The first tidal wave struck barely a month ago when Star TV announced the resignations of four key personnel: Bimla Bhalla, R. Basav Raj, Naazish Husseini, and B Guha. Except for Guha, they were all senior members of the channel's programming team. Before the month was out, Zee TV also announced the dismissals of several key staffers, including Vishnu Patel, the channel's Head of Programming. The channel's own explanation for the dismissals, given by CEO Vijay Jindal in a strongly worded press release at the time, clearly pointed to corruption. Later reports in the press speculated over reasons ranging from outright bribery toallegations of Patel demanding sexual favours from actresses seeking roles in Zee serials. Last heard, Patel was considering suing the channel.

But what is the truth? What's really going on here? Is Mumbai's television industry turning into another Mandi House - the Delhi address of national broadcaster Doordarshan - which is said to have become literally a mandi or marketplace for corridor deals?

Amit Khanna, CEO of Plus Channel (India) Ltd, admits candidly: "I've never been asked for a bribe. And that's why I've suffered. They (corrupt channel executives) know that I would immediately speak to the people at the top and they would be out of their jobs." Khanna can't comment on Zee's recent shake-out because he has not yet had any business dealings with the channel. But he adds: "There can't be smoke without fire, there must be something to it." As for Doordarshan, he agrees without reservation that "there is definitely corruption in DD. It's well known that some producers stay on the channel throughoutright bribery".

Corruption may not be as rampant in the private channels, feels Khanna, but they are plagued by another malaise: "Nepotism. There's no question that some producers are favoured more than others. You hear of people receiving extravagant gifts, being taken on expensive foreign holidays. In this respect, private channels are no different from Doordarshan."

Personal interaction with satellite channels bears this out. There's no question that each channel has its favoured producers, preferred stars. As well as its little unofficial blacklist. When one programming executive in Zee spoke enthusiastically about a project proposed by a certain producer, he was clearly told, "That producer would never have a single show on Zee." The reason given was that the producer had not "lived upto expectations". The producer himself insists angrily: "The only expectations they had were monetary. I didn't pay, so they blacklisted me." He names a former Head of Programming as the culprit. Her name figuresprominently in a conversation with another producer who claims the head of programing called him and told me she liked his show very much, but wanted him to take another person as the director. ``When I refused, she rejected my serial,'' he says.

It is not just corrupt channel officials. They system has also created the breeding ground for that entity called the middleman. A successful television editor who wants to turn producer recounts an instance where he tried actively to bribe channel executives at Sony Entertainment Television. "I was approached by this person, he's not working with the channel but he claimed he knew many key people there. He said if I was willing to pay, he would be able to get my serial on air." But after almost eight months had passed, the tout admitted that his clout was not enough and that executives at SET were apparently incorruptible.

But SET is beset by another allegation, that of favouritism. For instance, a producer, who does not wish to be named but whose project wasapproved by the channel was told at the last minute to "tie up with In House". Apparently, SET preferred to work with larger production houses than individual producers. The In House Productions happens to be owned by at least three persons - Rakesh Malhotra, Sudesh Iyer, and Jackie Shroff - who, in a happy coincidence, also happen to be Directors of SET's Board!

Ravi Ojha, director of the original Wagle Ki Duniya and who is currently directing the detective serial Saboot, suffered for long because of many channels' "most favoured producers" policy. But for this, Ojha would have long since made the transition to independent producer. He says he even met Karuna Samtani, former Head of Programming at Zee with a project. "She said she liked the serial very much, but after that, she made herself unavailable. I just couldn't get access to her again." His complaint, echoed by individual talent across the industry, is that "the culture now in channels is very superficial. The people in charge have noknowledge of the medium or even respect for it. The bigger producers are no different. All they want to do is make the money and run. They don't care how they achieve that," says Ojha.

This lack of work ethic he feels leads to corruption and other "short-cuts" because neither the current crop of channel executives nor large producers really care about creating exciting television programmes. "Most of them treat the medium as a poor country cousin of cinema! Nobody is willing to spend money on research or on developing good projects, nurturing new talent. In fact, when they talk about finding new talent, it's a joke. There's so much good talent but if you try to bring it to their attention, they don't care. So they continue working with the same producers, who also have grown indifferent and say 'We'll give them 10 good episodes, and after that thok denge and we'll make some money'."

For instance, several high-profile Star TV serials are doled out budgets which are often twice as high as those paidby other channels for the same kind of programming. In some cases, such as the hugely successful Rendezvous With Simi Garewal, this larger budget is required due to the intrinsic quality and cost of the production - and amply justified by the phenomenal viewership and response to the show. But Star has a whole bunch of expensive failures such as Ramesh Sippy's Gatha, - whose repackaging as Viruddh apparently helped the producer recoup his investment on the expensive sets - Kalpana Lajmi's Dawn, the disastrous Star Miss India show, and numerous other overhyped, under-viewed projects. While other projects with far lower budgets - such as Neena Gupta's Saans and Plus Channel's supernatural thriller Ajeeb Daastaan are the ones with higher viewership ratings.

The buzz in the corridors of Star is that these high budgets were sanctioned by the former programming executives in exchange for hefty gifts in cash or kind. While Amit Khanna, whose company producesAjeeb Daastaan on Star Plus and who has interacted with the same team earlier at Doordarshan too, says that though he's "heard stories,'' is not sure of their veracity. But according to a source at Star, these rumours and allegations about his former colleagues have even jeopardised the position of Chairman Rathikant Basu.

Among other allegations being whispered in the corridors of Star's plush office are that of sexual favours and dangerous liaisons. That Star has an inordinate number of women producers unfortunately only adds grist to the gossip mills. Anu Malhotra, the attractive anchorperson and producer of several travel shows including the Indian Holiday series on Sony, once admitted to me that "trying to work with Doordarshan was one long series of sexual harassments." Channel executives, she claimed, openly demanded sex in exchange for official clearances, budget approvals, everything. Malhotra was tough enough not to be intimidated by the -- bureaurats -- (misspelling intended) but she knewother women who had succumbed. This kind of harassment is relatively absent in private channels. Notwithstanding producer Ashok Pandit's recent allegations that Zee Programming Director had demanded sex from an actress who wanted to star in a serial. Even if such cases do occur, they're the exception rather than the rule.

What is common though, is a general atmosphere of partisanship. Independent producers are being edged out by larger houses with bigger resources, more finance, and stronger power equation with channel heads. There's little room for individual talent. The other depressing fact of life is that most channel executives, even at seniormost levels, don't respect the very medium they work in. As Ojha put it: "Television today is regarded as a poor country cousin of films." One senior programming executive at SET openly admitted that "I'm only here to making a living, what I really want to do is direct films". Another channel executive is proud of the fact that "I never watch any of ourshows".

With this lack of respect for or understanding of the medium, small wonder that more and more channel professionals are turning to the occasional bribe, gift, junket, or simply 'you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-your's' relationship with producers. When you don't respect the work you do, why should you care about little things like ethics or fairplay?