Lal salam, Comrade Basu...!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Vimsey Passes: Memories of a Legend Among Kozhikode's Media Veterans
VETERAN JOURNALSIT Vimsey, V M Balachandran, died this morning at his home in Kozhikode.
I was there at his house to pay my homage to Vimsey in the morning and there were many veterans of journalism in this city, like T Venugopal and P A Sreedharan Nair, both had served Mathrubhumi a long time with Vimsey, and many others like N P Rajendran and Vijyakrishnan who are still working there.
I have known Vimsey from late seventies when I used to be a student activist in this city. Mathrubhumi was the pinnacle of journalistic excellence in those days and the paper was still a place where you will come across people in khadi dress. People like T Venugopal and C Uthama Kurup and the late lamented V M Korath and R M Manakkalath belonged to this khadi group, while Vimsey was one person who came in his immaculate bush shirt and pants, with sharp eyes burning behind his thick glasses.
He was news editor and he was lord of all things at the main desk. I remember one day going to meet him in 1980 or 81, with a very interesting representation. T A Ushakumari, a fiery student activist from Azhiyur near Vatakara, who was then a PhD scholar at the history department of Calicut University, had been elected to the university syndicate as an SFI nominee and Mathrubhumi had published a photograph of hers.
I must say Usha was not a traffic-stopper as a girl but this particular photograph they had printed made even hardened cynics like me feel bitter. It appeared they had taken special efforts to make her look ugly and she was really much upset finding herself thus tarnished in the paper.
My errand was to request him to publish a fresh news photograph and he appeared in two minds. He spent a long time studying the picture they had published and he knew they could have applied a little more sense in selecting the photograph. But it would look silly to publish another picture simply because their photographers or library were not intelligent and sensitive enough in judging a picture.
He just cut some jokes about the way the ancient printing presses worked those days (when people had to ask which was the monkey and which one the minister if a photo of a minister visiting a zoo was published) and then moved on to other things. It was clear he would not budge.
Vimsey as an editor was sharp and quick, two qualities you need to survive in this dog-eat- dog-world. He had an abundance of both and perhaps that is why he survived for so long in Mathrubhumi. Still, he had to leave and then he worked at Calicut Times, an eveninger, where he worked with equal enthusiasm. The paper was not a big hit but he could build a young crop of good reporters and writers who are still active in the profession in various papers.
He was an excellent sports writer. He played with words and he made words bring the game back to you so vibrant: whether it be a direct shot into the goalpost or a scissor cut or the gallery's response to the players they loved...I loved reading him and when I read the insipid prose in our mainstream papers today, I do long for the days when Vimsey, K Koya and P A Muhammed Koya(Mushtaq), Abu and others were writing sports, just as I look back nostalgically at the days when Rajan Bala and Harsha Bogle were making magic with their words in the Indian English press.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Ethical Journalism in Theory and Practice: A Case of The Hindu Frontline
FRONTLINE, THE fortnightly from The Hindu group, was launched in 1984 and this week it has released its 25th anniversary issue, a wonderful collector’s item by any standards.
The Hindu has always stood for the best and most noble in journalistic practice and its adherence to professional ethics is well known. It has remained a beacon for media-persons in this country and I have always loved to read it which I have done from the mid seventies of 20th century.
Still, in spite of its best traditions and standards, those who have read it closely, especially from the lower segments of Indian people, had a sense that The Hindu was a newspaper for the elite and its progressive credentials are nothing but a veneer for what lurks behind: an upper caste and elitist mindset which has scant regard or empathy for the real concerns of the poor, the subaltern and minorities.
It became evident quite often, whether it at its shameless support to the Emergency in 70s or its refusal to cover the people’s resistance in West Bengal’s Nandigram, in recent months.
Unfortunately, I had to get involved in a case where The Hindu Frontline played a less than honourable role in presenting the Muslim concerns in the Love Jihad controversy in Kerala: It was a blatant misrepresentation of the minority viewpoint articulated by Thejas that enraged us, and finally we had to file a complaint with the Press Council of India, which is still to go for hearing and final resolution.
Here I release two letters we had sent, the first to Mr. N. Ram, editor-in-chief of the Hindu group, dated December 1, 2009 and the second to the Chairman, Press Council, dated December 28, 2009.
Letter to Mr. N Ram, dated December 1, 2009:
Sir,
This has reference to an article in The Hindu Frontline, dated November 20, 2009 titled Divisive Debate, written by Mr. R Krishnakumar, your Thiruvananthapuram correspondent.
The article makes a reference to an editorial purported to be published by “the NDF organ Thejas” quoting the same from “an article in the pro-BJP Janmabhumi”.
Your report continues as follows:
Quote:
The Thejas editorial was quoted as saying: “If young men embrace Islam, it is for terrorist activities; if young women do it, it is for love jihad. This propaganda is part of a well-planned strategy. Here, the police, certain sections of the media, even the courts are becoming tools in the hands of certain vested interests, for implementing their secret agendas. It is part of an evil design indeed that when Islam embraces (sic), it becomes the singular cause for restlessness for some sections and they try to put an end to it. Muslims are mere victims of Hindu fascists. Even then, we are portrayed as aggressors. Our aim is only to defend [ourselves] against aggression of Hindu fascists. The religious conversions undertaken by us are similar to those carried out by other religious sections. But Hindu fascists are hunting down and attacking those who come to Islam…..”
Unquote.
As editor and publisher of Thejas daily, published from four centres in Kerala, kindly allow me to infirm you that the editorial you have generously credited us with writing seem to be real news for us. In the course of the two months of October and November 2009, when the ‘Love Jihad’ issue came to dominate Malayalam media, we had published two editorials on the topic of religious conversions, love and other related issues. The first one, dated October 2, 2009, was titled ‘When Love and Jihad Come to the Courts, and the second, dated October 28, 2009, was entitled, Love Marriages and Religious Conversions.
I have attached copies of the two editorials for your reference and possible perusal. You may note that neither of the editorials do make any such references that your report has credited us with.
