Begin with government control: AIR and DD have been controlled by governments between 1959-1997: see the mess they've created. The Prasar Bharati autonomy experiment barely enjoyed a four-month grace period before the BJP-led coalition government questioned it. The 1990 Prasar Bharati Act, implemented in 1997 via an ordinance by the UF government's Jaipal Reddy, was allowed to lapse by his successor, Swaraj, in May 1998; Swaraj's excuse was that she wanted ``accountability'' in the form of the original 22-member Parliamentary Committee and the Broadcasting Council and the 62-year age limit for the CEO all of which Reddy had dropped. Thus was the first CEO, septuagenarian S.S. Gill, eased out.

Swaraj's successor, Mahajan, stayed with her decision. Since then, Prasar Bharati has acting CEOs. Other vacancies on the Board exist from the summer of 1998 -- including the vital posts ofchairman, and member finance. There are no director generals for AIR or DD either. Prasar Bharati dangles like a stool without legs.

Why not fill the vacancies and give the Board a fair chance? If, as Jaitley fears, there could be political appointments, the fault lies with governments which influence the selection process. Autonomy is a state of mind our politicians have yet to acquire. Otherwise, Prasar Bharati is already accountable. There is an I&B nominee on the Board and an I&B parliamentary standing committee; an annual report has to be submitted to Parliament; and there's always the Comptroller and Auditor General. That leaves room for the Broadcasting Council as a redressal agency.

Incorruptibility. Venality began and flowered at DD under government control. Prasar Bharati inherited the disease. DD is a huge mess. Government funding is a necessary evil for a public broadcaster; this dependency invites fiscal profligacy. Autonomy may not solve these problems. But it can help. DD's viewership andrevenue have declined. Primarily because it is run like a government department in a competitive market place.

Fundamentally, autonomy is not about political rectitude. It is about running organisations. Broadcasting requires freedom, technical sagacity, business acumen, opportunism, vision a lean meanness. One answer to DD's problems could be to decentralise. That needs imagination, enterprise, hardly qualities governments possess.

The NDA government speaks the language of economic liberalisation. It creates an information technology ministry to encourage the telecom and computer sectors. And here we are debating points on the extent of autonomy and accountability for AIR and DD. It's like trying to capture the air in a bird cage: absurd. Autonomy may belong to the past but greater government control is prehistoric. Is Jaitley on the right side of the future?