If Dalmia had his way, Bennett Coleman's publications would be devoted to propagating his brand of Hindutva. Fortunately he got into severe financial trouble and had to give the publishing house to his son-in-law Shanti Prasad Jain, husband of his eldest daughter through Rama, the first of his six wives. It was Shanti and more his son Ashok who put Bennett Coleman back on its feet. Today Ashok's widow Indu and her two sons Samir and Vineet run the company. The driving force behind its spectacular success as India's leading group of newspapers is Samir.
I took over as editor of Illustrated Weekly in 1969 and held the post for nine long years. I got an insider's view of the organisation. It ran like a well-oiled machine. Editors were well-paid, provided a house allowance, a new car and fringe benefits. We sat in red swivel chairs, served tea and coffee and a sumptuous vegetarian lunch. We were given a key each to open doors of lavatories reserved for editors. To have a pissoir of one's own was the ultimate in editorial prestige.
I was fortunate in being left to re-shape the Weekly. The Jains had been divested of control of the company for some financial hanky-panky. A benevolent retired Justice K.T. Desai was officiating chairman. An able and non-interfering Ram Tarneja was general manager. I lasted out till the company was restored to the Jains.
The Times group has every reason to crow over its achievements. There are newspapers which enjoy more credibility and provide better reading. But the Times reigns supreme. The credit goes largely to Samir. He sensed that if print had to survive TV, it had to radically alter its content. While a weekly relies heavily on the personality of its editor, a daily does not. Three-fourths of its content is taken from the wires or foreign agencies (strip cartoons and crosswords, for example); the rest comprises correspondents' reports and readers' contributions, leaving the editor and his deputies a third or even less of the editorial page to comment on world and national events. Not many people read editorials. The Times' first Indian editor Frank Moraes was much respected for his forthrightness but not much read. His successor N.J. Nanporia was neither admired nor read. Sham Lal was lauded for his erudition but few people read more than his opening paras. Likewise Girilal Jain, regarded as a perceptive political analyst and the first protagonist of Hindutva, had few takers. His successor Dileep Padgaonkar failed to convince his proprietors that "next to the prime minister he was doing the second most important job in India".
So we have the ironic situation that while we can name editors of other dailies, no one knows the name of the editor of the most widely circulated paper in the country. Samir Jain (rightly?) concluded that editors were dispensable. From his great grandfather he has inherited the uncanny gift of making money: the Times has become a major money-spinner. The trinity who run it know what is and what is not dispensable. R.K. Laxman is not dispensable (he is worth three editors). God and religion are not dispensable: so we have articles on god, yoga, meditation and quotes from the scriptures. Scantily clad starlets are not dispensable: male readers need some titillation every morning. Books and book reviews are as dispensable as editors. That is the secret behind the longevity of the old lady of Bori Bunder. Also periodical injection of life-giving drugs by the Jain trinity. A reasonable way of discovering this secret is to compare its Sunday supplements with those of other national dailies. It has a string of contributors who command readerships of their own.
The one lasting contribution Bennett Coleman has made to Indian journalism is to cut to size editors who had grandiose notions about their positions. The roll of honour of those unceremoniously shown the door includes Frank Moraes, Girilal Jain, A.S. Raman, Kamleshwar, Inder Malhotra, Prem Shankar Jha, Dom Moraes and Dileep Padgaonkar. I don't feel too bad being named among them.
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