As a responsible editor and a well known public person, I hope you will agree that attributing completely false statements to others is highly unprofessional and unethical in any news media. Still such unfortunate incidents do take place (for example, the Janmabhumi’s false attribution to us in the article). But as a major Indian newspaper with high ethical standards, people do expect higher yardsticks from The Hindu and its publications. It was a most surprising experience to see The Frontline quoting Thejas from the columns of Janmabhumi, while the editorials of Thejas are very much in public domain and can be accessed for anyone in print or electronically. Still, neither your desk nor your reporter bothered to cross-check whether what you have attributed to us did actually belong to us.
Thanking you(Signed, Prof P Koya, editor& publisher, Thejas Daily.)
Letter to Chairman, Press Council of India, dated December 28, 2009:
Sir,
Recently various news media organizations operating in Kerala had given wide coverage to a secret letter written by the Director (NI) of the Union Home Ministry to the Chief Secretary, Kerala, alleging that the Thejas newspaper had been indulging in communal propaganda.
We consider this a completely false allegation and we do refute it with vehemence. However, since we were not asked by the authorities to explain any of the news items /editorials/ articles we had published in the paper during the four years of its existence, we were unable to prove our innocence and protect our fair name in the matter. As a newspaper committed to support the cause of the minorities, dalits and other oppressed sections of Indian society, we have been often subjected to such heinous allegations without any factual basis from time to time.
We have generally ignored such allegations and insinuations coming from interested parties. However, we consider that a recently published article in a highly reputed national journal, The Frontline published by The Hindu group of publications, Chennai, was an extreme case of irresponsible journalism with a motive to tarnish the fair name and pubic image of Thejas daily.
The article, printed in The Hindu Frontline, dated November 20, 2009 titled Divisive Debate, was written by Mr. R Krishnakumar, its Thiruvananthapuram correspondent.
The article on the recent controversy over ‘Love Jihad’ makes a reference to an editorial purported to be published by “the NDF organ Thejas” quoting the same from “an article in the pro-BJP Janmabhumi”. The said editorial, which makes inflammatory comments against “the Hindu fascists” was quoted extensively in the Frontline.
But the fact is that Thejas had never written or published any such editorial. It was completely cooked up by Janmabhumi, a newspaper published by those belonging to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, from Kerala.
As soon as The Frontline article was brought to our attention, I had written a letter to Mr. N Ram, Editor-in chief of The Hindu group of publications, inviting his attention to the false charges raised against us in his publication and requesting for correction of the same as soon as possible.
We regret to say that the letter written and dispatched on December 1, 2009, has elicited no reply or any action from the side of the editor of The Hindu group till today. Hence we are compelled to file this complaint with the Press Council seeking a direction to the Hindu Frontline to correct the mistake and ensure our fair name and public image.
(Both the letters were signed by Prof P Koya, editor and publisher, Thejas daily.)
The Hindu has always stood for the best and most noble in journalistic practice and its adherence to professional ethics is well known. It has remained a beacon for media-persons in this country and I have always loved to read it which I have done from the mid seventies of 20th century.
Still, in spite of its best traditions and standards, those who have read it closely, especially from the lower segments of Indian people, had a sense that The Hindu was a newspaper for the elite and its progressive credentials are nothing but a veneer for what lurks behind: an upper caste and elitist mindset which has scant regard or empathy for the real concerns of the poor, the subaltern and minorities.
It became evident quite often, whether it at its shameless support to the Emergency in 70s or its refusal to cover the people’s resistance in West Bengal’s Nandigram, in recent months.
Unfortunately, I had to get involved in a case where The Hindu Frontline played a less than honourable role in presenting the Muslim concerns in the Love Jihad controversy in Kerala: It was a blatant misrepresentation of the minority viewpoint articulated by Thejas that enraged us, and finally we had to file a complaint with the Press Council of India, which is still to go for hearing and final resolution.
Here I release two letters we had sent, the first to Mr. N. Ram, editor-in-chief of the Hindu group, dated December 1, 2009 and the second to the Chairman, Press Council, dated December 28, 2009.
Letter to Mr. N Ram, dated December 1, 2009:
Sir,
This has reference to an article in The Hindu Frontline, dated November 20, 2009 titled Divisive Debate, written by Mr. R Krishnakumar, your Thiruvananthapuram correspondent.
The article makes a reference to an editorial purported to be published by “the NDF organ Thejas” quoting the same from “an article in the pro-BJP Janmabhumi”.
Your report continues as follows:
Quote:
The Thejas editorial was quoted as saying: “If young men embrace Islam, it is for terrorist activities; if young women do it, it is for love jihad. This propaganda is part of a well-planned strategy. Here, the police, certain sections of the media, even the courts are becoming tools in the hands of certain vested interests, for implementing their secret agendas. It is part of an evil design indeed that when Islam embraces (sic), it becomes the singular cause for restlessness for some sections and they try to put an end to it. Muslims are mere victims of Hindu fascists. Even then, we are portrayed as aggressors. Our aim is only to defend [ourselves] against aggression of Hindu fascists. The religious conversions undertaken by us are similar to those carried out by other religious sections. But Hindu fascists are hunting down and attacking those who come to Islam…..”
Unquote.
As editor and publisher of Thejas daily, published from four centres in Kerala, kindly allow me to infirm you that the editorial you have generously credited us with writing seem to be real news for us. In the course of the two months of October and November 2009, when the ‘Love Jihad’ issue came to dominate Malayalam media, we had published two editorials on the topic of religious conversions, love and other related issues. The first one, dated October 2, 2009, was titled ‘When Love and Jihad Come to the Courts, and the second, dated October 28, 2009, was entitled, Love Marriages and Religious Conversions.
I have attached copies of the two editorials for your reference and possible perusal. You may note that neither of the editorials do make any such references that your report has credited us with.
