One of the narrative devices deployed in these columns is that of shared interrogatives where questions are posed on behalf of both the readers, and writers and journalists of this paper with an idea of expanding the common ground that fosters and nurtures the notion of public sphere. It is a process that recognises that there are multiple opinions, diverse political thoughts, and varied concerns, and yet searches for a democratic site to wrestle with these differences. It is an attempt to retain space for heterogeneity and plurality, and to keep a certain strand of homogeneity generated by dominant discourses at bay.
While efforts are taken to respond to queries and criticisms written directly to us, I generally refrain from responding to comments that tend to twist certain facts about the editorial process. For instance, when a letter to the editor is edited for clarity and with an aim of accommodating as many voices as possible within the limited available space, the letter writer shot back an angry missive that his letter was mutilated and his views were censored.
However, one reader, Devraj Sambasivan from Alleppey, has always had a contrarian view of everything that has been said in this column. He has been consistent in commenting on almost every column, and on a few occasions when moderators did not clear his comments, he mailed them to the office of the Readers’ Editor. His latest mail was not only sceptical but also raised a few questions based on wrong assumptions.
His questions: why, unlike my predecessors, have I got a longer tenure? Why a weekly column, as opposed to previous fortnightly columns (he agrees that the space started off as a weekly one)? What qualities of my work and disposition have persuaded The Hindu to allow an unprecedented tenure? Why was there a long interval preceding my posting?
The terms of reference for the Readers’ Editor (RE) is a public document, and it has been in force since January 14, 2006. It reads: “The Readers’ Editor will initially be appointed for two years, a term that can be renewed. He or she can be removed from the post within two years only by the Board of Directors of Kasturi & Sons Ltd., the public limited company that publishes The Hindu .” And, to set the record straight, as of now it is Mr. K. Narayanan who holds the record of the longest-serving RE, not me. He was appointed as the first RE on January 14, 2006. It took a month and a half to set up the office of the Readers’ Editor and put procedures in place. His first column, “For mature, strong bonds”, appeared on March 1, 2006. He stepped down on June 30, 2009. I have to wait for another six months to get “unprecedented tenure”. I am currently serving my second term. My first term started on September 20, 2012, following Mr. Viswanathan’s retirement on June 30, 2012 after being in the profession for well over 50 years. Even in this intervening period of two months and 20 days, the office of the RE functioned with the core team that carried out daily corrections and clarifications.
How I wish I were an indoctrinated parrot to answer what qualities of my work and disposition persuaded this newspaper to retain me! Nonetheless, I can share the methods, procedures, the governing intellectual framework and the general approach that informs my work. The basic working grid is provided by the terms of reference. I learn from two distinct histories — journalism and the struggle for freedom of expression. Some tools are borrowed from legal and literary experiences.
Umberto Eco’s first bestseller was not The Name of the Rose but a guide book for his students, How to Write a Thesis . He talked about balancing humility and pride as a means for academic exploration. Academic humility, according to Eco, is the knowledge that anyone can teach us something. “The point is that we must listen with respect to anyone, without this exempting us from pronouncing judgments; or from the knowledge that an author’s opinion is very different from ours, and that he is ideologically very different from us. But even the sternest opponent can suggest some ideas to us.”
Then he moves to the idea of academic pride where he denounces unsolicited disclaimers such as “we are not qualified to deal with such a topic. Nevertheless we would like to venture a guess that…” He asks if years of work and dedication to a particular topic or field and reflections on its working does not make one qualified, what else would make it. “When you speak, you are the expert…On your specific topic, you are humanity’s functionary who speaks in the collective voice. Be humble and prudent before opening your mouth, but once you open it, be dignified and proud,” said Eco.
A Readers’ Editor too keeps his journalistic humility and journalistic pride on an even keel. If a news ombudsman concurs with the newspaper in the course of doing his duty, it is certainly not “I scratch your back; you scratch mine” as Mr. Sambasivan hinted, but it is a considered opinion.
readderseditor@thehindu.co.in
