It also follows a similar rejection in 2000 by the same NDA Government of moves to permit a foreign presence in the print media. One can only surmise that the lifting of the ban marks the triumph of the more powerful lobbies which were in favour of foreign investment. This is, however, an ill-advised decision that will have disturbing implications for the quality of democratic discourse in the country.

The working of the press in India since 1947 has by no means been perfect. But even its worst critics will admit that it has been an integral part of the nation-building project. The press has actively participated in shaping the agenda in democratic India and it has done so because it has been rooted in the country — owned, managed and staffed by Indians. It is difficult to argue that external entities would have performed the same role better, assuming in the first place that they would have wanted to. It is because the press is seen as a unique institution in a democracy that a number of democracies in west Europe, north America and Oceania continue to maintain prohibitions or restrictions on foreign ownership of print (and electronic) media. It is likewise for the same reason that while every service from health to banking is on the table in the ongoing WTO negotiations, the one service that no country has tabled a proposal on is the print media. A healthy press does require commercial enterprise. The danger, however, of foreign investment in India's print media (during an era of global media consolidation which has turned news into a highly developed commodity) is that it will transform one of the constituents of Indian democracy into a commodity-producing machine that is more focussed on the bottom-line than aware of its critical role in the continuing nation-building project. When domestic media groups have argued against foreign entry, the need to maintain their present market position has been an important underlying motivation. But this does not detract anything from the larger argument that India's democracy needs a domestic not a partially foreign-owned media. Two specious arguments have been made throughout the controversy about foreign investment in the print media. One is that with every sector opened up to foreign investment there is no need for special treatment for the print media. Suffice it to say that by equating the press with other commodity-producing sectors, this betrays a blinkered understanding of the role of the press as an informer, educator and watchdog in a democracy. The second argument is that walls around the print media have no meaning when there is the internet and cable TV, on which there are and can be no restrictions. Today, the internet is accessed by 6 million Indians while newspapers and magazines have a readership of as much as 180 million, a number increasing faster than the population of literates. Clearly, the print media will have a far larger presence for decades to come, a spread which has to be nurtured with domestic roots. The reach of cable TV (40 million homes) is comparable in scale to readership. But precisely because elements of cable TV are foreign-owned and regularly show a tendency to "dumb down" news, there is a corresponding need to protect the Indian roots of the print media.

The Government claims that the various conditions — a 26 per cent cap on foreign investment, an Indian editor and majority staffing by Indians — make for sufficient checks on any unhealthy foreign influence in the print media. But the Government is not fooling anyone with such conditions. Everyone is aware that firms can and are controlled with as little as 10 per cent equity. And the presence of Indians in senior positions is not going to prevent the foreign conglomerates in the background from eventually pulling their strings of influence.