As a responsible editor and a well known public person, I hope you will agree that attributing completely false statements to others is highly unprofessional and unethical in any news media. Still such unfortunate incidents do take place (for example, the Janmabhumi’s false attribution to us in the article). But as a major Indian newspaper with high ethical standards, people do expect higher yardsticks from The Hindu and its publications. It was a most surprising experience to see The Frontline quoting Thejas from the columns of Janmabhumi, while the editorials of Thejas are very much in public domain and can be accessed for anyone in print or electronically. Still, neither your desk nor your reporter bothered to cross-check whether what you have attributed to us did actually belong to us.
Thanking you(Signed, Prof P Koya, editor& publisher, Thejas Daily.)
Letter to Chairman, Press Council of India, dated December 28, 2009:
Sir,
Recently various news media organizations operating in Kerala had given wide coverage to a secret letter written by the Director (NI) of the Union Home Ministry to the Chief Secretary, Kerala, alleging that the Thejas newspaper had been indulging in communal propaganda.
We consider this a completely false allegation and we do refute it with vehemence. However, since we were not asked by the authorities to explain any of the news items /editorials/ articles we had published in the paper during the four years of its existence, we were unable to prove our innocence and protect our fair name in the matter. As a newspaper committed to support the cause of the minorities, dalits and other oppressed sections of Indian society, we have been often subjected to such heinous allegations without any factual basis from time to time.
We have generally ignored such allegations and insinuations coming from interested parties. However, we consider that a recently published article in a highly reputed national journal, The Frontline published by The Hindu group of publications, Chennai, was an extreme case of irresponsible journalism with a motive to tarnish the fair name and pubic image of Thejas daily.
The article, printed in The Hindu Frontline, dated November 20, 2009 titled Divisive Debate, was written by Mr. R Krishnakumar, its Thiruvananthapuram correspondent.
The article on the recent controversy over ‘Love Jihad’ makes a reference to an editorial purported to be published by “the NDF organ Thejas” quoting the same from “an article in the pro-BJP Janmabhumi”. The said editorial, which makes inflammatory comments against “the Hindu fascists” was quoted extensively in the Frontline.
But the fact is that Thejas had never written or published any such editorial. It was completely cooked up by Janmabhumi, a newspaper published by those belonging to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, from Kerala.
As soon as The Frontline article was brought to our attention, I had written a letter to Mr. N Ram, Editor-in chief of The Hindu group of publications, inviting his attention to the false charges raised against us in his publication and requesting for correction of the same as soon as possible.
We regret to say that the letter written and dispatched on December 1, 2009, has elicited no reply or any action from the side of the editor of The Hindu group till today. Hence we are compelled to file this complaint with the Press Council seeking a direction to the Hindu Frontline to correct the mistake and ensure our fair name and public image.
(Both the letters were signed by Prof P Koya, editor and publisher, Thejas daily.)
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Summit Concludes; and Warming...?
Global climate summit concludes in Copenhagen with no definite agreement: news.
Did anyone ask the planet how she feels now...?
Saturday, December 19, 2009
In Defence of Thejas Daily: A Reply to Critiques
WHAT IS the responsible media's job in a democracy?
For the past quarter century when I was active in this profession, I was under the impression that we are the watchdog and we need to a keep barking and if possible do some biting too.
But going by the Central Home Ministry's letter (sent by the Ministry's National Integration wing's director Y K Baweja, to Kerala chief secretary, asking effective steps to curb Thejas daily and fortnightly, I think the government is now thinking of providing some new roles to the media in this country.
The letter is an excellent piece of media criticism. It needs a thorough critical analysis, but right now I will quote here only the four major points they have raised in the letter:
First, they say Thejas in its editorials and articles speak up against the Government of India's policy line on Israel and the United States.
Second, they say the paper in its articles and editorials dubs the Government's actions to control extremism in the country as State terrorism.
Third, the paper opposes the Government of India's actions and policies in Kashmir to control extremism and tries to debunk all the initiatives there.
Fourth, the paper tries to look at issues and developments from a communal point of view.
While I was writing these points for a discussion forum, I had not a copy of the letter with me. I was quoting from the media reports that appeared in various publications and channels like the New Indian Express, Deshabhimani, India Vision and Amrita TV. Since then, I have been able to get a copy though a friend and it urges the State chief secretary to take effective steps to curb the operations of Thejas so that it does not vitiate the communal atmosphere in the state of Kerala.
The letter warns the government of Kerala about Thejas daily as well as fortnightly. I have been closely associated with Thejas daily (run by Intermedia Publishing Ltd, while the fortnightly has a different ownership pattern), an from its inception on January 26, 2006, I was its executive editor. It was one of my primary responsibilities to keep the newspaper under a firm professional control and I think I had done the job fairly well. There were mistakes and criticisms, but I must say that it was a fairly well edited and professionally run newspaper. Then how did the government of India find it a threat to communal peace in Kerala is a mystery to me.
I was watching the public reaction to this and was happy that most people thought this was a serious encroachment on media freedom and there was nothing its pages that warranted such a criticism or perceived punitive action. That is good, but I do not know how the Government proposes to go ahead in the coming days as it appears there is some concerted and serious moves on the part of the officials to put difficulties before Thejas daily.
I saw that in some public fora, there were criticisms raised against me personally and some even raised questions about my credibility to speak about media freedom vis a vis the contemplated actions towards Thejas, in response to the first part of this post I quoted above.
Below, I am just quoting a post I made where I try to explain my position vis vis Thejas and its role in Kerala society and media:
I am returning here not to defend myself or my paper against public criticism because I have said earlier in this forum itself that as a media-person, I do consider myself a public person and I am willing to be subjected to pubic scrutiny. Not only my public life, but even my private life.
So let the question of my personal credibility, raised here, remain there unanswered.
But I think it is absolutely necessary for us to ask some important questions in the charged atmosphere that is Indian journalism today. It is about the charge that certain newspapers and certain media-persons are communal, they need to be hauled over the coals for violating our public morality; they need to answer for and provide proof for their loyalty to the nation and its ideals. And some others are whiter than white, they are secular without a spot; they only deserve the nation's undivided attention and adulation.
