By Swarn Kumar Anand
During the animated news meetings, he ensured that every willing member got the floor to express their opinions no matter how much those were at odds with his political-social associations and ideologies. Though he respected cogent arguments, he would hit the roof at imputations which were completely off base
September 2, 2021, gave me an awful shock that will linger forever. After finishing the editions last night, I had woken up around 9.30 am only to get a vague SMS “My deepest condolences” from an old journalist friend. I thought I would call up the person to know who he was taking about during my morning walk for which I was getting ready. Suddenly the phone rang. It was our photographer, Ranjan Dimri, who asked me, “When are you reaching the cremation ground?” I was speechless when I enquired who he was speaking about.
A distressing scene conjured up in my mind. My 17-year-long association with my editor, Dr Chandan Mitra, would end so suddenly seemed a nightmare. It was too early for him to leave us forever at just 66. But then death is the only eternal truth. I rushed to the cremation ground to have the last glimpse of the great editor who groomed me. He was the only reason I didn’t accept a job offer from a top national daily on the last day of joining, about a decade back. September 2 was filled with vivid memories that kept hugging me all the day.
Would an editor-owner of a media organisation ever allow a subordinate journalist to even think of taking a stand (wittingly or unwittingly) contrary to his/her and place it on the record on the same space? It is next to impossible for two basic reasons: First, it is an utter disrespect to the editor and the editorial position to go off at a tangent, and second, it is fraught with the danger of losing your job. However, it was very much possible under the editorship of Dr Mitra, an editor par excellence.
I vividly remember the day he called me to his chamber to discuss/explain why I had written the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi was a national shame on the opinion page. “Didn’t you read The Pioneer? Don’t you know the editorial position? I myself have written that the CWG is a ‘national pride’,” he enquired in his calm but deep baritone voice, accentuating the phrase “national pride”, with his eyes penetrating mine for the answer.
I was only six years into journalism then and was replete with lofty idealism of journalism. “Sir, organising a global sporting event is indeed a pride for any country. But I think the huge public money splurged on organising the Commonwealth Games is not worth its salt for a poor country like India. I have tried to substantiate my opinion with the National Sample Survey data. But I am sorry if I have offended you. I wrote it in the anticipation that The Pioneer under your leadership respects all shades of opinion,” I explained with tinge of fear of repercussions.
He flashed me a disarming smile. “Yes, we do respect all shades of opinion. But you are an in-house journalist and your article appeared within a couple of days of my writing. But it was a well researched piece.”
I was startled. I didn’t know whether to take it as a compliment or a warning. But he hastily added, “Keep on writing good stuff. We don’t stifle original ideas. You have freedom to write in the paper if you have compelling reasons to put your point across logically.”
It was his fearlessness and magnanimity which gave a rare opportunity to the journalists in The Pioneer to nail their colours to the mast.
During the animated news meetings, he ensured that every willing member got the floor to express their opinions no matter how much those were at odds with his political-social associations and ideologies. Though he respected cogent arguments, he would hit the roof at imputations which were completely off base. Despite his personal political prejudice or constraints, as an editor he did not dictate terms when it came to selection of copies or treatment of them. He would go with the majority opinion in the news meeting and it did earn him immense respect.
Therefore, the evening news meeting has been the liveliest event in our life in The Pioneer. Besides the selection of copies and planning for the future, this was our public sphere where a variety of topics were on the table, ranging from literature, music, cinema to personal life stories. That he loved music, books, and good food and wine were reflected in his usual non-news subjects of discussion. In our many leisure talks, he always enriched my knowledge about the deeds and (mostly unwitting) misdeeds of many famous individuals some of whom were his friends or close acquaintances. But those stories were never for public consumption.
As for stories, my generation had grown up reading about his expertise in his craft. He was a well-bred and highly learned editor with command of language and expertise in story telling. When he launched Pioneer Hindi editions, we witnessed his command of Hindi language was equally excellent.
While he embodied the most ideal possibility of journalism, he kept his ear to the ground and his projections were based on primary sources which proved prophetic. At the same time, he was an intrepid fighter who took on the powerful people, seen in The Pioneer coverage of the 2G scam.
He would always look for exclusive in-house stories and would desire that each desk pitches their stories during the evening news meetings. He would not go for what was running on TV or news websites. What tormented him the most was being forced to pick lead copies from websites or agencies.
