From the power and influence of the editorship of The Times of India, GIRILAL JAIN has stepped into the quiet of a study lined with books he’s never had time to read. In an interview with OM GUPTA, he talks about the editor-proprietor relationship and refutes the charge that he has always been pro-establishment
How do you feel after leaving The Times of India which you edited for so long?
To start with, there is no boredom. As before, I come to my table (now in this study of mine) sharp at ten and don’t leave it until eight in the evening. I was never fond of socialising. I’ve always been fond of reading. You see (points towards books all around him) most of these books have remained unread. They won’t be so for long. For the next three months I am not going to decide what I want to do. Maybe after that I will take up a column or two. I have not thought of the papers. I am rolling many subjects around in my mind. Let me think. In fact I have nothing to say. You won’t get any meat from me. I won’t talk about any controversy, if that is your purpose in coming here.
I am not looking for ‘meat’. Would you agree to advise the government on media in an informal or formal capacity? There is talk of you becoming a Rajya Sabha member too.
I won’t accept a government job. I am not a government man. By becoming an MP I don’t think I can do anything that I can’t do otherwise.
The relationship between editors and managements must have undergone some changes during the last 30-40 years?
So you are slowly coming back to The Times of India. I was very happy at the Times. I became the chief reporter in 1958, got a foreign posting in 1961, then made it to assistant editor and finally the editor. I enjoyed total freedom. But that is not the case everywhere. Weak editors are exceptions. In many places, proprietors are editors. Elsewhere, proprietors have an over-riding influence.
Towards the end of your term you also had some problems vis- a-vis the new generation of proprietors in your company, didn’t you?
I won’t answer that question.
During your editorship, you were termed the biggest apologist of the ruling Gandhi family. Would you like to refute that charge?
I have never cared for popularity or popular opinion. I have written what I thought correct at that point of time. You might have noticed I have been a trenchant critic of Rajiv Gandhi ever since VP Singh left him, i.e. February-March ‘86. I did criticise Ms Gandhi whenever I thought she was wrong. Now I have more time. Soon I will write about the forces behind the present political conflict in the country.
I don’t remember having read any of your books. Have you written any?
I have written three books. But people have long forgotten about them. On Nepal in 1959, Tibet in 1960, and on Mao in 1966. But I will be writing some soon.
Autobiographical?
Oh no, never. There is nothing in my life worth a book. It will be about this country, its problems, my perspective,..
You have interacted closely with both Indira Gandhi and Rajiv. What are your impressions of them?
She was far shrewder.
Of late you have been critical of Rajiv Gandhi. Would you bet on an alternative?
No. I think the nation is still safe in his hands.
During your last days at the Times you allowed the paper to lead with an anti-Sonia and Satish Sharma story and the very next day you reportedly wrote a leader almost apologising for it. Your successor says both were your decisions. Readers were shocked at the overnight shift in stance. Would you like to comment?
My successor is factually right. But there was more to it. I won tell you what, though.
You have reacted differently at different times to the same person. Was that part of your learning process or was it just that the person in question happened to be unpredictable?
It was both. Generally people are products of situations and not the other way around.
Are you a believer?
Yes. But I don’t go to temples. I mean, my family are non-idol worshipping Jains.
How do you react to young people taking over as editors of major newspapers? In your days things were different.
India is a young country. The majority of the population is young. The young are taking over not because someone is giving them the opportunity. They are forcing the situation. They deserve it. That is why they are where they are.
But the same generation is behaving quite irresponsibly in many other walks of life. And there is an all-round erosion of values.
I won’t condemn a whole generation. I agree there is an erosion, but surprisingly the younger generation of journalists have not shown this downward trend. I still feel that Indian journalists are the least corrupt by far. And mind you, this is despite their low wages and lack of facilities.
Some feel that you are basically pro-establishment, and that your paper reflected this.
There is no establishment in India. Establishment is a misnomer in the Indian context. Establishment is a group of people coming from a similar background, ethos and consciousness. Here ministers, MPs and even bureaucrats come from so many different stratas of society that you can’t club them into one establishment. Here ministers and the party in power are termed the establishment. Number one, that is not the establishment. Two, even if it is, how can you interact with them, leave aside be on their side? Most of the ministers feel uncomfortable in any intellectual company. Yes, to some extent you can say that the top level IAS and IFS fraternity form what you could loosely describe as the establishment. I don’t think that either myself or the paper was favourably disposed towards this set of civil servants.
Well, I meant the ruling party, especially at the top level. To be precise, the prime minister.
I have already answered this question. I am for the unity and integrity of this country. And when I supported a prime minister, I felt he or she was working in that direction.
Have you been able to influence the decisions of prime ministers?
I have met both Ms Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi many a time. But I never sought appointments. Ms Gandhi used to call me more often than the present prime minister. She did seek my opinion. It will be preposterous on my part to say that I changed her thinking. I won’t say that even if she did what I told her to do. Because maybe she had already made up her mind to do it that way or maybe ten other people advised her so.
Afternoon Despatch & Courier, Sunday, 15 January 1989