Talks By The Firelight 3.1: Power to Truth, Truth to Power
Sagarika Ghose, Journalist and Author
One of India’s premier journalists, Sagarika Ghose has become a household name. She is a trailblazer for women journalists everywhere, and is known for her astute questioning of the powerful.
A resident of New Delhi, Ghose began her career as a journalist in 1991. After holding various positions at media firms such as The Times of India, Outlook and The Indian Express, she became a deputy editor and anchor at CNN-IBN. A recipient of the Indian Television Academy Award for Excellence in Journalism, Ghose is also an active personality on Twitter, popular for her views on Indian politics. She has authored two novels as well as the acclaimed biography of former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Indira: India’s Most Powerful Prime Minister.
Her talk during Festember ’19 was a part of the Carpe Diem Guest Lecture Series and it was one of the major highlights of the fest. In the interview that followed her thought-provoking guest lecture, she had a few members of Team Festember in rapt attention through her answers which pertained to questions that were resonating in public conscience at that time. Read on to know her candid observations, opinions, and perceptions in one of Talks by The Firelight’s most extensive interview yet.
Disclaimer: The following views presented by the guest are solely expressed in her personal capacity. They do not represent any personal or organizational inclinations of any member, team or community under Festember. Festember bears no affiliation or relation to the same.
This being an engineering college, we would like to know that if one were to make the jump from engineering to journalism, what qualities should they have in order to make it?
“The foremost quality that a journalist must have is courage.”
The job of a journalist is to ask questions, no matter the person in power. We do it not because of malfeasance, but rather, because we are the agents of the citizen. As such, we must hold accountable those in public, irrespective of the amount of power we have. For, ultimately, the citizen needs to know, and we (journalists) are their eyes and ears.
I think another quality that a person must have is a lively interest in current affairs, in what is happening around you. You have to be a bit of a news junkie- you have to follow the news, see how it breaks and its inner workings. An interest in politics and the political environment can also come in handy. I, being a political journalist, emphasize on the political aspect of the world. But nowadays, you have tech, society and agricultural journalism. All it takes is interest.
In today’s world, there’s also an additional quality that you must have: mastering multi-media.
Journalism today is multimedia. It’s not just writing, talking and shooting a picture. You need to write, talk, shoot, blog, tweet, etc. all at the same time. You have to be platform agnostic.
Today’s media is platform agnostic. As such, it is very much the need of the hour.
Are writers free to write whatever they want? Or do editors exercise a lot of control into what goes out to the public as news?
The media today is in a very bad shape. The current atmosphere is anti-journalism. Due to pressure, a lot of news organizations have completely capitulated, with them not publishing anything that might be remotely anti-establishment in nature. It is saddening.
As an example, let’s consider Kashmir. Without deliberating on the merits of the issue, I must still comment that this should have been the media’s finest hour. This should be the time for journalists to cover the region and get the truth out to the people.
Yet, there’s a complete and utter blackout. There’s heavy pressure on the media. This, ironically, leaves us to rely on international media such as Al Jazeera, The Washington Post and others to get the actual truth out.
I would say that while editors themselves do check and put up news according to their mandate, I think it is important to highlight the pressure that the government is putting on mainstream media outlets and newspapers.
Now, I am able to write and speak on these issues because I have reached a certain level of seniority. I am in a space where my voice counts and I don’t face problems because of my rank. However on the junior level, there are issues with many media organizations.
A lot of media houses today have a large share of their capital coming from political parties. As such, it becomes difficult to follow the news which seems greased by the palms of the politicians. So, how hard is it to sustain a media house independent of such infusions of capital?
It is quite difficult for a media house to be independent.
“The business model of media is broken.”
The BBC survives on subscription and is not driven by advertising. The minute you’re driven by advertising, news faces a crisis. Because who’s the advertiser? The Industrialist. The Industrialist wouldn’t want to upset or take on the government because he has his interests, his oil fields, his resources etc. As such, if he’s your backer and he doesn’t want to take on the government, then you’re becoming a slave to the advertiser.
We in the media are now looking at alternate sources of funding. We are looking for some sort of subscription fee. We feel that if you’re paying for something, you’ll demand excellence, or else you’ll stop paying. As such, there will be this onus for us to meet expectations or else we’ll lose both customers and revenue.
There are other methods too, like viewer-funding, crowd-sourcing, etc. Whatever be the case, we have to change the business model. Without it changing, media cannot be free.
On the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, you wrote an article where you talked about how the Valley and the Center must both open themselves up for negotiation. As hostile as the environment is right now, what sort of confidence-building measures must be undertaken by both the government and the Valley?