This, at best, looks like a nursery story of black and white world; a world of certainties and no gray areas. That Punjabi bureaucrat in charge of National Integration in Home Ministry (!!), who has passed a judgment on the (lack of) secular credentials of Thejas, a Malyalam newspaper from deep south which he has not even seen most probably, must be living in such a world of fantasy. God save him and his nation.
Now what is the reality?
Let me give my take on this: When I returned to the regional media after a long spell in the national press, what I could see was a terribly fragmented media scene with substantial sections of the people just left out of its ambit. You cannot imagine the kind of gap and communication vacuum that existed here. You can say such a situation is the national reality, and why bother about it?
Well, I think the difference at least in Kerala was that those people who were feeling left out and dejected and frustrated were still in a position to build upon their limited resources. Unlike Gujarat or other places in the north, where the 'Final Solution' is almost achieved in the case of Muslims, (“they will not dare to make a noise any more...”), Kerala offers a peculiar situation where members of the community, though frustrated and angry, do have the resources and powers to fight back and build a life of their own.
In this context, we must remember in the 90s there was the rise of a militant tendency among the youth (Madani was one example, SIMI & NDF were some others) and this did cause serious introspection and concern among many, especially among the Muslim community. I was a reporter with Indian Express in Malabar and I did have deep and intimate contacts and communication with various players and had a deep idea of these concerns and the search for new options and solutions.
Those days I was arguing for a new alliance among the restive Islamic youth and the left wing, as you can see in my many articles of this period, including the Indian Express edit page piece, The Radical and the Faithful, published some time in late 90s. But we know such a turn never took place, and the left, to my mind, was taking political advantage of the helplessness and frustration of these people.
Now we are at a crossroads: Things are taking a bad turn and we hear reports of youngsters even from remote Kerala getting shot on Kashmir border; they are being taken into custody even from Afghan or Bangladesh borders. So what? One might ask. The police and border cops will take care of them. As far as Kerala's own security is concerned, who said we do have any problem here? Of course, even if there are a few malcontents, the forces are capable of handling them.
But I do feel we cannot and should not opt for such a solution. The only way is to go through a democratic process, a dialogue process and a process of engagement and empowerment.
So in the past four years when we were running this newspaper, we had to take up strong and uncompromising positions; tough stances. We were asking why the six men from Muslim community were shot dead point blank at Beemapalli, we questioned the claim of the police that the boy from Pakistan who came here to meet his relatives was a terrorist (which he was not), we said there is a different tale to tell for Shahansha (in Love jihad case)... no other paper cared to tell this story as we did.
Now can anyone in their sense describe these as communal propaganda? I don't think so. Of course Thejas, in its editorial today(December 19, 2009), has thrown the challenge: All its editions during the past four years are available in public domain (also available online free of charge), and just locate one sentence in all these that can be dubbed a deliberate, malicious and hateful attack on another community, (must be easy as some honourable people have discovered that we are full of venom spewing it every day), and confront us in the public sphere with the proof.
A post-script:
On Monday, I heard on India Vision an interesting comment made by media critic S Jayasankar: "On the centenary year of Swadeshabhimani Ramakrishna Pillai's banishment, Tejas' N P Chekkutty also can hope for a place in history through another deportation!"
For the past quarter century when I was active in this profession, I was under the impression that we are the watchdog and we need to a keep barking and if possible do some biting too.
But going by the Central Home Ministry's letter (sent by the Ministry's National Integration wing's director Y K Baweja, to Kerala chief secretary, asking effective steps to curb Thejas daily and fortnightly, I think the government is now thinking of providing some new roles to the media in this country.
The letter is an excellent piece of media criticism. It needs a thorough critical analysis, but right now I will quote here only the four major points they have raised in the letter:
First, they say Thejas in its editorials and articles speak up against the Government of India's policy line on Israel and the United States.
Second, they say the paper in its articles and editorials dubs the Government's actions to control extremism in the country as State terrorism.
Third, the paper opposes the Government of India's actions and policies in Kashmir to control extremism and tries to debunk all the initiatives there.
Fourth, the paper tries to look at issues and developments from a communal point of view.
While I was writing these points for a discussion forum, I had not a copy of the letter with me. I was quoting from the media reports that appeared in various publications and channels like the New Indian Express, Deshabhimani, India Vision and Amrita TV. Since then, I have been able to get a copy though a friend and it urges the State chief secretary to take effective steps to curb the operations of Thejas so that it does not vitiate the communal atmosphere in the state of Kerala.
The letter warns the government of Kerala about Thejas daily as well as fortnightly. I have been closely associated with Thejas daily (run by Intermedia Publishing Ltd, while the fortnightly has a different ownership pattern), an from its inception on January 26, 2006, I was its executive editor. It was one of my primary responsibilities to keep the newspaper under a firm professional control and I think I had done the job fairly well. There were mistakes and criticisms, but I must say that it was a fairly well edited and professionally run newspaper. Then how did the government of India find it a threat to communal peace in Kerala is a mystery to me.
I was watching the public reaction to this and was happy that most people thought this was a serious encroachment on media freedom and there was nothing its pages that warranted such a criticism or perceived punitive action. That is good, but I do not know how the Government proposes to go ahead in the coming days as it appears there is some concerted and serious moves on the part of the officials to put difficulties before Thejas daily.
I saw that in some public fora, there were criticisms raised against me personally and some even raised questions about my credibility to speak about media freedom vis a vis the contemplated actions towards Thejas, in response to the first part of this post I quoted above.
Below, I am just quoting a post I made where I try to explain my position vis vis Thejas and its role in Kerala society and media:
I am returning here not to defend myself or my paper against public criticism because I have said earlier in this forum itself that as a media-person, I do consider myself a public person and I am willing to be subjected to pubic scrutiny. Not only my public life, but even my private life.
So let the question of my personal credibility, raised here, remain there unanswered.
But I think it is absolutely necessary for us to ask some important questions in the charged atmosphere that is Indian journalism today. It is about the charge that certain newspapers and certain media-persons are communal, they need to be hauled over the coals for violating our public morality; they need to answer for and provide proof for their loyalty to the nation and its ideals. And some others are whiter than white, they are secular without a spot; they only deserve the nation's undivided attention and adulation.
