The Hindu and China

 The Hindu published a full-page advertisement on behalf of the People's Republic of China on October 1st. Questions were raised in the social media about the propriety of the newspaper (Indian?) sporting this advertisement when China had started border clashes with us. The newspaper calls this as a vicious campaign against itself. 'Vicious' according to Merriam -Webster dictionary means 'dangerously aggressive', 'marked by violence or ferocity', 'malicious, spiteful', 'having the quality of immorality', 'defective, faulty' and 'impure, noxious'. We do not know what The Hindu means.

The Hindu has now responded to the 'vicious' campaign adopting what it calls 'a rational view'. The newspaper has justified the publication on the following grounds: 

1) It was clearly marked as an advertisement. (So what? The so-called vicious campaigners recognised this as an advertisement only)

2) It was from a neighbouring nation-state, with whom India has excellent diplomatic relations. (This is a breathtaking justification. I feel too paralysed to respond.)

3) Can we use the Galwan valley exchanges, where the PM himself is yet to name the aggressor, to deny advertising space to an embassy to celebrate its foundation day? (The newspaper ought to know who is the aggressor. Does The Hindu think India is the aggressor? If the PM had named China as the aggressor, would the Sinophiliac newspaper have refused to carry the ad? Does The Hindu want many more of our soldiers to be killed by China before stopping such advertisements?

4) We have trade relations with China. (Trade with China cannot stop abruptly. So continuing trade with China does not mean the newspaper must advertise for China.)

China has violated our sovereignty. Similarly, it has border disputes with many neighbours. If the newspaper is unaware of this, it is moribund. China has done injustice to the entire world by exporting the Wuhan virus. By associating with China, The Hindu is complicit in China's anti-world activities.

9So what?)

Habitual ridicule

A newspaper is read for getting information on what is happening, comments on events and also for humorous takes on current events. Thus the newspaper has to inform, shape opinions and entertain. Most importantly, these responsibilities have to be performed with diligence and decorum.

Relentless ridicule of what the government is doing without taking into account the totality of government's purpose and action falls far short of the requirements of both diligence and decorum. You may have guessed what I am coming to.

If you continue to be a reader of The Hindu despite its partial ideological views, chances are that you would have noticed with dismay the consistently irresponsible and indecorous comments made by Mr. G.Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu under "Allegedly" columns every Sunday.

The Editor is unable to write any piece without making snide references to prime minister's actions. The writings drip with base sarcasm which the author apparently mistakes for humour. For example, read the following which appears today:

"Yes, I'm talking about Phase III of the battle against the virus. It's simple: you donate your next 10 months' salary to PM CARE, a fund set up specifically to enable every Indian to demonstrate how much they care for the PM. In case you are unemployed and therefore unable to donate salary, don't panic. You can donate one finger a month for 10 months. This collective show of love and loyalty to the PM, modelled on the highly effective practices of the Yakuza - Japan ------------"

Yakuza is a criminal syndicate in Japan. It is unbelievable that a newspaper compares PM CARES FUND with Yakuza. Mr.Sampath does not seem to know it is PM CARES and not PM CARE. CARES is an acronym for "Citizens Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations" (Fund).

Mr.Sampath is not the only one in The Hindu engaging in mindless criticism of the government and the prime minister. Ms.Vaishna Roy's 'Speech Melba' every Saturday is of  similar sinister genre.

Contradictions / insinuations in N.Ram's 'exclusive'

Shri N.Ram continues to exercise his proprietorial liberty to foist his 'exclusive' Rafale reports on The Hindu readers, frontpaging his innuendoes and rehashing his exaggerated spins on confidential notes prepared in the Defence Ministry. He has mastered the art of contradicting one insinuation made by him and creating another hoping that if one does not stick, the other would.

I express my views with both anguish and anxiety, anguished by the fall of a reliable newspaper into a purveyor of partisan news and perverted views, anxious to know how the other family members (after all, The Hindu is family-owned despite the occasional veneer of professionalism) continue to allow the newspaper to be hijacked for political purposes.

In his 'exclusive' on April 9th, Ram points out the similarities between Rafale transaction and Bofors deal. He fails to point out the major dissimilarities, namely the absence of money trail in Rafale as against the bribery-based Bofors deal and Chitra Subramaniam-guided Bofors investigation as against sycophants-assisted misplaced investigation into Rafale agreement.