The government has to end the Kashmiri lockdown. People are being denied their fundamental rights to use the internet. Their businesses, livelihood, services, and so many other things are dependent on it.
The highest amount of militancy in Kashmir happened in 1989, when there was no internet. So, to say that the internet was cut due to militancy doesn’t hold ground. Telecommunication and internet services have to be restored. Political leaders have to be released. Only then can there be confidence building measures.
You have written a book on the life of Indira Gandhi. What was your approach to writing such a complex political figure? And what was the writing process like?
Well, it was a wonderful experience because I loved discovering Indira Gandhi. She was the Prime Minister when I was growing up, back in the 70s. To go back to that time period was definitely exciting.
When it comes to the writing process, it is an enriching one as you get to do a lot of research. Then, when you delve into the research, you sort of begin to form a picture of the person in all her complexity.
In many instances, Indira Gandhi was a dreadful politician. But she was also an attractive human being. She had a dual personality in this regard- being a ruthless, dreadful politician on one hand and a nice, suave person on the other.
For me, I’ve found out that it helps me to write in the morning. 3 hours in the morning is very productive for me. I usually write only from 6 to 9, and I spend the rest of the morning researching. I’m a morning person in this regard.
The writing process is pretty challenging and it takes time. I’d say that whatever and whenever you can write, just do it. Write two pages and print it out.
“Don’t keep thinking about writing, just write.”
You’ve talked about Bengal a bit, and it reminds us of something that’s happening near it in Assam in the form of the National Registry of Citizens. What is your take on it?
19 lakh people have been excluded from the NRC. It doesn’t seem right.
If today, you ask me to find out the birth certificate of my mother, I don’t think I’d be able to. I don’t think there’s a birth certificate of my dad, or my grandparents. These documents may or may not be present with everyone, and are especially difficult to be obtained by the poor, who may or may not have their birth certificates and documents.
What will happen if you implement NRC all over India? Who shall be able to provide documents, and shall not? Are you going to put all the people who won’t provide documents into detention centers?
As a liberal, I believe in open borders. I don’t believe that there should be unlimited immigration, for no country can sustain that. However, there should be a process by which you discourage illegal immigration and rather grant access to those migrants seeking asylum, the high quality migrants and high level migrants, who can become consumers and facilitate trans-border co-operation. No one willingly leaves their homes if they can be well-off, get opportunities and livelihood in their homes.
Indian Sikh techies are being killed in the US due to this sort of similar rhetoric. So, I think a lot is to be said about restricting illegal migration but there should also be a lot of cooperation between nations so as to reduce the incentive for migration in the first place.
How is it possible to change people’s minds when everything now boils down to name-calling?
Without a doubt, it does boil down to name calling a lot.
The way to go about it is to not get angry, and at the same time, not shut down the debate and dialogue.
I think in this regard, the Liberals have been intolerant of this. The Left dislikes dialogue. The Left and the Right are really just caricatures of each other.
They’re sort of these ideological forces that believe in state power, and using state power to decimate the opposition.
That’s why I’ve written Why I Am A Liberal. There was no dissent in West Bengal for 30 years as the Left ruled with an iron fist. So, the Liberals too have been guilty of intolerance.
However, the Right has become extremely intolerant. Unless we allow space for discussion, we aren’t going anywhere with the nation.
This was Gandhi’s great teaching, you know. You can hold on to a set of values with great attachment, but you can look at your interlocutor as a friend. There has to be no enmity, no sort of hatred. You don’t have to be hostile.
Shout, don’t shoot!
As a follow-up to that: the philosopher Karl Popper theorized a Paradox of Tolerance, which says that “for a society to be tolerant, it must be intolerant towards the intolerant”. If someone states that a particular group of people don’t deserve rights, and is openly misogynistic, homophobic and Islamophobic, how do you not do what Popper recommends with them?
Let me preface by saying that Freedom of Speech is governed by Article 19 of the Constitution. However, you can’t allow this for speech that is inciting you to violently kill somebody. That is where you draw the line.
But you have to permit Freedom of Speech. I find Nathuram Godse repugnant and want nothing to do with him. But, when the play “Me Nathuram Godse Boletu” (a Marathi play) came out and the government wanted to ban it, I was completely against that. You can’t ban something just because you don’t like it.
This is a democracy, and one must put up with insult to their icons. One cannot simply ban Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen or MF Hussain. There cannot be a set of bans that is alright for some, but not for another set. There cannot be bans in the first place.The only ban that should be there is to be on bans. Ban the ban.
However, when it comes to physical violence, or assassination threats, that’s where I believe Freedom of Speech has to end.
This article was written in collaboration with G.s. AviNash, Murali Krishna and Festember’s Guest Lectures team.