This, at best, looks like a nursery story of black and white world; a world of certainties and no gray areas. That Punjabi bureaucrat in charge of National Integration in Home Ministry (!!), who has passed a judgment on the (lack of) secular credentials of Thejas, a Malyalam newspaper from deep south which he has not even seen most probably, must be living in such a world of fantasy. God save him and his nation.
Now what is the reality?
Let me give my take on this: When I returned to the regional media after a long spell in the national press, what I could see was a terribly fragmented media scene with substantial sections of the people just left out of its ambit. You cannot imagine the kind of gap and communication vacuum that existed here. You can say such a situation is the national reality, and why bother about it?
Well, I think the difference at least in Kerala was that those people who were feeling left out and dejected and frustrated were still in a position to build upon their limited resources. Unlike Gujarat or other places in the north, where the 'Final Solution' is almost achieved in the case of Muslims, (“they will not dare to make a noise any more...”), Kerala offers a peculiar situation where members of the community, though frustrated and angry, do have the resources and powers to fight back and build a life of their own.
In this context, we must remember in the 90s there was the rise of a militant tendency among the youth (Madani was one example, SIMI & NDF were some others) and this did cause serious introspection and concern among many, especially among the Muslim community. I was a reporter with Indian Express in Malabar and I did have deep and intimate contacts and communication with various players and had a deep idea of these concerns and the search for new options and solutions.
Those days I was arguing for a new alliance among the restive Islamic youth and the left wing, as you can see in my many articles of this period, including the Indian Express edit page piece, The Radical and the Faithful, published some time in late 90s. But we know such a turn never took place, and the left, to my mind, was taking political advantage of the helplessness and frustration of these people.
Now we are at a crossroads: Things are taking a bad turn and we hear reports of youngsters even from remote Kerala getting shot on Kashmir border; they are being taken into custody even from Afghan or Bangladesh borders. So what? One might ask. The police and border cops will take care of them. As far as Kerala's own security is concerned, who said we do have any problem here? Of course, even if there are a few malcontents, the forces are capable of handling them.
But I do feel we cannot and should not opt for such a solution. The only way is to go through a democratic process, a dialogue process and a process of engagement and empowerment.
So in the past four years when we were running this newspaper, we had to take up strong and uncompromising positions; tough stances. We were asking why the six men from Muslim community were shot dead point blank at Beemapalli, we questioned the claim of the police that the boy from Pakistan who came here to meet his relatives was a terrorist (which he was not), we said there is a different tale to tell for Shahansha (in Love jihad case)... no other paper cared to tell this story as we did.
Now can anyone in their sense describe these as communal propaganda? I don't think so. Of course Thejas, in its editorial today(December 19, 2009), has thrown the challenge: All its editions during the past four years are available in public domain (also available online free of charge), and just locate one sentence in all these that can be dubbed a deliberate, malicious and hateful attack on another community, (must be easy as some honourable people have discovered that we are full of venom spewing it every day), and confront us in the public sphere with the proof.
A post-script:
On Monday, I heard on India Vision an interesting comment made by media critic S Jayasankar: "On the centenary year of Swadeshabhimani Ramakrishna Pillai's banishment, Tejas' N P Chekkutty also can hope for a place in history through another deportation!"
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Role of Subaltern Classes in Future Indian Politics: A Critique of the Left positions
RECENTLY Dr K N Ganesh, of the department of history at Calicut University, published a long article in Sasthragathi, on the society and politics of Kerala and its future development perspectives.
The article and its timing is interesting in many ways, as Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP) which runs Sasthragathi is one organization that influences the ruling left front’s policies to a large extent and Dr. Ganesh himself happens to be one of the foremost Marxist thinkers in the younger generation.
Some comments I made in a discussion forum and my response to some critics:
1. I would like to comment briefly on Dr Ganesh's article though he does not seem to be a member of this forum. I hope someone here would invite his attention to the views expressed here:
I do agree with his basic argument that what goes on in the name of development debate in Kerala is a political debate. I also agree that in development debates, what take upper hand is middle class vested interests which have all but buried the real class interests of the toiling segments.
But I disagree with his assertion that the newly emerging movements of various social segments (like minorities, Dalits, backwards, women, etc) are essentially reactionary and they are camp-followers of imperialism. He is refusing to look at the specific class and historical origins of these movements in Indian society in the past two-three decades and fail to address the objective conditions in which they came up and what historical role they have played. Without taking this into considerations, his assertions are baseless and made only to serve a specific partisan/political purpose.
It is very interesting to note that in recent articles, other left theorists like Prabhat Patnaik also raise similar allegations against Maoists operating in India, that they are serving the imperialist agenda. Ganesh also appears to be keen on attacking the emerging new movements of the oppressed sections with almost similar arguments. . Both are interestingly failing to address the issue why these movements sprang up and whether it had any reason in the failure of the established left in taking up slogans which were important to these people? Or perhaps whether the official left and its governments were in anyway responsible for actions that gave them the impression that their class interests did clash and hence they found to their utter dismay that the official left is at the other side of the barricade in recent times?
Why does he fail to ask the question, why the middle class interests came to dominate our left parties and their government policies? Why can't he look at the issue of development vs. political debate in the light of what has been happening in the left parties, especially the CPM, during the past two decades? Is it not time for us to put these questions of inner party disputes in the 80s and 90s in their proper historical perspective now and see why the left took such a right-wing turn, though Dr Ganesh deftly avoids entering such dangerous ideological waters?
2. I do not want to respond to all the points raised by John and I do not want to say anything on the prescriptions offered by Dr Ganesh. But without a proper stock-taking of the past, we are not going to build any future, I am sure. So before John proceeds to discuss his own prescriptions for the future, let me make some points here which might possibly influence him as he draws up his own action plan.
The question he raised about the class/caste basis of the so-called past politics based on class struggle is very relevant. In fact I do feel Kerala's left politics started in late 30s as a class-based movement but at some point it was obviously taken over by other interests and ended up in a middle class-controlled, upper-caste dominated movement which ultimately resulted in its present impasse. (Which Ganesh also seems to recognize implicitly.)
