Mr Abhay Kumar’s review-article based on my latest book, “Opinions,Welcome and Unwelcome: Impressions of an Edit Page Editor”, carried byRadiance Viewsweekly (March 31, 2026),has some serious and damaging factual inaccuracies. That is why I feltcompelled to come out with this rejoinder.
Here I am reminded of the foundational principle of ethicaljournalism, propounded in 1921 by the Editor of The ManchesterGuardian (The Guardian of today), CP Scott: “Comment is free, butfacts are sacred.” A critic has every right to offer any kind ofopinion (meaningful or meaningless), but what he says must be based onfacts.He cannot be allowed to create an edifice on the basis offactual inaccuracies.
The first paragraph of Mr Kumar’s review-article says that I have“nearly four decades of experience in the field” (of journalism)though the truth is that I have been in this noble profession for 55years. It is clearly mentioned in my book that “I actually startedcutting my teeth into the profession in December 1970” when I joinedRadiance as a proof-reader (Chapter 3, page 27). The WorkingJournalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Actof 1955 says that proof-readers (though they have almost becomeextinct today) are also media professionals. Even otherwise, I becamea journalist of the conventional kind in 1975 (which means over half acentury ago) when I brought out my own monthly newsmagazine andsubsequently joined a Delhi-based news agency as a Staff Reporter. The1975 Emergency proved to be a blessing in disguise for me, as I havementioned somewhere in my book.
This major lapse could have been corrected, but, unfortunately, thosewho edited Mr Kumar’s piece of writing did not bother aboutcross-checking the fact by referring to my book or other availablesources. His sweeping commentary indicates that the review has beencarried almost unedited. Even my name gets mentioned so many times as“Syed Nooruzzaman” though my family name could have been edited outsubsequently. When I brought this to the reviewer’s notice on thephone, he admitted that his calculation was based on the number ofyears I spent as a journalist in the weekly magazine concerned and inThe Tribune of Chandigarh. Going by his understanding of the subject,one ceases to be a journalist once one retires from the institutionwhere one had been employed till the age of superannuation. This isfar from the reality. I remain part of the profession even aftersaying ‘alvida’ to The Tribune in June 2013 by contributing todifferent publications, including Tehelka magazine.
When Mr Kumar talks of my innings at The Tribune, he points out that“Though he (the author) spent the greater part of his professionallife at The Tribune, where he served in various capacities – from(being) a Sub-Editor to Assistant Editor – for more than threedecades, his early journalistic training was at Radiance Viewsweekly.”This is again not the truth. This shows his utterly casual style ofhandling a sensitive subject.My book clearly mentions that I joined The Tribune as a TraineeSub-Editor in 1979 and retired from the historic daily as a DeputyEditor, a very senior position that came my way after remaining anAssistant Editor for many years.
I had been with The Tribune for one year as a trainee journalist likemany others. The paper had a proper arrangement for training deskjournalists and it is clearly mentioned in the book. There was no suchfacility available at Radiance. Whatever we learnt as part of theweekly’s editorial staff, we did it with our own efforts. Despitebeing on the staff of Radiance, I would contribute book-reviews andarticles to Hindustan Times, Patriot, Link weekly, Thought weekly,etc, and learnt a lot in the process during the seventies. These factsare clearly mentioned in my memoir.
Smelling a rat whenever there is a discussion concerning theminorities and other such sections will take us nowhere. The reviewerrefuses to believe that there was a time when an efficient anddependable Muslim could be patronised by an upper caste non-Muslim andwould move up the professional ladder without bothering aboutmaintaining “neutrality”, as he alleges. One can find such peopletoday too, the efforts to spread social poison notwithstanding.
The activist in him is, perhaps, not aware of the fact that there is asystem which a journalist has to follow even if he/she occupies asenior position in an organisation. You cannot be allowed to dowhatever you wish to as real freedom is restricted freedom. When wewrote editorials, we took a stand as agreed upon after a thorough
discussion in the morning editorial conference. One has to keep inmind the consensus reached at the meeting.
For his kind information, I, a Muslim, was allowed to write on most ofthe sensitive subjects like Pakistan, terrorism, Jammu and Kashmir andnuclear politics. The different Chief Editors under whom I gotopportunities to work had no problem with my handling of evensensitive subjects. There is, therefore, no reason to accuse them ofbias, etc. One has to win the confidence of one’s seniors by beingcompetent, responsible, dependable and a man of integrity. A casualtype or a compulsive fault-finder cannot survive even in a secularorganisation like The Tribune if he does not bother about the systemor the prevailing practices.
Now let us have a look at the question the reviewer has raisedconcerning the deprived communities. Some of us (seniors) in TheTribune had been conscious of the fact that we had very fewjournalists belonging to the Dalits, the OBCs, the minorities, et al.We tried to ensure that candidates with this kind of a socialbackground got opportunities to become journalists, and we weresuccessful in some cases. But, unfortunately, we rarely gotapplications from persons coming from these communities. The issue hasbeen discussed in my book, though briefly. It is surprising how MrKumar missed it.