Editorials - Views   

Beyond the news: Our views

Editorials have always been a serious matter for The Hindu. MUKUND PADMANABHAN on some of the positions staked out by the newspaper over the past century and a quarter.

Jawaharlal Nehru addresses the Press after being sworn in as the head of the interim Government in 1946.

The earliest copy of The Hindu that survives is the edition of January 12, 1881. The unfussy, almost spartan, front page is damaged. The other pages have also frayed and only a few articles can be read in their entirety. The first edition of The Hindu rolled off the press in 1878, three years earlier, but copies of the newspaper during this period have not survived. One article has, though. Very appropriately, it is an editorial, the first one that was carried in the newspaper.

Why appropriately? Two reasons spring to mind. First, in an environment where newspapers accord less and less importance to editorials (and conversely more and more importance to lucrative market-oriented supplements), The Hindu continues to treat them with the importance they deserve. Editorials always were and still remain a serious matter for The Hindu. This is primarily why the newspaper's editorials retain a substantial readership, proportionally much higher than other English newspapers in India.

The second reason lies in the very content of the surviving editorial, which was titled, with disarming simplicity, "Ourselves". The editorial announced that the newspaper was seeking admission as a new member of the journalistic community and then proceeded to lay down The Hindu's "intentions and aims, the line of policy it proposes to pursue and the principles by which it is to be guided.''

When assessed against the socio-political backdrop of those times, the editorial struck a note that was characterised by moderation and a sense of neutrality and independence — values the newspaper has reflected over the years. The founders of The Hindu stated that they "did not belong to that class of men who... find fault with everything the Government does." At the same time, they stressed that they did not agree with "those who are so far away carried by the influence of their Western education as to cry down everything native and advocate as a rule the preferability of Western institutions of those of their own community." Fundamentally, the editorial suggested, the principles that would guide the paper "are simply those of fairness and justice." It would strive to "promote harmony and union among fellow countrymen" and would observe the "strictest neutrality" with respect to religious matters.

Congress leaders at an AICC session at the time of the party split in 1969.

Times change, and with it do views and values. But the tone and spirit of the editorial determined the character of the newspaper in the years to come and remain relevant even today. The story goes that the editorial charmed an Englishman, Surgeon Major Nicholson, so much that he came in search of the Editor and congratulated him. For many weeks, two of The Hindu's founders, Veeraraghavachariar and G. Subramania Aiyer, "sat at his feet" and listened to his "sound and mature views on various subjects", which probably had an influence on the editorial positions staked out by the then-fledgling publication.

For a newspaper that grew to acquire a reputation of being moderate and restrained, The Hindu found itself pitted directly against the British administration in its early years. Its editorials on Sir Mountstuart Elphinstone Grant-Duff, Governor of Madras during the 1880s, were notable for their severe and caustic criticism. The newspaper's assessment of his tenure was scathing: "...there was not a single Indian or Englishman who did not look upon his departure with a sense of relief and as terminating a regime which had become notorious for corruption creeping into the highest ranks of public service." One of the problems, as The Hindu saw it, was Duff's unsuitability for the job. In an editorial laced with sarcasm, titled `A Naturalist as Governor', The Hindu portrayed him as a man who was obsessed with plants, flowers and recreational forays into the countryside rather than the challenges of administering a huge populace. "Fancy the Governor of a province with more than 30 millions of population under him and an infinite variety of problems to engage his best thoughts going out on tour or walking or riding, in order that he may revel in the abundant store of vegetable wealth attracting him along the route, but not that he may meet the people face to face, study their condition, acquire a knowledge of the problems bearing upon their well-being, and learn to sympathise with them."

The evaluation of colonial administrators, often in a comparative way, was something that the newspaper took seriously. Lord Lytton was a Viceroy who was remembered more for his "acts of injustice and despotism," a ruler who "left the country without a single soul being sorry for it." His successor, Lord Ripon — whose viceroyalty was characterised by a relative benevolence — was the subject of panegyrics. "A ruler so thoughtful...and so popular is a phenomenon in Anglo-Indian history," wrote The Hindu. When Ripon visited Madras in connection with his farewell visit in 1884, the newspaper described him as "the darling of the people upon whose hearts the memory of his name acts like magic."

In the early days, the subjects the newspaper chose to editorialise about were surprisingly varied. Some editorials dealt with issues with a light and airy touch; `Hindu Dress' in 1896 is a good example. Written in response to the suggestion that Indian men cut ludicrous figures when they don European costumes, The Hindu dissected the charge in amusing and exaggerated detail before making some pragmatic observations. Saying that European clothes may or may not be more graceful than Indian ones, the newspaper felt the former are "the most convenient dress for moving about quickly." In contrast, the oriental dress is "suited to a life of leisure, indolence and slow locomotion." The editorial ends with a note of remarkable prescience: "Very likely it will come to this: the Hindu will be content with the inexpensive and scanty clothes of his ancestors while he is at home, and when he goes out he will adopt the European costume..."