The development of the present subaltern class, identity-based movements (mainly of Muslims, Adivasis, Dalits, women, etc) are a natural extension/corollary arising out of the failure of the traditional left in carrying forward its original political agenda. I would also argue that these new movements do fill a vacuum left behind by the Left parties in our society. Here we must say that the new social movements of the marginalized groups are actually taking over the slogans practically abandoned by Left parties in the economic, political, social and cultural spheres for emancipation and equality. They are taking the Left's unfinished agenda forward.
To continue my point that the Left actually started out as the force that cemented the unity of the oppressed social/class elements in our society, I will revert back to the 30s when it was all started.
In the 30s Malabar, especially Kozhikode, was the major point of class struggle. The organization of the left movement actually started mainly among workers in this region and in the second stage it spread to the peasants in north Malabar which resulted in a series of violent struggles, in 30s and 40s.
On the political side, we see a coming together of these forces mainly opposed to the upper-class &caste dominated Congress leadership. In fact in 1937-38 we have the most beautiful alliance of all such forces with EMS as KPCC secretary, Muhammed Abdurahman as president, and people like P Krishna Pillai, A K Gopalan, K A Keraleeyan and E Kannan, a Dalit leader, as top leaders of the masses. Note that the left leadership even then was predominantly upper caste, just like the Gandhi Sangham in Congress which they opposed and displaced in 1937-38. Unlike the Gandhi Sangham which was exclusively upper caste, the left was firmly in alliance with the socially oppressed segments (mainly Dalits and Muslims in the 30s) which gave them their real strength and energy.
But in the post-Independence period, especially after the left formed governments, we see only the predominance of the elitist segments in the left while those who were their original allies in the 30s, slowly receded and drifted away.
Now these people who were left to the devil as the Communists took power are returning to the limelight and taking up the slogans their friends had abandoned. Why such a development should irritate people like Dr Ganesh is something which needs probing. When I read his diatribe against the dangers of identity politics, I see very well that in fact what irritated him was the rise of newly assertive subaltern politics in our midst.
3. Reply to Mr. RVG Menon,president,KSSP:
When I was reading your note, I was struck by the image of the new political and social movements, which are generally called identity political formations, being dismissed as of no serious consequence to the social/political transformation.
You seem to charge the new movements as being simply groups that would want to bargain some economic and political benefits for themselves (and their caste/community sub-sects) from the existing system, while giving no thought for the larger social and political change. That boils down to the charge that they are there to bargain and collect the benefits and not the change society through revolutionary means. So at best, they are only peripheral players and nothing more.
Reading Dr Ganesh, I felt he too accepted this limited role for the new movements though, as a historian, one should expect a more encompassing and larger picture from him. Or, as a senior KSSP person, is he simply projecting the 'politically correct' views the KSSP may hold and remain only a spokesperson for their views?
I ask this question because I have read the narrative of Kerala history Dr Ganesh made some time ago, in his book the Yesteryears of Kerala. The book is very important because it tries to study Kerala history and social evolution from a historical perspective and try to delineate the actual, deeper forces at work throughout our history.
That is why I thought it odd a person who has such an historical vision and deeper analytical skills do comes out with such a mechanical and automated response to Kerala's present problems and makes sweeping generalizations about its present process of churning, and provide a view for the future, which could have been done even by a computer at work on the data.
I am sorry for the harsh comments, but I just can't understand why you and Ganesh miss the point, why the crisis of confidence in the present dominant views that has given rise to the debate, after all. It is simply a fact that the present model is a failure, and is felt to be a failure at the larger social context, and you see there is a clamour for change, which actually is now overtaking all of us. The setbacks at electoral political level for the leftist ruling parties were an indication of the deeper setback they do face at various levels, including ideological, political and cultural spheres.
This failure or unwillingness to address the real issues, to face the reality of the utter debacle of what was once close to one's heart, one's world view, is the real problem that Ganesh and others from the left parties face today. It is this incapacity to accept this reality e that keeps them harp on the shortcomings of the new challengers to their dominance which is only laughable.
4. From a reply to JS, a friend:
Let me point out that I make a distinction between identity politics past and identity politics new (which I prefer to call New Politics because much more than identity what decides their ideology and nature must be class intermingled with caste/community).
Clearly there is a distinction between them as one can always see the line between the Kerala Congress groups, Muslim Leagues and NSS-SNDP formations, etc. They are more or less what RVG describes them; pressure groups who are content with bargaining for something for themselves and their offspring.
But the new movements which we, for clarity call groups of New Politics, are different and they do have deeper roots and wellspring. Their origins need not be local, but more national and even supranational. They acquire their strength and ideology from our recent historical experiences and developments, both national and global. In Kerala's context there might be regional issues also.
Just look at what these factors are: I would say the Mandal movement and the rise of backward castes is one; the Babri Masjid destruction and the churning in the Muslim community is another; the global war on terror and the rise of a global and national alliance against imperialism is a third, the onslaught of new economic policies and their impact tribals, dalits, farmers and others is a fourth; the rising forces of radical and Maoist politics might be another. There are so many new forces coming up and coming together in a new crucible of political experiments, that make it difficult for the present ruling classes to carry on as usual for long. For mere survival, they will have to accommodate changes.
The crisis in the left is an indication of what are the real forces at work today and the deep impact all these factors now have on our ruling elite. It appears that these huge churning are shaking up our crumbling traditional left edifice already and surely, as Lenin said, they would prove to be the weakest link in this imperialist-capitalist chain that rule India today.
Now you may ask: So what? Trinamool terror may replace the CPM terror; UDF corruption may replace LDF corruption, etc. But I am not sure this phase will continue for long. Every revolution sets off a series of big changes. There are other forces everywhere and it is only a matter of time before they come together and make the push into a shove.