It seemed he had symbiotic relationship with The Pioneer. And his official chamber was his best retreat. Despite his hectic schedule, some due to his political affairs, he never ignored the journalist in him. Even during his heyday as a Member of Parliament for 12 years, his heart lay in journalism. He would always find out time to attend The Pioneer office, especially for the news meeting. Also he would never miss to have a look at page one headlines that I used to send him, earlier via SMS, then email and in later years via WhatsApp. During my early years as News Editor, I would call him even after 11.30pm if I wanted his approval to include a piece of breaking news on page one. Next day, he would invariably tell me that it was not necessary to wake him up for his approval (just to keep my morale high), but I always knew he wanted at least to be kept posted about any change on page one.
Although he would say that he trusted my abilities and judgment, he would still like to know page one headlines unless he had to turn in early for some reasons. During those days, then he would ask me to tell him tentative headlines much before the copies were filed and would sometimes suggest what he wanted the headlines to convey.
However, in the last five-six years, he had left it to my judgment to make any change on page one, making me accountable for the error of judgment as well.
On several occasions, when I would alert him that the suggested headline does not match with the copy, he would lose his cool questioning the writer’s judgment and would ask me to add those things in the copy to substantiate the headline.
No matter whether he was outstation within India or abroad, he would call me up to keep abreast of what copies have been selected for page one and what headlines I have drafted.
My close day-to-day interactions with Dr Mitra began in 2011 when I started attending news meetings. In December 2012, when he offered me the post of News Editor, stressing on the fact that I would be the youngest to hold the position, he was a little surprised when I asked him to offer me the rank of Associate Editor to head the news desk, besides ensuring no interference from any other department. He teased me, “I understand, an Associate Editor rank will help you easily fly to the greener pasture.”
However, he gave a patient audience when I explained to him how my demand for an Associate Editor rank would assign the required dignity to the chair of News Editor, steering the massive news desk: Delhi and six outstation editions. He took no time to approve both the requests, but quipped, “Only your work gives you dignity.”
His ability to assess the strength of his staff was unparalleled. While he gave full freedom to the department heads to run their show as they deem fit, he did not compromise on the quality of their work reflected in the newspaper. At the same time, he spared no efforts to retain talents.
At one point of time, when I explored non-monetary ways to recognise accomplished staffers on the desk and also to infuse more energy in my team by way of giving them freedom to work lesser hours but with more responsibilities, besides two offs a week to retain the talents, he readily accepted the first one with the only condition that their productivity will not suffer at any cost. I think he gave due consideration for two offs a week for all the editorial staff, but it could not ensue into implementation probably because of financial constraints as it would have meant hiring more manpower.
However, he was adept in utilising the existing human resource and respected good exclusive reports. In January 2019, when Sheila Dikshit returned to active politics in Delhi after her gubernatorial stint, it was common understanding that the AAP and the Congress will stitch pre-poll ties to take on the likely Modi wave in the 2019 Delhi Assembly elections. The then Congress chief had vehemently favoured an alliance with the AAP and it had stoked speculation about the AAP-Congress pre-poll tie-up. But I had information to the contrary from a close confidant of Sheila Dikshit’s. I informed Dr Mitra about it but he said he will believe only if it comes from Sheila Dikshit. I hurriedly managed an exclusive interview with Sheila Dikshit and got confirmation about her firm stand against any tie-up with the AAP even if that meant the Congress won no seats. When I sent my copy to the editor for a look, he readily commissioned it as the page one anchor.
Later, on several occasions during the news meeting, he would cite the interview piece to reiterate that speculation must be confirmed or scotched from the horses’ mouth. Our day-to-day interactions were badly affected during the Covid-19 pandemic, which has been devastating in our social and professional life. The physical meetings became infrequent. But he kept on attending office despite not keeping a robust health.
Of late, he felt bad for not being able to write regularly because of his ill health. However, when President Pranab Mukherjee breathed his last on August 31, 2020, I rang him up during the edition time in the evening to request to pen an obituary. Dr Mitra was superb in writing obituaries and his craft was greatly supported by his memory like an elephant. As he was not keeping well enough to devote time to write, he asked me to keep a stopgap arrangement in case he was unable to finish his writing well before the edition time. Although it alarmed me a little, I prodded him to give it a try. And he did produce an excellent obituary in an hour before our early editions.
Later on, he thanked me for “forcing” (read, requesting) him to write.
Today, I feel fortunate, I could extract a brilliant piece from my editor that proved to be his last writing in The Pioneer.
(The writer is Associate Editor & News Editor, The Pioneer)
