India has witnessed exponential growth in the media and communications sector following liberalization and opening up of skies. Who has gained from such explosive growth? This paper argues for the continued relevance of Political Economy approach in the study of contemporary Indian media. In the era of globalization when we talk of multiple flows of culture, capital privileges seem to be blurring. This paper argues that a more realistic assessment would have to look at media ownership patterns to see who is at the helm. There is no single beneficiary in this process. The interests of established global and Indian business houses with deep pockets are facing competition from new Indian business, which have benefitted from their political clout. Together they are shaping our mediascape and history.

In this article I argue for the continued relevance of political economy perspective in the study of media and communications. Realignment of media conglomerates around the world points to a particularly pervasive form of monopolized ownership. Media corporations from North America, Europe and Japan are expanding their presence in developing markets, which in turn is driving globalization. I will look into the channel explosion in India when the skies were opened for foreign and private broadcasters to beam into India to argue that a `free market system' has resulted in penetration of (1) global media giants and (2) home grown telecom firms which are known to have unlocked a fortune due to proximity to government. Leading social theorist, Anthony Giddens says globalization "refers to the fact that we all increasingly live in one world, so that individuals, groups and nations become interdependent…has been driven forward above all by the development of information and communication technologies that have intensified the speed and scope of interaction of people across the world".

Giddens enshrines the determining role played by media and communication in the process of globalization. This has been noted by several scholars, like Terhi Rantanen who characterizes globalization by expansion of media. Thus, the phenomenon of globalization is intertwined with media and communications playing a central part in the spread of free market values. However, generalizations hardly provide satisfactory models. For instance, cultural imperialism thesis of Andre Gunderfrank and others on supply of culture from the west to other/peripheral regions of the world is no longer in vogue in the field of media studies.

Though US continues to dominate content on television, as I argue below, that with emerging local capabilities content is increasingly sourced locally. This unidirectional model of flows has now been replaced by a multidimensional flow that is betrayed by Giddens. Here, I analyze the contemporary history of media ownership in India to argue that existing structures of inequality are setting limits to the possibilities of multidimensional flows of capital and culture. This is not to deny that globalization offers opportunities. To appreciate this further, let us discern two issues here—media ownership and media content. Study of each is similar in some respects and disparate in some other. I argue here that the political economy approach helps us comprehensively to make sense of study of media and communication.

History and Culture Journal, National Media Ownership, Political Economy, Indian Business Houses, Globalization, Media Corporations, Information and Communication Technologies, Cultural Imperialism, Social Communication, Entertainment Spectrum, Economic Reforms, Multinational Corporations, Global Market, Indian Media Houses.