Not quite Mainstream Ramachandra Guha Indian Express: Friday, May 05, 2006
As a long-time reader and occasional contributor to Mainstream, I was dismayed at the personal attack launched on the eminent journalist B.G. Verghese by three writers, one of whom is this journal’s editor (Prashant Bhushan, Suhas Borker, Sumit Chakravartty, ‘Medha Patkar represents the Nation’s Conscience’, Mainstream, 21-27 April.) (The Indian Express had carried Verghese’s commentary,‘Quiet flows the Narmada on April 10, and an edited version of the response to it, by Bhushan, Borker and Chakravartty,‘Medha represents the nation’s conscience’, April 15).
I do not myself endorse Mr Verghese’s views on the Sardar Sarovar dam in particular and on large dams in general. I think he is somewhat romantic about them, and tends to over-estimate their (economic) benefits and under-estimate their (social and ecological costs). Still, one would hope that intellectual disagreement could be expressed through reasoned argument rather than by impugning the character of the person whose views one is disagreeing with.
In that issue of Mainstream, Ramaswamy Iyer takes the former course — presenting the anti-dam view cogently as well as impersonally — whereas Bhushan, Borker and Chakravartty take the latter course. They call Mr Verghese’s views ‘preposterous’ and ‘elitist’, and speak darkly of his motives and alleged class position, writing variously of ‘the elite whom Mr Verghese represents’ and ‘the classes that Mr Verghese represents’. At one point, they go so far as to accuse him of ‘opportunism and cooption of the worst kind’.
Now, as anyone who has himself been a journalist, or who is even casually acquainted with the Indian press, knows, Mr Verghese represents nobody but himself. He is widely and justly respected for his personal honesty, professional integrity, and independence of mind. He has never been anybody’s man, not a party man nor a proprietor’s man either.
Surely the writers of this article are aware that Mr Verghese was persecuted for his independence and honesty shortly before the Emergency? How many of us can boast of having lost one of the most prestigious jobs in Indian journalism because we would not compromise on our principles or be economical with the truth?
The article was in poor taste anyway, but it was made even less palatable when one considers whom the target of its vituperation is. Although one might disagree with his views on large dams — and this writer does — one must nonetheless acknowledge B.G. Verghese’s other, and seminal, contributions to the deepening of Indian democracy. In part this has taken the shape of maintaining the highest standards of integrity in the difficult yet vital profession of journalism.
Then there is Mr Verghese’s tireless work in attempting to bring justice and development to that forgotten, neglected, patronised, and exploited region of India, the Northeast. No mainland Indian journalist — or scholar, or activist — has done more to deepen our understanding of the ecology and culture of this region, to sympathise with their peoples’ aspirations, or to reconcile them with honour to the Indian nation as a whole.
Other writers who know Mr Verghese and his work better can perhaps add to what I have here written. But I think I have said enough to make it clear that the attack on him in Mainstream was inconsistent with the journal’s tradition and reputation and with journalistic practice generally. I hope the editor will do the decent thing and apologise, not for the views expressed in the article he co-authored, but certainly for the words in which they were cast. The writer is a well-known historian
I do not myself endorse Mr Verghese’s views on the Sardar Sarovar dam in particular and on large dams in general. I think he is somewhat romantic about them, and tends to over-estimate their (economic) benefits and under-estimate their (social and ecological costs). Still, one would hope that intellectual disagreement could be expressed through reasoned argument rather than by impugning the character of the person whose views one is disagreeing with.
In that issue of Mainstream, Ramaswamy Iyer takes the former course — presenting the anti-dam view cogently as well as impersonally — whereas Bhushan, Borker and Chakravartty take the latter course. They call Mr Verghese’s views ‘preposterous’ and ‘elitist’, and speak darkly of his motives and alleged class position, writing variously of ‘the elite whom Mr Verghese represents’ and ‘the classes that Mr Verghese represents’. At one point, they go so far as to accuse him of ‘opportunism and cooption of the worst kind’.
Now, as anyone who has himself been a journalist, or who is even casually acquainted with the Indian press, knows, Mr Verghese represents nobody but himself. He is widely and justly respected for his personal honesty, professional integrity, and independence of mind. He has never been anybody’s man, not a party man nor a proprietor’s man either.
Surely the writers of this article are aware that Mr Verghese was persecuted for his independence and honesty shortly before the Emergency? How many of us can boast of having lost one of the most prestigious jobs in Indian journalism because we would not compromise on our principles or be economical with the truth?
The article was in poor taste anyway, but it was made even less palatable when one considers whom the target of its vituperation is. Although one might disagree with his views on large dams — and this writer does — one must nonetheless acknowledge B.G. Verghese’s other, and seminal, contributions to the deepening of Indian democracy. In part this has taken the shape of maintaining the highest standards of integrity in the difficult yet vital profession of journalism.
Then there is Mr Verghese’s tireless work in attempting to bring justice and development to that forgotten, neglected, patronised, and exploited region of India, the Northeast. No mainland Indian journalist — or scholar, or activist — has done more to deepen our understanding of the ecology and culture of this region, to sympathise with their peoples’ aspirations, or to reconcile them with honour to the Indian nation as a whole.
Other writers who know Mr Verghese and his work better can perhaps add to what I have here written. But I think I have said enough to make it clear that the attack on him in Mainstream was inconsistent with the journal’s tradition and reputation and with journalistic practice generally. I hope the editor will do the decent thing and apologise, not for the views expressed in the article he co-authored, but certainly for the words in which they were cast. The writer is a well-known historian
No comments:
Post a Comment