The clash of interests between newspaper proprietors and working journalists on the twin issues of pay-scales and working conditions as the two sides interpret their respective interests is too patent to be brushed aside in any serious and honest discussion. This conflict is reflected in the current dispute over interim relief for working journalists. As in all such matters, the origins of this tragic dispute, tragic because it adversely affects the future of an independent press in the country, have got completely obscured. Inevitably the issue has got converted into some kind of abstract war of principles. So it is important to recall the origins. An adequate discussion of the subject is not possible in these columns; only some important points can be made.
India moved into independence under a leadership which believed in a controlled economy and it almost instinctively extended this concept to the newspaper industry. Mr. Nehru was as committed to democracy as he was to socialism and could not, therefore, even think of controlling the press, in respect of its editorial contents. But much of the press with which he was personally familiar to any extent was too Right-wing for his taste. This made him ambivalent in his attitude towards it. This had two important consequences. First, Mr. Nehru encouraged the rise among working journalists of a leadership which was distinctly Left-oriented. Secondly, he adopted a paternalistic attitude towards working journalists, partly on account of his old ties with some of their leaders and his antipathy towards some of the owners. Thirdly, for some obscure reason, the government began to behave as if in the newspaper industry, big (in miserable Indian terms) meant bad and small (despite their chauvinism, parochialism and communalism) meant good. The slogans have persisted, though everyone in authority knows the truth and bemoans his inability to act accordingly.
All this was matched by an equally unhelpful development on the other side. Just as among the journalists, by and large, the better professionals kept away from collective efforts, among the proprietors, too, those owning the financially viable, professionally run and reasonably well-paying set-ups allowed owners of weaker and personally managed organisations to seize the leadership. The former set of proprietors made another mistake. They frowned upon trade union activities among their journalist employees. This produced two adverse effects. The leadership passed into the hands of outsiders and it came to be concerned primarily, if not exclusively, with the interests of non-journalist employees. As a consequence, the journalists as a class became wholly dependent on the goodwill of the government. No trade union ever espouses their cause seriously; they wait for the government to appoint a pay commission and then wait for it to submit its report. It would be inaccurate to speak of the breakdown of a dialogue between the proprietors even of the financially well-off and institutionalized newspapers and the journalists because the dialogue never began. Both sides have circumvented each other.
It is not for us to say whether such a dialogue can now begin. All we can say is that it is time to begin. The newspaper industry faces a difficult period ahead, partly on account of a series of steps the government has taken, from time to time, and partly on account of the arrival of the TV age in the country prematurely, that is when the economy is not strong enough to produce adequate advertisement support for Doordarshan as well as the newspapers. Cumulatively, official measures suggest that the government is not too well disposed towards the press, why else would it raise newsprint prices so steeply, deny credit for renewal and replacement of plants, when it extends that facility to other industries, impose duty on import of newsprint and even fail to announce a newsprint allocation policy for two years? There is then the challenge which diversion of advertisements to Doordarshan on an increasing scale poses. Only the innocent can be surprised at the government’s attitude. No government is ever friendly towards the press. The question is whether or not it has armed itself with the powers to interfere in its working. Most democratic governments do not possess such powers. Ours does. Mercifully, it is still somewhat inhibited in the use of these powers. But it does tighten the screw, whenever it deems appropriate. Also only the innocent can believe either that editorial freedom can be preserved amidst financial adversity, or that shut-downs by the owners as on last Tuesday can make much impression on the authorities. To have any chance of winning, the two have to act together. As it happens, the pay-scale issue is becoming irrelevant for modernizing newspapers. To get the best out of their enormous investments in equipment, they will need higher skills among their journalists, which they cannot possibly command unless they are ready to pay substantially higher salaries. The context has changed but many of us continue to repeat old texts.