I
f you make a list of the many alleged weaknesses—biased, trivial, anti-BJP, anti-Hindu, cricket-obsessed, etc—of this publication, self-glorification is likely to be missing from the list. A journal which constantly needs to pat itself on the back reminding its readers what a great job it is doing is in a sense admitting that its journalistic virtues are hidden. Whether that is the case with Outlook is not for me to say. I will leave that judgement to those who pay Rs 20 every week. What I can claim, on the basis of the huge mail I get every day, is that the jury is still out. Opinion is divided, tilting ever so slightly (I would like to believe) in our favour.Meanwhile, even those of you who love to hate Outlook have a high level of engagement with the "rag". When I meet the good folks from the parivar, I find they have serial grievances against me in particular and the magazine in general. Yet, Outlook is essential reading for them. "You may be a pseudo-secularist, and your journalism may be one-sided, but you don't tell lies," is how one worthy put it. Even as I accept such compliments—damned with faint praise?—I understand the wisdom of the aphorism that you cannot please all the people all the time.
It has been my editorial policy in Outlook to invite participation from those manifestly opposed to our editorial line (I don't believe we have an "editorial line" but that is another matter) to make a periodic appearance on our pages. You may have observed that in our Hey Ram! number two weeks ago, Balbir Punj, who is a card-carrying member of the BJP, berated secularists (read Outlook) over the Ram Setu issue. Interestingly, his intervention went against the grain of our entire coverage which clearly detected politics in the controversy, reminiscent of the Ram temple campaign. Nevertheless, Mr Punj's arguments enriched and enlivened our cover story by providing the perspective from the "other side".
In the number you are holding in your hand, I requested the editor of The Pioneer, Chandan Mitra, to contribute his views on Outlook and the journalism it practises. Chandan was a little surprised by my offer but graciously accepted the invitation. He has written a superb, thought-provoking piece glancingly attacking both the editor and the journal. Do I agree with him? Not entirely, but that is irrelevant to the point I am making.
I
am no masochist. So long as it is sincere and intelligent, I enjoy praise. However, a journal which prints only accolades and indulges in self-worship is likely to have a diminishing clientele. To be frank, criticism of Outlook, both gentle and rude, comes so spontaneously and from so many quarters that I seldom have to go looking for it. An open, independent publication, not afraid to call a spade a spade, will always provoke, incense, delight, stimulate, enlighten and infuriate a section of readers. I would consider my editorship a failure if the aforementioned reactions in their totality were absent.