 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Editorial
Fresh skeletons tumble
out of Mandi House
DD has nearly 25,000 people in its
direct employ. If they’re too incompetent to create all the software that
DD wants, or market its commercial time, what on earth are they doing
on its payrolls? If they’re still worthy of their keep from DD, shouldn’t
you and I be clamouring for jobs with DD, too?
IT’S business as usual at Mandi House. Fresh scams and tales of swindle
continue to tumble out and rock its very portals. Just last week, Arun
Agarwal, investigating into cases of misappropriation in Doordarshan’s
telecast of sports events, accused DD of allowing International Cricket
Council chief Jagmohan Dalmiya and WorldTel’s Mark Mascarenhas to
defraud it of Rs 160 million over the telecast of a 1998 tourney in Dhaka.
So what’s new, you ask. Good question. One that drives people to
ennui at the very mention of shady deals signed at Mandi House’s
expense. After all, it isn’t funny having to sit around and watch
while some take the national broadcaster for a royal ride, time after
time. As the mandarins at Mandi House turn a habitual blind eye.
We’re getting tired of watching. The media, too, is largely bored
of the swindler and scams in DD. But let’s remember, the scamsters
can’t ask for anything better, if we look the other way as well.
Of course, both Dalmiya and Mascarenhas have since denied the accusations.
But the Dhaka tourney deal isn’t the only rotten skeleton in the
Prasar Bharati cupboards. Late last year, DD acquired the complete telecast
rights for cricket to be played in India till 2004 for a whopping Rs 235
crore from the BCCI. It came in for a lot of flak for allocating a king’s
ransom for cricket alone, much to the neglect of other sport. Admittedly,
it’s gained upwards of Rs 650 crore, selling the global telecast
rights, marketing rights of commercial airtime on DD during telecast,
and even the rights for TV coverage and the production of matches.
Indeed, it’s a tidy profit on paper. What’s the hitch, then?
Just this: Doordarshan has nearly 25,000 people in its direct employ.
If they’re too incompetent to create all the software that DD wants,
market its commercial time, or produce its pictures, what on earth are
they doing on its payrolls? If they’re inefficient and are still
worthy of their keep from DD, shouldn’t you and I be clamouring for
jobs with DD, too?
IT’S BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS
India's cricketers are being eyed with suspicion, especially now that
the spectre of match-fixing hangs like the proverbial Damocles sword on
the team. But if the Arun Agarwal findings are true, the money the cricketers
make, short-changing the gentleman’s game is small change compared
to what the administrators have been making on the sly. Dalmiya and Co
now find they have a lot to answer for, in the wake of the allegations
from the likes of Bindra and Agarwal. They can duck to bouncers all they
like, but not to googlies.
Be that as it may, our concern here isn’t with the BCCI, much as
we love the game of cricket. We’re concerned more with DD being led
up the garden path so often in the name of the game we hold so dear.
If Agarwal is to be believed, the swindles have been going on for years.
His report, submitted to the Prasar Bharati board in May 1999, was never
made public until now, when Agarwal himself brought it to our notice.
His report on the sports consortium, formed during SS Gill’s tenure
as the CEO of Prasar Bharati, reveals DD suffered losses running into
hundreds of crores from the telecast of sporting event during 1998-99
alone. How? Well, blame it on the shoddy planning by DD officials, or
their acts of willful misappropriation and collusion with swindlers.
Agarwal may well have noticed several other hands on the till. Little
wonder then that the report which was discussed threadbare by the Prasar
Bharati board, was never made public.
Question is, why on earth did the Prasar Bharati board shelve the file,
without referring the matter either to the vigilance department or the
CBI, as former CEO, OP Kejriwal demanded? If there’s a reason beyond
the obvious, we need to be informed of it.
The national broadcaster isn’t anyone’s family heirloom, though
it’s increasingly being made to look like one. We shouldn’t
settle for anything less than complete transparency in its dealings. Surely,
that isn’t too much to ask?
Shaju George Alex