“Whatever may be the duty of a political opposition it is not the duty of the Press to oppose any more than it is to support without adequate reasons. In every case it must be guided solely by consideration of the public interest. It must always be for the public to judge how far THE HINDU has lived up to these high ideals. But those in charge of it may be permitted to say that it has been their aim to keep them steadily in view. The great heart of the public has displayed a constant affection for this journal and acclaimed it as a national institution.”
DECEMBER 7, 1939
Sixty Years
THE HINDU COMPLETED SIXTY YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE AS A newspaper just over a year ago. But as work on the spacious new buildings designed to house it had not been completed then, it was decided that on the occasion offered by the opening of the new offices this journal should share with its readers its pleasure in passing yet another memorable milestone in the endless adventure, by the issue of a special edition. The fiftytwo page special number which our readers will receive with today’s issue in commemoration of the Diamond Jubilee may well stand as the outward and visible symbol of the close and friendly communication between the paper and its farflung clientele from which it draws alike its inspiration and its strength. The hundreds of messages it contains from leaders in every walk of life, both at home and abroad, have given those who are responsible today for the conduct of the paper the keenest satisfaction, bearing testimony as they do in generous terms to the efforts that have been constantly made to maintain worthily the great traditions and discharge adequately the onerous responsibilities of what has been always regarded as a trust. Such measure of success as has attended these efforts is due entirely to the solid support that the public has given and the unstinted confidence that it has reposed in THE HINDU. For this, the Proprietors and all who are associated with them in this great enterprise cannot be too grateful; and it will be their constant endeavour in the future as in the past to deserve that support and justify that confidence. They wish to acknowledge here their heartfelt thanks to the public and their indebtedness to the many friends who in their messages have spoken in the highest terms of such service as THE HINDU has been able to render to the country’s cause.
An occasion like this makes the mind not only look back but also look forward to the spirit of prayerful hope. The world and India in particular are passing through critical times which must put to the strictest proof principles and beliefs that in less strenuous days were apt to be lightly held or taken for granted. Thus Democracy is on its trial in Europe and there are faineants who already concede its discomfiture without having given it the slightest chance. In this country there are those who argue that democracy is a western plant, an exotic which cannot survive transplantation. But democracy is essentially a spiritual idea, a way of life that is as akin to the Hindu and the Muslim traditions as to that of Christian Europe in the Middle Ages, which was closer at heart to the democratic principle than the much later Europe of Hobbes and the absolutists. Prof. Laski has observed of mediaeval Europe: “The idea of a legally unlimited will was wholly alien to its way of thinking. From the lowest to the highest men are bound by a hierarchy of laws in which divine law is in the summit. This in the long run promoted popular rights by obviously emphasising the idea of constitutionalism”. The effort to find institutional means for expressing the democratic view was long baffled in Europe by various causes. In India it has to contend against the suspicion and distrust of the minorities and the forces of reactionary opportunism which seize upon the distrust to create divisions in our country. But if the minorities will only reflect a little they will see that no other system guarantees so effectively the rule of law which is the ultimate safeguard of all rights including minority rights. And democracy means and implies the fullest national freedom.
It is no answer to this to say, as some apologists for communal intransigence do, that what the minorities object to is not democratic government as such, but government by party. Long ago Burke answered this objection succinctly when he said that party government was “essentially necessary for the full performance of our public duty accidentally liable to degenerate into faction.” To safeguard against that degeneration is the primary duty of a responsible Press. The Achilles heel of democracy is popular ignorance, an inevitable consequence of which is that with politicians the long view is usually at a discount. In most western countries universal literacy has not solved this problem; far from making for a truly educated electorate, it has in fact created a public singularly susceptible to propaganda, and a type of sensational journalism which by its success has tended to put journals of opinion in the shade. In India, we are more fortunate in this respect. The newspaper reading public is a much smaller one numerically; but it follows the discussions of public issues with an intelligence and a zest which are becoming rare in lands with a longer journalistic tradition where the mass that is “educated enough to read greedily but not to read seriously” has all but swamped the discriminating few. Those critics of Indian journalism who, overlooking this important difference, are all for “brightness,” and would like to see more of vim and snap in the expression of views forget that it is not by bludgeoning the reader’s mind but by reasoning with it that the soundest and most lasting results can be achieved. For the authority of a newspaper is directly dependent on its ability to carry conviction to the largest circle of intelligent readers, as The Times said on a famous occasion, “if we do not represent the opinion of the country we are nothing”. The ascertainment of public opinion (as different from the prejudices of the moment) and the evocation of the atmosphere favourable to its emergence are therefore tasks that a newspaper which is not content to adopt a purely hand to mouth policy must set about with circumspection as well as earnestness. The many and complex issues on which it has to pronounce in the course of the day’s work do not admit of a naive directness of treatment, a simple Yes or No. Where the choice is not between black and white but between various delicate shades of colour, slap-dash methods and the unstable impetuosity which discards opinions as lightly as it adopts them may work considerable harm; while in a country where the clamour of contending passions animated by race and creed often drowns the voice of common sense, a judicial temper is an absolute necessity.
Free discussion is the life-breath of democracy. And it presupposes a readiness to set out the pros and cons fairly and to give the other fellow credit for honesty however wrong-headed you may consider him to be. In a country which has deliberately eschewed the way of violence as unsuitable, whether for winning Swaraj or for securing internal harmony, it becomes the more incumbent on the Press to maintain steadily this appeal to the higher instincts. And the practice of the best journalism the world over shows that honest and trenchant criticism is perfectly compatible with good temper and fairness to opposing points of view. Conversely, a partisan Press is a weak Press. “To perform its duties with entire independence and consequently with the utmost public advantage, the press can enter into no close or binding alliances with the statesmen of the day, nor can it surrender its permanent interests to the convenience of the ephemeral power of any Government”, a statement which though provoked by the circumstances of mid-Victorian England is of universal validity. By the same token, Governments should not be denied support, simply because they are Governments, if “the justice of their principles and the ability of their administrations fairly entitle them” to that support; for whatever may be the duty of a political opposition, it is not the duty of the Press to oppose, any more than it is to support, without adequate reasons. In every case, it must be guided solely by considerations of the public interest. It must always be for the public to judge how far THE HINDU has lived upto these high ideals. But those in charge of it may be permitted to say that it has been their aim to keep them steadily in view. The great heart of the public has displayed a constant affection for this journal and acclaimed it as a national institution. It was a famous editor, C. P. Scott of the Manchester Guardian, who said, “The public has its rights. The paper which has grown up in a great community, nourished by its resources, reflecting in a thousand ways its spirit and its interests, in a real sense belongs to it.” It shall be always our earnest endeavour to fulfil the high obligations we owe to the public.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I