5. A friend criticizes the new movements that originate from the Muslim community in parts of India as merely fundamentalist outfits. Here is the relevant text and my reply to it:
Where in socially regressive, reactionary and politically progressive. Anti-Imperialist on the one hand and pro-fundamentalist on the other hand. Such a politics do no add up. Because without democratic content of emancipation at the social and political level, there can not be a genuine subaltern politics.
I hate to fight with you but I am appalled by the exhibition of a set of preconceived notions about some groups and communities that is seen in this post, something that reminds me of Samuel Huntington.
As you can see I was making an effort to look into the future and speculate the strategy and alliances of various forces in future India, as the present dominant forces are showing unmistakable signs of fatigue and are likely to be crumbling down.
Your criticism is that some of these forces are clearly regressive in social outlook, and most have disparate and often mutually exclusive visions and agendas. Hence like water and oil, they don't mix.
But political alliances are complex mechanisms and I have never seen any alliance in the history of India where all partners were agreed on all issues. They came together on a minimum agenda and worked together; some times they failed, as in the case of the Janata experiment in 1977, and some were fairly successful as the United Front in the nineties and a few were successful to a large extent as the NDA and UPA in recent times.
So what does it tell us? It tells me that despite differences and cultural problems, people and political formations can come together and hang together. What helps them stick together is the commonality of interests despite differences. Also, it tells us that as years pass by and our politics gains in depth and experience, there is a growing willingness on the part of all parties (at least mainstream parties who were experimenting with alliance model) to stick together and work together.
In the case of subaltern mass movements that grow up from grassroots, what is going to be decisive is the common interests and the joint struggles they conduct. We have had many such experiences already. For example, I have not heard of any person who kept away from the Nandigram struggle simply because some of those who were at the receiving end of state repression and those who fought the police were Muslims with long beards and a possible patriarchal outlook when they go back home!
(My comments were originally made at fourthestatecritique.googlegroups.com.)
The article and its timing is interesting in many ways, as Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP) which runs Sasthragathi is one organization that influences the ruling left front’s policies to a large extent and Dr. Ganesh himself happens to be one of the foremost Marxist thinkers in the younger generation.
Some comments I made in a discussion forum and my response to some critics:
1. I would like to comment briefly on Dr Ganesh's article though he does not seem to be a member of this forum. I hope someone here would invite his attention to the views expressed here:
I do agree with his basic argument that what goes on in the name of development debate in Kerala is a political debate. I also agree that in development debates, what take upper hand is middle class vested interests which have all but buried the real class interests of the toiling segments.
But I disagree with his assertion that the newly emerging movements of various social segments (like minorities, Dalits, backwards, women, etc) are essentially reactionary and they are camp-followers of imperialism. He is refusing to look at the specific class and historical origins of these movements in Indian society in the past two-three decades and fail to address the objective conditions in which they came up and what historical role they have played. Without taking this into considerations, his assertions are baseless and made only to serve a specific partisan/political purpose.
It is very interesting to note that in recent articles, other left theorists like Prabhat Patnaik also raise similar allegations against Maoists operating in India, that they are serving the imperialist agenda. Ganesh also appears to be keen on attacking the emerging new movements of the oppressed sections with almost similar arguments. . Both are interestingly failing to address the issue why these movements sprang up and whether it had any reason in the failure of the established left in taking up slogans which were important to these people? Or perhaps whether the official left and its governments were in anyway responsible for actions that gave them the impression that their class interests did clash and hence they found to their utter dismay that the official left is at the other side of the barricade in recent times?
Why does he fail to ask the question, why the middle class interests came to dominate our left parties and their government policies? Why can't he look at the issue of development vs. political debate in the light of what has been happening in the left parties, especially the CPM, during the past two decades? Is it not time for us to put these questions of inner party disputes in the 80s and 90s in their proper historical perspective now and see why the left took such a right-wing turn, though Dr Ganesh deftly avoids entering such dangerous ideological waters?
2. I do not want to respond to all the points raised by John and I do not want to say anything on the prescriptions offered by Dr Ganesh. But without a proper stock-taking of the past, we are not going to build any future, I am sure. So before John proceeds to discuss his own prescriptions for the future, let me make some points here which might possibly influence him as he draws up his own action plan.
The question he raised about the class/caste basis of the so-called past politics based on class struggle is very relevant. In fact I do feel Kerala's left politics started in late 30s as a class-based movement but at some point it was obviously taken over by other interests and ended up in a middle class-controlled, upper-caste dominated movement which ultimately resulted in its present impasse. (Which Ganesh also seems to recognize implicitly.)
The development of the present subaltern class, identity-based movements (mainly of Muslims, Adivasis, Dalits, women, etc) are a natural extension/corollary arising out of the failure of the traditional left in carrying forward its original political agenda. I would also argue that these new movements do fill a vacuum left behind by the Left parties in our society. Here we must say that the new social movements of the marginalized groups are actually taking over the slogans practically abandoned by Left parties in the economic, political, social and cultural spheres for emancipation and equality. They are taking the Left's unfinished agenda forward.
To continue my point that the Left actually started out as the force that cemented the unity of the oppressed social/class elements in our society, I will revert back to the 30s when it was all started.
In the 30s Malabar, especially Kozhikode, was the major point of class struggle. The organization of the left movement actually started mainly among workers in this region and in the second stage it spread to the peasants in north Malabar which resulted in a series of violent struggles, in 30s and 40s.
On the political side, we see a coming together of these forces mainly opposed to the upper-class &caste dominated Congress leadership. In fact in 1937-38 we have the most beautiful alliance of all such forces with EMS as KPCC secretary, Muhammed Abdurahman as president, and people like P Krishna Pillai, A K Gopalan, K A Keraleeyan and E Kannan, a Dalit leader, as top leaders of the masses. Note that the left leadership even then was predominantly upper caste, just like the Gandhi Sangham in Congress which they opposed and displaced in 1937-38. Unlike the Gandhi Sangham which was exclusively upper caste, the left was firmly in alliance with the socially oppressed segments (mainly Dalits and Muslims in the 30s) which gave them their real strength and energy.
But in the post-Independence period, especially after the left formed governments, we see only the predominance of the elitist segments in the left while those who were their original allies in the 30s, slowly receded and drifted away.
