The “unmanageable” editor is a vanishing breed in India. Most of India’s political class, including the central and state governments and their opposition parties, finds strong, independent editors undesirable. Corporate bosses remain disdainful of professional editors. Owners of media houses, who handpick pliant journalists, are most unhappy if an editor turns out to have an intrepid streak. Even within news organisations, colleagues prefer to have a weakling at the helm. The absence of an editor who has a mind of her own suits all those who define our zeitgeist. Over the years, with the corporatisation of the media and the advent of the media-savvy politician, unmanageable editors have been replaced by managers.
Not long ago, Indian media was defined by strong editors—Durga Das, Frank Moraes, S Mulgaonkar and, in recent years, Sham Lal. These were individuals with formidable intellect, experience and skill, who commanded authority and authenticity beyond their arguments. This authority was the result of an inner rectitude, which made them impervious to the sway of the statesman, the demagogue or the moneylender. Above all, these editors counted because they believed that their primary job was to promote the public good—a goal that the politician too claimed to share, as a representative of the people.
It also helped that for the first four or five decades after Independence, beginning with Jawaharlal Nehru, political leaders had respect for educated opinion, albeit with a pronounced bias in favour of English newspapers. Because the political leaders themselves were juggling with ideas and ideological formulations, they had a grudging appreciation for the authoritative, objective, fair and truthful writers and commentators with a sophisticated, cosmopolitan touch.