Watching the coverage of the Indian Budget is akin to watching an intense game of cricket. There is a buzz in the air, the tension is palpable and everyone is guessing frantically at the final outcome. Like cricket, there is a pre-game prep session, where pundits and experts spar on their views of the likelihood of success and failure. There is also the post-game wrap up, where the highlights of the event are broken down and analysed in the hope of gleaning every last bit of information from the session.
Yet should the comparison stand, considering that cricket is, after all, a source of entertainment, while the Indian Budget, in contrast, is the unfolding of the economic roadmap that India will follow for an entire year?
As a Singaporean, I am used to getting my domestic news and analysis from one TV channel. The concept of a myriad channels competing for my attention is mind-boggling. The upside to all of this choice is that, in theory, the competition should result in high-quality reporting and analysis, as channels jostle for viewers to hear their take on the Budget. In practice, things can be different!
Spending the day channel surfing between Times Now, NDTV, CNN-IBN, CNBC, Headlines Today, ET Now, NDTV Profit and Bloomberg UTV left me in a daze.
The TV coverage of the Indian Budget is a spectacle unlike anything I have seen before. The elaborate sets, the clamour and confusion of the analysis and the high-octane emotions leave you wondering whether you are watching a serious, financial event or a rock concert. The breathless indignation of supporters and detractors, the quarrelsome panels and the smug hosts all leave you feeling a little overwhelmed and more than a little under-informed.
From the fuming tirades from members of the Opposition party to the glitzy, slightly ludicrous Bollywood-like sets of the NDTV debate, you get the feeling that the day is more a forum for entertainment than actual hard-hitting news.
The pre-Budget analysis was similar across channels, with the corporate and political elite stating their expectations and keeping an eye on financial markets. All channels spewed masses of statistics about the state of the economy, the state of infrastructure and the spectre of rising food prices.
Most of them were agreed that Pranab Mukherjee, the Finance Minister, was a capable man who had a long history of budget creation behind him and would create a responsible and inclusive Budget that would cater to both the corporate world, as well as the average man.
While some channels like Bloomberg UTV did a good job, fleshing out what investors wanted, few articulated the common man’s wishes. Yet at the same time, there was an incessant hiss from all corners to improve his lot. This hypocrisy certainly feeds the entertaining, heated debates on the needs of the aam aadmi, but is counter-productive in educating the same common man on the expectations he should have from the Budget.
In the post-budget discussion, CNBC scored with the FM’s first interview going on air. Times Now and NDTV followed suit, and Mukherjee came across in all three as a supremely confident politician in command of his facts and completely relaxed. This must have been reassuring for those who may have wondered if the FM knew what he was doing or not.
ET Now scored with its “Budget Friday” and “The Verdict”, which dissected the relevant issues in an interesting and clear manner, but most of the other discussions lacked coherence and focus. While there was no lack of brilliant minds in these debates, they often seemed to get mired in political differences rather than focus on the topic.
A majority of the panels were populated by economists, who seemed to think that the best way to debate the Budget was by yelling at one another, instead of rationally dissecting the facts at hand. Everyone seemed to know everyone else and were on first name basis. A bit disconcerting to the outsider like me.
A majority of the post-Budget discussions centered around the fact that the Opposition walked out of Parliament during the speech due to the rise in petrol prices, which they labeled as an “anti-poor” measure.
Given that this is the first time a walkout has occurred, it certainly deserves to be discussed in the coverage. Yet the amount of coverage that this controversy received suggests that the focus of the coverage was sensationalism rather than a real, honest discussion of the merits and demerits of the Budget.
There seemed to be more interest in Lalu Prasad and Sushma Swaraj ranting against the government than of the Budget itself.
While there were some bright spots in the day, I emerged feeling exhausted and dizzy from the mania of the coverage.
It seems, like cricket, the Budget is more a source of sensationalism and entertainment than it perhaps should be allowed to be.
(The writer, a Singaporean in New Delhi, was at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy)
