SEARCH

Opinion » Readers' Editor

Updated: August 22, 2013 16:12 IST

A case for space

A.S. Panneerselvan
Comment (2)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
The Hindu

My first job as the Readers’ Editor is to be a committed reader of this newspaper. No section of the paper is secondary to the other. In the last few days, there was a flurry of mails following the publication of three pieces that form the debate between Sanjay Srivastava and Prema Nandakumar.

Before getting into the merits of the arguments put forth by the readers — both for and against — let me try to conceptually delineate the organisation of space in this newspaper. The paper is broadly divided into three sections — news, views and features.

The distinctions are set out in “Living our Values: Code of Editorial Values.” They are: “In keeping with the exemplary tradition of a general daily newspaper of record and consistent with contemporary best practice, The Hindu shall, as a rule, maintain a clear distinction between news, critical analysis, and opinion in its editorial content and shall not editorialise or opinionate in news reports. The Company must endeavour to provide in its publications a fair and balanced coverage of competing interests, and to offer the readers diverse, reasonable viewpoints, subject to its editorial judgment.”

Unlike the news pages, views pages have two distinct strands. One is the opinion of the paper. This unambiguous section is called the Editorial, and the paper carries two editorials a day. The other strand is a forum for bringing out multiple opinions on a range of topics and they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the paper or its editor.

As a Readers’ Editor, to take a call on news pages is easy. It is a straightforward exercise of checking its authenticity, accuracy and if something is missing, despite the embarrassment of public gaze, we go ahead and make the necessary corrections right away. It is embarrassing for the journalists involved but the fact that there exists an institutional mechanism of correction, gives the credibility for their journalism.

But, when it comes to views, sometimes the differences between the writer and the readers are extremely subjective. Even in the views section, if there are any factual mistakes, I do not hesitate to make the correction. But, what is the option in front of a Readers’ Editor, if readers differ with the author’s view? And when it comes to the question of faith, can we deny the individual perspectives?

‘Writing can be misunderstood’

In his 1993 tract titled “The Question of Faith” (Orient Longman), Rustom Bharucha examined this rather elusive question by delving into diverse cultural practices and provided some answers with enormous seriousness, sensitivity and understanding. And at some level, he also has answers for multiple interpretations of any writing and captures rather very elegantly the dilemma facing a Readers’ Editor in determining the merits of subjective criticisms.

He wrote: “In the best of times, writing can be misunderstood. A writer may intend one thing and appear to say something else. Words and meanings do not necessarily cohere. This, however, is accepted as an axiom of writing. Only polemical texts are expected to be univocal. But the more reflexive pieces of writing are those in which one can say (and read) at least two things at the same time.”

He further added: “That, hypothetically, is in the best times. Today is a different story. Unlike earlier periods of censorship during the Emergency, for instance, when words were twisted, distorted, erased and manipulated beyond recognition, it would seem that our own words today have become almost as slippery as the politicians manipulating them. We are not entirely in control over what we are saying as the events of our time are proving stronger than our capacity to express them.”

To some of the readers who have taken sides over the debate on interpretation of Swami Vivekananda’s photo, not just as a Readers’ Editor but as an individual reader as well, I would like to repeat what Rustom Bharucha had written two decades ago: “it should be acknowledged that there is a communal potential in every representation of religiosity, but this does not necessarily make the representation communal…. As in narratives and fictions, I think we need to ask ourselves when our intolerance of another community becomes malicious. When does prejudice cross the limits of acceptance, when does satire, as in the case of Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, become ‘blasphemy’? These are the gradations that need to be more carefully probed instead of blanketing condemnations and endorsements of faith.”

I believe that the opinion pages of The Hindu are a site for much more open-ended debates, where enigmas are not erased and rendered into monochromatic, artificial emphatic sermons, but a study in plurality and diversity. An element of subjective lends credence to this polyphonous debate and I feel that the space for subjective reading should not be erased from opinion pages.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

RELATED NEWS

He gave us back our dignityJanuary 10, 2013

We must be more open in evaluating our heritageJanuary 11, 2013

The lure of hammerFebruary 18, 2013

Mr.Shrivastava wanted to emphasize a point (related to masculinity)
using the example of a Swami Vivekananda photograph. Whenever someone
cites an example, it is by his deep understanding and interpretation
of it and intends to convey what his own interpretation is. But there
may be a possibility that the example used may convey something else
with a greater emphasis depending on the readers prejudices among the
many other factors that shape the interpretation of it. And Ms
Nandakumar seems to have fallen for this. She has judged the writer
and his article on the basis of an example and totally overlooked the
idea of the author. It is high time we stop being judgemental of
everything we see around us and learn to appreciate or criticize with
a sense of openmindedness

from:  Malesh Gangani
Posted on: Jan 15, 2013 at 15:56 IST

Well said. For some of us to keep on reading and writing, what you say, must be so as it is the starting point for any thoughtful and candid conversation.

from:  Virendra Gupta
Posted on: Jan 15, 2013 at 09:11 IST
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Columnists Listing


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in Readers' Editor

A.S. Panneerselvan. Photo: V.V. Krishnan

Trust is media’s biggest asset

The year 2009 was a defining 12 months for Indian journalism in more than one sense. While the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) returne... »