Click to play videoThe reality show Sach Ka Saamna was the subject of a heated debate in the Rajya Sabha on Monday. Members of Parliament cutting across party lines said they were anguished at the damage the show is doing to Indian culture and demanded that the Government set up an independent regulator to decide on the limits to be imposed on TV shows.
Sach Ka Saamna is an Indianised version of the American TV show Moment of Truth which puts contestants through 21 questions about their personal lives. Truthful answers can fetch the contestants maximum prize money of Rs 1 crore in the Hindi version of the show.
Scores of MPs across party lines are demanding a regulator to check TV content, but the Government still trusts the content providers with self-regulation. According to the MPs Sach Ka Saamna is based on an American version and hence goes against Indian culture, family values and sensibilities.
The question that was being asked on CNN-IBN's Face The Nation was: Sach Ka Saamna in Rajya Sabha: Should Parliament regulate television content?
On the panel of experts to try and answer the question were Producer of Sach Ka Saamna and CMD, Big Synergy, Siddharth Basu; Managing Partner Counselage, Suhel Seth; Samajwadi Party MP from Rajya Sabha, Virendra Bhatia; former Rajya Sabha MP from BJP, BP Singhal.
At the beginning of the show, 49 per cent agreed that Parliament should regulate television content while 51 per cent disagreed.
NOT FOR THE INDIAN AUDIENCE
Siddharth Basu kickstarted the debate saying he had the highest regard for the Rajya Sabha and collective wisdom of Parliamentarians. However, he said he wanted to make it clear that though the format of the show was global, the content was Indian. "By calling the show's content not Indian, are we saying that it isn't Indian to speak the truth?" Basu wanted to know.
He said the Rajya Sabha discussion was not just about Sach Ka Saamna but about what was going on on television space, which he stated was certainly a legitimate subject for discussion.
B P Singhal responded to this saying the American show Moment of Truth had to be discontinued in US - where he claimed the family values weren't strong as in the Indian society - due to its controversial content.
"Anything that damages a society as a whole has to be viewed very seriously. We cannot allow one TV channel or producer to play about with it," he said.
To this Basu responded saying that Singhal had been misinformed as the show in the US was running in its third season. He then said that he was a responsible producer of integrity who had been part of a number of shows over many years on Indian television.
"We are the same producers who have made Aap Ki Kacheri which is regarded as a landmark social programme," said Basu.
CHANGE THE CHANNEL
Basu said people who did not want to watch the show were welcome to switch channels or even turn their television sets off. "There is a lot of disquiet and bothersome issues relating to a lot of personal, professional, physical and sexual issues which people want to talk about," he said.
Singhal retorted that Basu was feeding the people human misery and it was marketed for enjoyment. "It's a kind of intellectual cannibalism," he said.
Suhel Seth responded to Singhal saying the society was quite capable of taking care of itself. He said Indian culture was not that fragile as to be threatened by the show. "If Indian culture hasn't been threatened by Khajuraho, it won't be threatened by the show," Seth said.
Seth said there were bigger issues, which needed attention like recession and poverty than governing late night television.
REALITY BITES
The Indian society is in transition and reality shows hold a mirror to the society. The show's popularity depicts that many people want to talk about these issues and want the freedom to ventilate.
Virendra Bhatia said he supported the freedom of people wanting to vent their views, feelings. However, he was not in favour of the show disturbing the society. "I'm not in favour of the freedom to the extent that it should disturb the social and national fabrics," he said.
Bhatia agreed with Singhal that the Indian society had very strong family ties, which were being disturbed by the show. "The values in the US and the values in India are very different," he said.
Seth responded saying what threatened the Indian society were riots and hatred and a television show would not really harm India.
ROLE FOR REGULATORY BODY?
With changing times and the Indian society progressing, there is need to regulate content on television. The need for a regulatory body is required in Indian television's current scenario with a boom in reality TV shows and news channels.
Basu justified his choice of shows saying regulation had been done during development of content for Sach Ka Saamna and that attempts were made to self-regulate. "The show was focus-tested in different parts of India and it recieved a positive reaction," he stated.
He added if regulation was required, then its effectiveness has to be autonomous. He further said the last thing which was required was to go back to a totalitarian regime where the Government or moral police makes decisions.
Singhal interrupted at this point saying the need for regulation has been there since films started being made. "A set of guidelines for films were not only drafted but also passed by the Parliament," he said.
Basu responded to this saying guidelines should be clear and people should follow them in letter and in spirit. "There are approximately 1,000 films made every year but as many as 460 channels telecast shows 24X7. Where is the question of TV channels being regulated in such a scenario? And is that even desirable?" he wanted to know.
At this point, Suhel Seth charged back into the debate with a new viewpoint. He felt that there should be freedom of "ventilation", but with technology at its peak, self-regulation was also necessary. He added that television was going largely unregulated and there was a need for a median.
Bhatia said that he was not in favour of Parliament interfering in every walk of life but ultimately Parliament has to see the larger interest of society.
To further strengthen the point, Singhal stated that the show was based on falsehood, as polygraph tests were not considered authentic.
Basu said he agreed there was a strong case for a responsible set of guidelines by television channels. However, he was against the idea of regulation by moral police or a Government body. He even advocated Sach Ka Saamna, and denied the charges against it. "I do not believe that there is any fabrication or falsehood and it is completely voluntary," he said.
The various viewpoints aside, it is a fact that Indian society wants to explore and give vent to expression. Shows like Sach Ka Saamna titillate Indian sensibilities in a new unexplored way. Though the Indian society and culture may not be harmed by the show's content, there is a need for a regulatory body to monitor the content aired on television.
FINAL SMS/WEB POLL: Sach Ka Saamna in Rajya Sabha: Should Parliament regulate television content?
Yes: 47 per cent
No: 53 per cent
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
More on IBNLive Right Now
TOP NEWS
MOST SHARED
PHOTOGALLERY