Now these people who were left to the devil as the Communists took power are returning to the limelight and taking up the slogans their friends had abandoned. Why such a development should irritate people like Dr Ganesh is something which needs probing. When I read his diatribe against the dangers of identity politics, I see very well that in fact what irritated him was the rise of newly assertive subaltern politics in our midst.
3. Reply to Mr. RVG Menon,president,KSSP:
When I was reading your note, I was struck by the image of the new political and social movements, which are generally called identity political formations, being dismissed as of no serious consequence to the social/political transformation.
You seem to charge the new movements as being simply groups that would want to bargain some economic and political benefits for themselves (and their caste/community sub-sects) from the existing system, while giving no thought for the larger social and political change. That boils down to the charge that they are there to bargain and collect the benefits and not the change society through revolutionary means. So at best, they are only peripheral players and nothing more.
Reading Dr Ganesh, I felt he too accepted this limited role for the new movements though, as a historian, one should expect a more encompassing and larger picture from him. Or, as a senior KSSP person, is he simply projecting the 'politically correct' views the KSSP may hold and remain only a spokesperson for their views?
I ask this question because I have read the narrative of Kerala history Dr Ganesh made some time ago, in his book the Yesteryears of Kerala. The book is very important because it tries to study Kerala history and social evolution from a historical perspective and try to delineate the actual, deeper forces at work throughout our history.
That is why I thought it odd a person who has such an historical vision and deeper analytical skills do comes out with such a mechanical and automated response to Kerala's present problems and makes sweeping generalizations about its present process of churning, and provide a view for the future, which could have been done even by a computer at work on the data.
I am sorry for the harsh comments, but I just can't understand why you and Ganesh miss the point, why the crisis of confidence in the present dominant views that has given rise to the debate, after all. It is simply a fact that the present model is a failure, and is felt to be a failure at the larger social context, and you see there is a clamour for change, which actually is now overtaking all of us. The setbacks at electoral political level for the leftist ruling parties were an indication of the deeper setback they do face at various levels, including ideological, political and cultural spheres.
This failure or unwillingness to address the real issues, to face the reality of the utter debacle of what was once close to one's heart, one's world view, is the real problem that Ganesh and others from the left parties face today. It is this incapacity to accept this reality e that keeps them harp on the shortcomings of the new challengers to their dominance which is only laughable.
4. From a reply to JS, a friend:
Let me point out that I make a distinction between identity politics past and identity politics new (which I prefer to call New Politics because much more than identity what decides their ideology and nature must be class intermingled with caste/community).
Clearly there is a distinction between them as one can always see the line between the Kerala Congress groups, Muslim Leagues and NSS-SNDP formations, etc. They are more or less what RVG describes them; pressure groups who are content with bargaining for something for themselves and their offspring.
But the new movements which we, for clarity call groups of New Politics, are different and they do have deeper roots and wellspring. Their origins need not be local, but more national and even supranational. They acquire their strength and ideology from our recent historical experiences and developments, both national and global. In Kerala's context there might be regional issues also.
Just look at what these factors are: I would say the Mandal movement and the rise of backward castes is one; the Babri Masjid destruction and the churning in the Muslim community is another; the global war on terror and the rise of a global and national alliance against imperialism is a third, the onslaught of new economic policies and their impact tribals, dalits, farmers and others is a fourth; the rising forces of radical and Maoist politics might be another. There are so many new forces coming up and coming together in a new crucible of political experiments, that make it difficult for the present ruling classes to carry on as usual for long. For mere survival, they will have to accommodate changes.
The crisis in the left is an indication of what are the real forces at work today and the deep impact all these factors now have on our ruling elite. It appears that these huge churning are shaking up our crumbling traditional left edifice already and surely, as Lenin said, they would prove to be the weakest link in this imperialist-capitalist chain that rule India today.
Now you may ask: So what? Trinamool terror may replace the CPM terror; UDF corruption may replace LDF corruption, etc. But I am not sure this phase will continue for long. Every revolution sets off a series of big changes. There are other forces everywhere and it is only a matter of time before they come together and make the push into a shove.
5. A friend criticizes the new movements that originate from the Muslim community in parts of India as merely fundamentalist outfits. Here is the relevant text and my reply to it:
Where in socially regressive, reactionary and politically progressive. Anti-Imperialist on the one hand and pro-fundamentalist on the other hand. Such a politics do no add up. Because without democratic content of emancipation at the social and political level, there can not be a genuine subaltern politics.
I hate to fight with you but I am appalled by the exhibition of a set of preconceived notions about some groups and communities that is seen in this post, something that reminds me of Samuel Huntington.
As you can see I was making an effort to look into the future and speculate the strategy and alliances of various forces in future India, as the present dominant forces are showing unmistakable signs of fatigue and are likely to be crumbling down.
Your criticism is that some of these forces are clearly regressive in social outlook, and most have disparate and often mutually exclusive visions and agendas. Hence like water and oil, they don't mix.
But political alliances are complex mechanisms and I have never seen any alliance in the history of India where all partners were agreed on all issues. They came together on a minimum agenda and worked together; some times they failed, as in the case of the Janata experiment in 1977, and some were fairly successful as the United Front in the nineties and a few were successful to a large extent as the NDA and UPA in recent times.
So what does it tell us? It tells me that despite differences and cultural problems, people and political formations can come together and hang together. What helps them stick together is the commonality of interests despite differences. Also, it tells us that as years pass by and our politics gains in depth and experience, there is a growing willingness on the part of all parties (at least mainstream parties who were experimenting with alliance model) to stick together and work together.
In the case of subaltern mass movements that grow up from grassroots, what is going to be decisive is the common interests and the joint struggles they conduct. We have had many such experiences already. For example, I have not heard of any person who kept away from the Nandigram struggle simply because some of those who were at the receiving end of state repression and those who fought the police were Muslims with long beards and a possible patriarchal outlook when they go back home!
(My comments were originally made at fourthestatecritique.googlegroups.com.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