Indira Gandhi's body lying in state.

For a newspaper that is now noted for its sobriety and gravitas, The Hindu was not averse at one time to writing playful, humorous editorials. For reasons that are not altogether clear, much of this writing was done in the 1940s. An incident in 1946 about a lady in Tel Aviv who told a Magistrate in Court that she didn't like his face tickled The Hindu's funny side. The lady was sentenced to a half-day in solitary confinement. "We are not told what the Magistrate actually looked like — whether he was ugly or whether he was stern or smiling...What was exceptional about the landlady was that she discovered judges are human and that they have faces that one can dislike even if that is irrelevant to the merits of one's cause."

Another and a better known example of The Hindu's humorous flourishes was `Magistrate on the Flying Trapeze' (1941), an extended and hilarious jibe against the Joint Magistrate of Gudur (a Mr. Galetti), who was noted for his eccentric attitude towards satyagrahis, who he alternately praised and hectored. "In his evangelical zeal for saving the souls of the politically misguided, he seems to have thought himself permitted alternately to pray and curse, threaten and cajole, sneer and grow maudlin, impale his victim on Morton's fork and souse him in the purest milk of satyagraha a la Galetti... As he is obviously unable to see the impropriety of a magistrate functioning like a vaudeville artist, it is high time that the Government transferred him to a sphere more suited to his talents and tastes."

In the life of a newspaper, humour is an option. Tragedy is inescapable. When the Mahatma was felled by an assassin's bullet in 1948, The Hindu's editorial `The Universal Man' was, as one would expect, suffused with grief. The newspaper struck an extremely dark note about the existing state of affairs ("India today is like a bundle of faggots from which the binding cord has been loosed") but believed it was fortunate that the country was in safe hands ("... she has in Mr. Nehru and his trusted colleagues, men valiant and true, who have grown in the shadow of the Mahatma and yet have not been stunted"). On the Mahatma's legacy, the editorial noted: "He is a reminder to us all that an exalted ethic can go hand in hand with practical good sense, that ruthlessness in action is compatible with a boundless love. Men like him are a perpetual rebuke to the faint-hearted of every generation; they are ideal made flesh."

When Jawaharlal Nehru died 16 years later, The Hindu struck a similar note of bereavement. His greatest achievement, the newspaper noted, "is the fact that, despite the horrors of the Partition and the surge of communal passions and linguistic loyalties, he kept India united within a democratic secular framework and set her firmly on the road to economic development and modernisation."

While describing Indira Gandhi's assassination as a "colossal tragedy" and sharing the nation's sense of "anger and disorientation" of the loss, The Hindu's assessment of her political legacy was more realistic or, at any rate, less starry-eyed. "Later, historians, political scientists, journalists and a host of others will be able to look objectively and critically at India's track record during the Indira Gandhi era. And they are likely to find much that will endure and survive the criticisms." Less than a decade later, her son's assassination was the tragic subject of a front-page editorial titled `Horrendous'. "Chastened by his years in the Opposition," the newspaper speculated that "there was every chance of Mr. Gandhi returning to power as a Prime Minister... had he been given a chance to govern."

The evolution and growth of a newspaper can be related as a narrative (as Mr. S. Muthiah has admirably done elsewhere in this special supplement). An account of its editorial policy, however, does not lend itself to such linear description. Editorial stances (or editorial lines, to use newspaper jargon) are modified, altered, even reversed. The engines for such changes often vary. They may be brought about by a transformation in the socio-political environment. By the acquisition of fresh knowledge that forces a re-evaluation of the past. Or, more pragmatically, by the appointment of a new Editor.

The editorial that appeared on the day of Independence.

If a newspaper's editorial policy remains constant, it is in the very broadest of senses - that is, in its core commitment to a set of fundamental values. The Hindu pledged to be bound by two of them in its maiden editorial in 1878: justice and fairness. Both these values are amply reflected in a remarkable book published in 1978, to mark the 100th year of The Hindu's existence. The book is a compilation of 100 editorials, one from almost every year (two were selected from some years to make up the round number as a result of the missing copies in the early years).

The selection represents a "cross-section of the views and thoughts expressed by The Hindu over a century", but it also reflects that editorial policy is not the adoption of a static point of view but a dynamic process that is influenced by a number of factors. Editorials mould opinion but they are also moulded by the events of the time. Selecting a hundred editorials over a century, as the Preface admitted, was not "easy". As it pointed out, there is so much that was written about that "anyone who wants to pick and choose is confronted by a surfeit of material and the problem is what to discard." If it is difficult to select and fit a truly representative sample between the covers of a book, then it is foolish to pretend that it is possible to do so within the space of an article.