In one place, Ram discovers the 'discomfort' of Manohar Parikkar 'evidenced' by the latter's reference to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for approval of deviations from the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) instead of approving them himself. Ram does not utilise his 'investigative' skills to discover why P.Chidambaram arrogated to himself the Cabinet powers in Aircel-Maxis case. It is journalism turned on its head when investigations are avoided when they are needed and undertaken when there is no reason. These two instances bring out the difference between Modi and Manmohan as a leader. Ministers in Modi's ministry are not afraid of seeking the Cabinet approval when necessary whereas in Manmohan's ministry there was licence to do anything so long as Manmohan was not brought into the scene. Manmohan Singh explained this as coalition-dharma.

In another place, in sharp contrast, Ram insinuates as to why Parikkar did not refer to CCS for approval of deviations though they had earlier been approved by CCS in a different reference. Ram's incoherent and slanted investigation is amusing.

Ram is aware and has noted that 'offset' is usually rendered in French as 'contrepartie' (compensation). Yet his prejudiced mind forces Ram to cynically observe that an internal Dassault document revealed that "a senior executive of the French group told staff representatives that the joint venture with Reliance was agreed as a 'compensation' ".

I don't know how many people read these 'exclusive' reports. I am eager to know if even Ram is reading the reports which are possibly prepared by his assistants with the only objective of derailing Modi.

The Hindu's disbelief of the Indian government

The Hindu's Readers' Editor, in his sermon on April 8,  has  preferred to give greater credence to a report appearing in an American magazine 'Foreign Policy' than to the version of the Indian government on India shooting down an F-16 employed by Pakistan. In an insinuating tone, he has noted that authorities tend to hide behind anonymity. "The Indian Air Force's version was circulated through the news agency IANS."

Fine. Source of credible information should not be anonymous. I assumed that since The Hindu has trusted the Foreign Policy report, the identity of persons who have concluded that India's version is wrong must have been disclosed.

The Foreign Policy report says. " Two senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the situation told Foreign Policy that U.S. personnel recently counted Islamabad’s F-16s and found none missing." Who are these two officials? The report does not divulge.

The report further adds, "One of the senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the count said that Pakistan invited the United States to physically count its F-16 planes after the incident as part of an end-user agreement signed when the foreign military sale was finalized. " Who is this official?

The Hindu's policy seems to be that you can trust an anonymous report if it contradicts the Indian government. Otherwise, no. This is the consistency of jaundiced eyes.

Rafale and 2019 elections

The Hindu CSDS-Lokniti pre-poll survey conducted in the last week of March brings out an interesting aspect about the impact of Rafale allegations on popular perception.

52% of the people who are aware of Rafale transaction desire that NDA should get another chance at government. This is against only 39% among those who are not aware of the transaction.

What does this mean? Either the people are convinced about the genuineness and integrity of the transaction or the critics have done a bad job of analysing the transaction.

Will The Hindu take note of this curious finding and stop misinterpreting the transaction? Or will the newspaper stop supporting CSDS-Lokniti?

N.Ram 'exclusive' : "Government waived anti-corruption clauses in Rafale deal"

The Hindu has assured us that 'investigative reports' on Rafale will be released in dribs and drabs. It is the newspaper's prerogative to do so. However, prejudiced and one-sided reports deserve to be avoided.

The newspaper's headline on February 11 is "Government waived anti-corruption clauses in Rafale deal". The headline is sensational enough. But a more important step is awaited from The Hindu. How does it establish that the transaction was polluted by actual corruption.

A cursory reading of the day's report gives us the impression that modification of clauses is indicative of existence of unfair practices including bribery. It is significant to know whether there is any provision for deviation from standard clauses in IGA (Inter-Governmental Agreement) and contract documents. This is significant because The Hindu emphasises that  "DPP (Defence Procurement Policy) states explicitly that the Standard Document 'would be the guideline for all acquisitions' ". There is a convenient omission of any reference to para 71 of DPP-2013 governing the Rafale transaction.

Para 71 of DPP-2013 on Inter-Government Agreement (IGA) states that “there may be occasions when procurements would have. to be done from friendly foreign countries which may be necessitated due to geo-strategic advantages that are likely to accrue to the country. Such procurements would not classically follow the Standard Procurement Procedure and the. Standard Contract Document but would be based on mutually agreed provisions by the Governments of both the countries."

It is significant to note that DPP -2013 was not formulated by the present government. In all fairness, The Hindu ought to have mentioned this para in its report. 

The report also refers to the Letter of Comfort provided by the French government. What does the LoC say? The newspaper itself points out the following:

The letter of comfort issued by the French Prime Minister on September 8, 2016 (put out by ANI) states that “assuming that Dassault Aviation or MBDA France meet difficulties in execution of their respective supply protocols and would have to reimburse all or part of the intermediary payment to Government of the Republic of India, the Government of the French Republic will take appropriate measures so as to make sure that said payments or reimbursements will be made at the earliest.”

An assurance given by a government does not cease to be an assurance simply because it is not called a guarantee. 

Another sticking point, though not mentioned in this report is the government's refusal to accept Eurofighter Typhoon's reduced offer. The government has already responded as under:

"In another effort to twist facts, the Government is asked why it did not conduct negotiations with a particular company representing a competing fighter aircraft.  It seems to have been conveniently forgotten that the then Government itself had rejected that company’s unsolicited offer made days after closure of the bid process, declared Rafale (DA) as the L1 bidder and had commenced negotiations with it in February 2012."

If Ram presents all relevant details when he publishes 'exclusive' reports, a meaningful discussion will become possible. Else, 'dribs and drabs' will take us nowhere.

Misreading the leaders and misleading the readers

N.Ram continues his tirade against his bete noire, Narendra Modi and in the process belittles the intelligence of his readers. Caught with his pants down in his truncated presentation of a Defence Ministry note, he is now unleashing a fusillade of weak arguments from his fellow journalists in The Hindu.

Varghese K.George claims to present four reasons why the attacks on The Hindu story on Rafale are 'shallow' and 'self-incriminating'. Let us see how logical these four reasons are.

1) "Investigative stories come in drips." "No single report on the story is the last word on it." Nobody contests these motherhood statements. The criticism is not against reporting in instalments. What is questioned as duplicity is presentation of a part of a page and deliberate omission to include the minister's observation which is included in the same page. This omission is plain deception and not mere mischief. It is silly to conveniently modify the criticism and address the modified criticism. This is a subterfuge.
By quoting Carl Bernstein, "We are reporters. Not judges. Not legislators. What the government or citizens or judges do with the information we have developed is not our part of the process nor our objective" The Hindu is hoist with its own petard. N.Ram has failed to act as a reporter. He is blatantly judgmental. His objective of derailing the Rafale deal is as clear as daylight.

2) "Parikkar note implicates, not absolves, the PMO." So what? Is the journalist not giving the game away here? Has he not come to a judgment that Parikkar's note is implicatory? Is Carl Bernstein forgotten?
Interpretation of Parikkar's note is not the issue. The issue is why this observation of Parikkar was left out. If N.Ram accepts that the omission was a mistake, there is no need for further argument. But his hubris and narcissistic monomania will not let him accept his mistake. He makes other journalists in The Hindu to toe his line and further mislead the readers.

3) "PMO role in negotiations hidden from the SC." Words speak for themselves. A non-judgmental expression would be 'PMO role not disclosed'. Usage of the word 'hidden' gives the journalist's game away. The Hindu has decided that the PMO was an active player in negotiations. Therefore, the assertion that the PMO was only monitoring falls on deaf ears. How could these journalists forget the pain brought on the nation by Manmohan Singh's turning a blind eye to the shenanigans committed under his nose? Do these journalists want an ineffective prime minister who does not monitor what his ministers are doing?

4) "PMO role is not supervisory or of oversight; it is blindsiding the principal ministry." Again, is the journalist not judgmental? When a journalist is blind to a part of the note contained in the same page either by design or by negligence, he becomes delinquent and instead of informing the readers, he becomes a 'rogue journalist'.

Mr.Ram and his ilk have the freedom to misread the intentions and actions of national leaders, but they cannot arrogate to themselves any right to mislead the readers. Let them keep their coloured glasses to themselves and do the readers a favour by desisting from propagating misinterpreted and opportunistically truncated information.

In sum, Ram and The Hindu have first come to a conclusion that Narendra Modi  has not played fair and are now trying to fit half-truths and half-concealed faxes to suit their premature conclusions. This is not what Carl Bernstein advocated.

N.Ram's report in The Hindu.

I wrote a letter to the editor of The Hindu on January 21st on a vainglorious report by Shri N.Ram. This letter predictably was not published. I followed up with two letters to the readers' editor of The Hindu. These three letters are reproduced below.

To

The Editor,

The Hindu , Chennai.

Dear Sir,

I request you to publish my letter given below in your newspaper's 'Letters to the Editor' columns.

                                                                              Rafale Contract

The Hindu has published an 'Exclusive' report on "Modi's decision to buy 36 Rafales shot the price of each jet up by 41%". The caption was arresting and I could not resist the temptation to read it in detail.

The report claims that this 'article is based on information exclusively available to The Hindu.'  This claim is untrue because all the details covered in this report have found a place in many reports appearing in various newspapers earlier. For example, one may refer to two articles in Economic Times one by Raghav Ohri and Manu Pubby on September 29, 2018 and the other by Manu Pubby on August 23, 2018.

In addition, the caption is unusually too sensational to appear in The Hindu since it is also stated in the report that the increase in price per aircraft is 14.20% if the comparison is with the 2011 escalation cost factored in. Even this is subject to the assumption that 2011 prices hold in 2016. I wonder how this misleading caption and unfair comparison escaped the editor's eagle eyes.

Regards,

K.R.Srivarahan,

Chennai.

From: K.R.Srivarahan
To: "readerseditor@thehindu.co.in"  
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:40 PM
Subject: Exclusive report on Rafale

Dear Sir,

I wrote to the Editor on 21st inst. regarding the captioned subject. This was not published in the newspaper. A copy of my letter is attached for your kind reference.

Any exclusive report by Mr.N.Ram attracts attention. A front page report with a sensational headline must contain something significant. I was disappointed to find that the report was not exclusive to The Hindu. The details contained in the report had earlier been published by many newspapers as mentioned in my letter to the editor. I am surprised that there is no clarification on this by Mr.Ram despite the fact that the misleading information has been pointed out by many.

You have quoted Aidan White in your space on January 21st , "When media act ethically and have systems in place for monitoring their journalism, admitting their mistakes and explaining themselves to the public, they create loyalty and attachment." Neither the newspaper nor the reporter has admitted the egregious deceptions contained in the report. Am I to infer that The Hindu is not concerned about loyalty of its readers?

I hope you will respond to this.

Regards,

K.R.Srivarahan

Dear Sir,

I pointed out the misleading nature of 'exclusive' report by Shri N.Ram and of the sensational headline of the report in my communications to you as well as the Editor. My allegation is serious because it casts aspersion on credibility of the newspaper. When such a serious charge goes unresponded, the only conclusion possible is that the newspaper does not want to own up its responsibility. During the 50+ years of my association as a reader and occasionally as a contributor, I have all along thought that The Hindu is a responsible and authentic newspaper.

Nothing gives a newspaper reader more pain than the fact that the newspaper he reveres has chosen to abdicate its accountability as a truthful purveyor of news and reports and has taken to sensationalisation of headlines. Coincidentally, a disclaimer appears in page 2 of The Hindu today. "Readers are requested to verify and make appropriate enquiries to satisfy themselves about the veracity of an advertisement before responding to any published in this newspaper. --------- In no event can the owner, publisher, printer, editor, directors, employees of this newspaper / company be held responsible / liable in any manner whatsoever for any claims ------". I am afraid this disclaimer is required for your presentation of news and reports also. (You may notice the pun in the word 'claims'.)

Regards,

K.R.Srivarahan

Saving Economics from Politics

An editorial appeared in The Hindu on November 30th which is reproduced here.

                                                                   Number Theory

"The larger lessons from the GDP back series must not be clouded by a political slugfest"

"Backcasting, or reworking past national accounts statistics based on the latest base year, is a regular exercise that governments carry out. Mainly done to enable precise comparison and analysis, it is a difficult exercise prone to contestation as it involves the inclusion of newer data sources, exclusion of outdated ones and making some subjective assumptions in the process. Throw in the political element, and GDP backcasting can become a controversial exercise, as it has now become in the case of the release of back series data from 2005-06 to 2011-12, the new base year. The data computed by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) and released by the Niti Aayog show that India never really grew in double-digits in 2010-11, nor was it the high-growth economy in the five years preceding this as earlier thought to be. It so happens that this period covers the two terms of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government, and the new data have predictably set off a political storm. The Congress may feel aggrieved as its biggest achievement, of taking India on the high GDP growth path, has come under question. During earlier instances of backcasting of GDP data, the political environment was not as deeply polarised as it is now, and so the exercise remained more academic.

