During a recent debate on Aaj Tak, anchor Chitra Tripathi and political scientist-turned-activist Yogendra Yadav discussed various topics, including caste, politics, and media. In his deliberation, Yadav specifically addressed the issue of ‘upper’ caste — particularly Brahmin — domination among voters of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Hindi media. He was responding to Tripathi’s casteist nostalgia toward the industry — a time when “10 out of 20 chief ministers were Brahmins”.
इस बार कर्नाटक में जाति के आधार पर नहीं हुआ बदलाव: @_YogendraYadav, सह-संस्थापक, स्वराज इंडिया #Dangal #MandalPolitics | @chitraaum pic.twitter.com/VUet8C1Qij
— AajTak (@aajtak) May 18, 2023
It is important to delve into the complexities of the discussion rather than reducing it to a simplistic “Brahmin vs Yadav” label. In an article published in ThePrint on 24 May, Yadav aimed to clarify certain points and address misconceptions that arose from the debate. The article was published in both Hindi and English.
Yadav ponders how and why Hindi news television has reached such a low level. He tries to find glory in the past, when Surendra Pratap Singh served as the editor of Aaj Tak and it was not yet a full-fledged channel, painting a picture of caste-based diversity in the newsroom and crediting it to Singh’s sensitivity to social justice issues.
Yadav’s claims, though, are doubtful.
While the Aaj Tak newsroom may not have been exclusively composed of “Brahmin boys” (a term coined by BR Ambedkar while mentioning the casteist leadership of Indian communists), it predominantly consisted of non-Brahmin Savarna individuals. The representation of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) communities was not as robust as one would hope. Nevertheless, Yadav acknowledges the professional integrity, commitment, and opposition to sectarianism, religious or communal frenzy demonstrated by Singh, a sentiment I share. He laments the declining state of Hindi media, particularly television journalism, expressing a desire to discuss this issue with SP Singh, had he been alive, given that “most trainee journalists from his team have risen to be channel heads”.
Cherry-picked criticism
In the second part of the article, which forms the crux of Yadav’s arguments, he turns to Mrinal Pande’s book, The Journey of Hindi Language Journalism in India: From Raj to Swaraj and Beyond, for guidance. Praising Pande’s focus on the underrepresentation of women in newsrooms, he quotes from her book to argue that some progress has been made by the Hindi television industry in providing opportunities to women, as “viewers liked to see young and pretty faces as anchors”. Pande’s analysis of Brahmin domination in Hindi newsrooms, too, won her Yadav’s appreciation.
However, Yadav conveniently avoids putting Pande under scrutiny as he refrains from asking questions about her rise to the top of a predominantly male-dominated Hindi media industry and how her career trajectory nosedived after the change in government in 2014. These questions would lead him into the complex terrain of social and cultural capital, which might make the elite uncomfortable.
Yogendra Yadav wouldn’t tread on those grounds.
Even his engagement with Tripathi on Aaj Tak appears to be a way to ride the bandwagon of social justice, keeping an eye on the 2024 Lok Sabha election.
Yadav is forgetting that the study titled A Survey of a ‘Dark’ Reality: Caste in Media in 2006, which he, along with media educationist Anil Chamadia and this writer, conducted, was not even mentioned in Hindustan Dainik, where Pande served as editor-in-chief at the time. Furthermore, Pande took a contrarian view and wrote a signed article in her newspaper arguing that journalists should not be asked about their caste but rather about their knowledge. Yadav rejected this meritocratic argument, responding to Pande’s article in the same newspaper.
In his ThePrint column, therefore, Yadav’s engagement with Pande’s book appears to be a strategic approach rather than a genuine pursuit of truth. Such selective appreciation is an attempt to avoid taking positions against influential figures in civil society and uphold the expectations of the Savarna community.
Also read: Hindi media’s nostalgia for Brahmin supremacy isn’t over. It’s unapologetic, in your face
Lacking a principled approach
His wavering stances on issues such as women’s reservation bill, OBC quota in education, and caste-based census only prove the point. It is noteworthy that Yadav opposes enumerating all castes but supports counting OBCs in the census. The Congress, which he is aligned with currently, had refused to include caste-related questions in the 2011 census and instead conducted a separate Socio Economic and Caste Census, whose findings were never released. Today, it is advocating for a caste-based census. Similarly, his ambivalent views on the creamy layer within the OBCs are similar to the positions of Savarna intellectuals.
Yadav’s approach fails to ask the right questions, and shows his lack of genuine commitment to social justice and secularism. Renowned writer Arundhati Roy asserts that without asking the right questions, one cannot obtain the right answers, and Yadav’s failure to do so over the years resonates with this sentiment.
Evaluation of individuals goes beyond their writings and actions. It encompasses analysingtheir commitment to justice, accountability, responsibility, and duty when they have the power to make decisions. Unfortunately, Yadav’s actions often fall short of meeting these standards, leading to widespread disappointment among those who had hoped for a more steadfast and principled approach from him.
Jitendra Kumar is a Delhi based journalist and translator. Presently, he is working on a biography of Karpoori Thakur. He tweets @Biharibole. Views are personal.
Yogendra Yadav’s response
I should thank Jitendra bhai for taking note of my article and bolstering its main point about the skewed caste composition of Hindi media. His article also highlights a difference in our approach to social justice: what he reads as a sign of my lack of clarity or courage is my well-considered and consistent refusal to take a one dimensional ‘caste-only’ view of social justice. Unwittingly, he also ends up bolstering another contention in my article: attack on the person rather than criticism of the argument seems to be our favourite tool of public reasoning.
Views are personal.
ThePrint closes the discussion here.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)