M. C. and the Press Commission

J. P. CHATURVEDI
First Secretary-General, Indian Federation of Working Journalists

AND

C. RAGHAVAN
Formerly Editor-in-chief, Press Trust of India

We have followed with deep regret the campaign in the columns of “The Motherland” against Mr. M. Chalapathi Rau­–all in the name of praising the late K. Rama Rao. We, the present writers, knew Rama Rao fairly intimately right from the time of the Delhi Convention in 1950 until his death. We also know Chalapathi Rau. We had the privilege of working with both of them in the working journalists’ movement and the founding of the Indian Federation of Working Journalists. We knew their mutual relationship. There is malicious libel in much of what has been published. We want to state the following in respect of the falsification of the history of the IFWJ’s activities of those days and the Press Commission. Apart from the records with the Government and the IFWJ, we also have enough evidence to provide our points below.

M. C. was chosen unanimously to preside over the Delhi Convention even when he was away in the United States. He was unanimously re-elected as President every year till 1955 when he voluntarily, and against the wishes of the membership, stepped down. As Iswara Dutt has put it. “It was a red-letter day in the annals of Indian journalism when the working journalists’ movement came under the leadership of M. C. who by his journa­listic eminence, intellectual incandescence and moral earnestness and fervour, brought to it a strength and prestige which had ensured its victory at the very outset.” The movement had some of the most respected stalwarts – Mrinal Kanti Bose, S. P. Thiagarajan, K. Rama Rao, Rana Jung Bahadur Singh, Banarsi Das Chaturvedi and Iswara Dutt, to name only a few. All of them were senior to M. C. in age and professional experience. But all preferred to work under his leadership because, in the words of S. P. Thiagarajan, “by his infinite tact, resourcefulness and wisdom” he held together and captioned an organisation full of “an anarchic, at least highly individualistic and idiosyncratic” personalities.

The Federation unanimously nominated M. C. to be the member of the Press Commission. In the beginning there were four other nominees suggested by some units – K. Rama Rao, Mrinal Kanti Bose, S. P. Thiagarajan and Iswara Dutt. But by the time the IFWJ Working Committee and Federal Executive Council met in September 1952, M. C. was the unanimous choice of the rank and file and the leadership. M. C. was chosen because of his integrated approach of the entire enquiry, and because he commanded the confidence of all sections of the movement and represented its ethos. No one in the Federa­tion was overawed by any of the prospective members of the Commission or their alleged powers of cross-examination. This claim is fictional.

M. C. was reluctant to become a member of the Commission because he felt he would not then be able to participate in and direct the IFWJ’s job of presenting its case and leading evidence. He reluctantly gave in to our pressure but only on assurance that all of us would function collectively in the work of the Press Commission. A 12-member committee was formed with Rama Rao, the Senior Vice-President, as Chairman and with Mrinal Kanti Bose, Rana Jung Bahadur Singh, S.P, Thiagarajan, Tara­chand Gupta, T. Fernandez, Iswara Dutt, M. V. Sane, S. A. Sastri Jaidev Gupta, J. P. Chaturvedi and C. Raghavan (Secretary). At every stage of our work it was a truly collective and collegiate effort. A seven-member team gave oral evidence–K. Rama Rao, J. P. Chaturvedi, C. Raghavan, M. V. Sane, V. N. Sinha, K. N. Nair and S. A. Sastri. Each person had an allotted subject or subjects. Rama Rao was the leader of the delegation and dealt mainly with two subjects–Press Laws and Editor’s Freedom. Other subjects were dealt with by others and Rama Rao directed the questions to them. Most of the seniors also appeared individually before the Commission. So did Rama Rao.

In the appointment of the Press Commission, in determining its terms of reference and whether it should consist of laymen only (as the proprietors and the INEC wanted) or also represent­atives of the profession, in the selection of the Chairman and the lay members of the Commission, M. C.’s voice and influence was a deciding factor. People really in the know, like the present writers, or Dr. B. V. Keskar, then Minister for Information and Broadcasting, could bear this out.

From the time of the first convention M. C. took an active part in all our meetings, guided our deliberations, spoke his mind when warranted, and brought about a consensus. At all public functions, in connection with our meetings in various parts of India, he was our speaker and was well-understood;

He fully participated in the work of the Commission, articula­ted ably his own and the working journalist viewpoints, as members of the Commission could testify and its records would prove.

We know it for a fact that it was Mr. Chalapathi Rau’s intervention with Jawaharlal Nehru, who held him in high esteem, that influenced Government’s decisions on crucial issues–­including the enactment of the Working Journalists Act.

In stating the above we should not be misunderstood as in any way denigrating Rama. Rao whom we hold in high respect, as did M. C. Rama Rao too held M. C. in very high esteem and said of him “The only Editor who can call his soul his own.” I have not dealt with other denigrations of M. C. whose position in the profession and his acknowledged qualities as editor, literateur, scribe and original thinker are so well-­established that anonymous scribes can make no dent on it. M. C. too does not require our defence.