One way of lending a touch of objectivity to what is essentially an exercise in subjectivity is to look at what The Hindu had to say about events of monumental significance. In the course of a century and a quarter, there are scores of events of such a nature. The day of Independence would be on everyone's list. What did The Hindu have to say about that? After striking a quick note of joy, `A Red-Letter Day', which appeared on August 15, 1947, quickly turned to the demanding tasks ahead. "We have won freedom. And the first thing our people must learn is that it is no picnic. They will have to gird their loins and work as they have never worked before." Quite astonishingly, a third or so of the editorial, was spent in politely disagreeing with John Matthai (who went on to become a Minister in Nehru's Cabinet) over his stress on the importance of launching a struggle to achieve economic equality and his suggestion that the energy released by freedom could be utilised in casting vested (economic) interests as the new enemy. "The consensus of instructed opinion in the country is that our urgent need is to increase production," The newspaper warned: "Those who led the fight for freedom yesterday may themselves come to be regarded as vested interests by their self-styled successors of to-day who claim to lead the struggle for economic equality."

Travelling back over six decades to the event that eventually led to the Independence movement — the first meeting of the Indian National Congress in 1885 — it is interesting to read what The Hindu foresaw and foretold. Referring to the meeting as an "important day in the annals of our national history," the newspaper predicted that the meeting promises to be a "forerunner of several political changes". "If we have understood the signs of the times aright we feel that this year's Congress is to form the nucleus of a grand national assembly, the councils of which will weigh with the government of this country in moulding its action in all matters connected with its well-being," the newspaper said.

Some editorials are notable because of the distinctive positions they adopt. One such was `Justice Sinha's verdict', which analysed the Allahabad High Court's 1975 judgment that held then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt electoral practice, set aside her election and barred her from contesting for another six years. The Hindu observed that the judgment is based on "purely technical grounds which are not substantive and appear rather weak". While acknowledging the electoral process was being abused in the country, the newspaper argued that Justice Sinha's ruling underlined the need "for a careful scrutiny of the law and its revision to ensure that the real intention behind it is carried out, that as far as possible, purely technical knock-outs are avoided and that deliberately errant ones are penalised".

Six years earlier, the newspaper had expressed its views on the factors that eventually led to the Congress split just as strongly and emphatically. The Hindu was disapproving of Mrs. Gandhi's attempts to split the Congress. In the view of the newspaper's former Editor, G. Kasturi, some of these editorials written on this issue were among the most memorable during the period when the newspaper was under his stewardship. In `Congress Vs. Congress', The Hindu said that "her decision which resulted in bringing down the whole edifice of the party on this one issue (differences over the party's Presidential nominee), was destined to do only incalculable harm all round." It added: "None takes seriously the veneer of ideological differences that has been sought to be applied to the naked power struggle." At the same time, the editorial admitted that Mrs. Gandhi "has demonstrated a new grit and capacity to live with crisis that can be assets in a leader." Also that "her open commitment to implement the accepted Congress policy...may also qualify her for the leadership of the party more than ever before."

It is exactly this kind of even-handedness, this capacity to strike balances, the insistence that criticism is restricted to matters of principle and not reduced to attacks of a personal nature, that have distinguished the best of The Hindu's editorial endeavours. There are numerous examples of this. Not so long ago, The Hindu opposed Ms. Jayalalithaa's assumption of chief ministerial office following her party's comprehensive victory in the 2001 Tamil Nadu Assembly election. The newspaper argued that that her conviction in the TANSI and Pleasant Stay Hotel cases were a legal and constitutional bar to occupy such office — something that was eventually confirmed by the Supreme Court, which quashed her appointment.

Rajiv Gandhi, moments before his assassination.

Once she was acquitted in these cases, The Hindu wrote (`Victory in Court', December 5, 2001) that "having dispelled the clouds of legal doubt, she has established her right to reclaim the chief ministerial chair". The editorial noted: "As the architect of the AIADMK's victory in the May Assembly election and the omnipotent leader of her party, her political claim on the chief ministerial chair was always indisputable. With her victory in court, her legal and constitutional claim is also settled."

In the life of a newspaper, particularly one that is a century and a quarter old, it is misconceived to assess every editorial in the light of its `correctness'.

Editorials are not eternally valid and the benefit of hindsight may result in some opinions expressed as seeming too mild, too strong, too neutral, too opinionated or simply just wrong. At the end of the day, their validity must be evaluated in the broadest and most fundamental of ways. The questions that must be asked of editorials are the very same The Hindu raised in 1878. Have they attempted to be fair to those commented upon? Have they been just or in consonance with one's views and one's conscience? On such basic values rest the integrity and the appeal of a newspaper.

(The author is Associate Editor, The Hindu)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Editorials - Views

| Editorial | Looking back | Editorials - Views | Business growth | Advertising | Technology | Art and Culture | The Hindu & me | Business | Sports | Index |

Stories in this Section

• Beyond the news: Our views

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu