Directions (): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. 

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign controlled media in the country; the free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The first principle conforms to a moral imperative: freedom to expression cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western, and especially American media, can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner that promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values that run counter to the lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers, magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western ‘invasion’ in the fields of information and culture are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an ‘invasion’ has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries that fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills, are allowed to operate in the country without let.The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which, in the course of time, can only lead to the upgradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels, even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the India state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC, or Time magazine or The Economist get away by showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right to reply, or when they depict sexually explicit scenes, which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country’s integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France’s successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematography industry.