It was during the Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh assembly elections of 2007 that the blatant sale of news space by some Hindi and Gujarati newspapers to political parties and candidates in the form of election coverage packages came to be noticed. As the malpractice became more brazen during the last Lok Sabha elections, the eminent Hindi editor and columnist Prabhash Joshi went into campaign mode and engaged with the issue till his last breath. He and some other veteran journalists petitioned the Press Council of India and the Election Commission against this media misdemeanour because political parties and candidates too become guilty of electoral malpractice when they disguise the expenditure made on campaign ads in newspapers as news reporting. Needless to say, these package deals were unaccounted for and paid for in cash. Senior functionaries and so-called war rooms of political parties seem to have monitored the activity during the campaign period. In fact, in one such ‘war room’ during the Lok Sabha elections, a senior political leader mocked me on the ethics of the media by thrusting under my eyes a full front page of news coverage bought by his party. This leader said they were left with no option as the newspapers insisted on such deals and denied even minimum coverage to those who refused to buy the packages. But there were politicians like Lalji Tandon of the BJP and Mohan Singh of the Samajwadi Party who went on record with their allegations on this count against specific newspapers.
The specific newspapers mentioned and documented in this regard are nearly all language ones—Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati and Marathi. Does it mean that the Indian language media is the inventor of this trendy irregularity? No. As everybody in the trade remembers, the leading light amongst English dailies launched a scheme to sell editorial space to corporate and socialite buyers. The daily maintained this was no malpractice as the transactions were accounted for and the published items were attributed. Yet the reader was completely deceived—as in the case of recent election packages in language dailies—because the legend was kept so minuscule as to render the ‘MN’ of Medianet nearly indistinguishable from the ‘NN’ of News Network. And of course, the management never bothered to tell the reader what ‘MN’ or Medianet really stood for. A fig leaf of deception. The language media walked this beaten path of the English brand leaders rather more crudely during the recent elections. Like a Madhu Koda or Shibu Soren or Laloo Yadav or Mayawati negotiating the political kajal ki kothri (a proverbial soot-smeared room out of which it’s impossible to come out unsullied) more clumsily than their supposedly more sophisticated peers.
Why this crudeness? Obviously because of the hurry to catch up with the more materially successful sophisticated Joneses of the trade. Despite the larger readership reach of language newspapers in India, look at the imbalance of earning they suffer from vis-a-vis their English counterparts. The readership of Dainik Jagran, the largest Hindi daily, is more than double that of the largest English daily, The Times of India. But ToI’s revenue of nearly Rs 5,000 crore is more than thrice Jagran’s approximately Rs 1,400 crore. Such a difference shows proportionately both in the quantum and rate of advertisements of large Hindi and English dailies. Any back-of-the-envelope calculation will place the average earning of an English newspaper at least three times more than a Hindi daily of similar standing and circulation.
The corporate clout of English newspapers, which depends on their turnovers and the purchasing power of their readers, is far ahead of the language ones. But the language newspapers beat the English ones hollow in political clout because of their much larger circulation, which matters more in the game of numbers that is democracy. During the elections, the language media saw an opportunity to lessen the gap in corporate earnings vis-a-vis the English media by their political clout. Political leaders, too, sought to pander to the language media much more than the English media during the elections. The crude hurry inherent in this phenomenon caused more din.
To point this out is not to condone corruption. Outrage should be the response to any corruption, but in the era of liberalisation, corporate transactions are questioned less and less, irrespective of whether they are ethical or unethical. Because of this, such questionable practices by leaders in English media as acquiring equities in lieu of advertisements, which is likely to colour their news reporting about the companies they acquire shares in, escape comment. A misuse of corporate clout, however sophisticated, is as irreprehensible as a misuse of political clout.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT