Indian newspapers (now, and then)

The Indian media might have changed in terms of technology, print-runs and sales, style of functioning and such other helluva, hi-fi things. But has it become non-casteist (if not anti-caste)? Surveys after surveys tell us Dalits and oppressed communities are under-represented in the media. Though it might be a major problem, it isn’t the only one. Shouldn’t the caste-Hindus in the media change (at least because it is a responsible profession)? Hundred, or may be thousand years from now, even if there is just one person with a casteist attitude, we can’t boast of being in a castefree society. (I could go on ranting because I am in the mood to off-load, but I will stop right now and let you judge for yourselves)

Here’s my letter to the editor, that appeared in this week’s Tehelka.

I WAS SHOCKED to see your magazine carry the abusive word “pariah” on the cover. Though it is common knowledge that the word passed into English from Tamil, it would have been better if you remembered that it is the name of a Tamil Dalit caste. Only because Dalit caste names have been degraded into cuss words, the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act makes provision for punishing anybody who seeks to insult a Dalit using his caste identity. I understand that TEHELKA is not alone in using this word, but shouldn’t you lead by example? Why can’t the media adopt a policy through which they don’t use the word at all? Abandoning the usage of the word might not annihilate caste right away, but it will merely prove that you don’t approve of the notion of untouchability. Hasn’t India’s caste system polluted the English language enough: pundit (a Brahmin caste name, used widely in English) connotes a learned person, whereas pariah (name of a Tamil Dalit caste with a valorous history) signifies an ostracised person? Isn’t it time we stopped the caste-isation of English? I am writing to you because it is nothing short of a scandal when a paper as socially inclusive as TEHELKA uses such a dehumanising word that will offend Dalit sentiments.

And here’s a quote that I have taken from a working paper of mine. Dalit scholar Iyothee Thassar expressed these views 99 years ago.

A glaring incident of the untouchability practiced by the Indian media came to light when these regional newspapers carried reports of the Viceroy’s dog being bitten by a stray dog. The English Standard (12 May, 1909) merely reported that the Lord and Lady Minto were under pasteur treatment since the Viceroy’s dog was bitten by a ‘rabid animal’ (that they referred to as a ‘strange dog’.) On the other hand, when the same news item was reported in the nationalist, ‘upper’ caste Tamil magazines such as Tamil Vijaya (13 May 1909) and the much-touted Swadesamitran (12 May 1909), the rabid dog was conveniently referred to as a ‘pariah’ dog. Iyothee Thass took great objection to it, and asked if hierarchies existed among dogs, and if indeed there could be breed called Brahmin dogs that existed alongside Paraiah ones? (Tamilan dated 19 May 1909, Iyothee Thassar Sinthanaigal, Vol.1, pp.112-3)

One century and the casteist mentality of the Indian media hasn’t changed, right?