The danger in the political slugfest now is that the many valuable insights that can be gleaned from the data will be lost sight of. The biggest of these is that India never really decoupled from the global economy during the years of the financial crisis (2008-10), unlike what was earlier believed. The new back series data show a much lower growth rate. This is an important learning for policymakers, going forward. Any criticism of the data has to take into account the fact that it has been generated by a thoroughly professional organisation, the CSO, and the methods have been scrutinised by experts, including past chief statisticians, and the Advisory Committee on National Accounts Statistics. Certainly, the release of the back series by the Niti Aayog goes against convention and is bad in optics. But this should not be reason to contest its integrity. The method of computation reflects the latest United Nations System of National Accounts; it also captures changes in the economy since 2004-05. Data sources have also been updated. Experts had testified to the robustness of the method when it was introduced in 2015, even while underlining that the availability of reliable data was crucial to arrive at the correct overall picture. There is little doubt that India needs to invest more in data collection and integration and do informal sector surveys more frequently. Robust, updated data are, in fact, insurance against politicians hijacking what is essentially an economic exercise."

    Comment on this editorial by the Readers' Editor of The Hindu on December 3rd is reproduced below:

"There were problems with the fundamental assumptions of a recent editorial on the new GDP back series

I generally refrain from commenting on editorials and opinion pieces. I recognise that there are points of convergence as much as there are points of divergence between the newspaper and its myriad readers, and even within the newspaper itself. These conversations lend plurality to the newspaper and they should not be viewed from any narrow ideological prism. However, I have to break from this norm to discuss the editorial “Number theory” (Nov. 30), which generated some sharp and divergent reactions.

Independence of the editorial

The arguments against the editorial were varied. Some took an ideological standpoint, while others interpreted the events that led to the release of the GDP back series. I would like to reiterate that my role as the Readers’ Editor is not that of a pre-publication censor, but of a post-publication evaluator. I do get complaints about The Hindu’s editorial policy, which is defined by the editor and his editorial team. I can explain the policy but I cannot interfere with it. It is vital to support the independence of the editorial. The acid test for the Readers’ Editor is how he conducts himself when his own opinion is at variance with that of the paper. Can he be an effective advocate for free speech, tolerance and plurality if he lacks these democratic traits? Hence, the issue I am discussing is not about the ideological thrust of the editorial but its fundamental assumptions.

The assertion of the editorial that “robust, updated data are, in fact, insurance against politicians hijacking what is essentially an economic exercise” seems like a statement yearning for an ideal reality rather than one that is based on reality. The sequence of events since the creation of Niti Aayog seems to point at a complete politicisation of numbers. Some facts lend credence to the criticism of the numbers put out by Niti Aayog. One, the government had failed to appoint a Chief Statistician for nearly eight months after the retirement of T.C.A. Anant in January. Two, it has had a tense relationship with the Reserve Bank of India. Three, a set of data presented by the committee set up by the National Statistical Commission was withdrawn. Four, the Agriculture Ministry backtracked on a report showing the adverse effects of demonetisation on farmers. Five, there’s the timing of the new data, which many see as a desperate ploy to distract people’s attention from the trenchant criticism of demonetisation by the former Chief Economic Adviser. The line between the Central Statistics Office and Niti Aayog is blurred, thereby lending a political colour to an essential economic exercise.

The practice of data torture

If the editorial is read along with the explainer “What’s with the back series GDP data?” (December 1), it is clear that the editorial jumped the gun to grant the benefit of doubt to the latest exercise and suspended essential journalistic curiosity. The explainer deals with the problem of finding matching data for the older series to the present MCA-21, which is available only since 2011-2012. As a journalist, my entry points for understanding a range of subjects have been science and literature. About pure qualitative methods and number crunching, one of the finest historians of science, Thomas Kuhn, observed that “nature undoubtedly responds to the theoretical predispositions with which she is approached by the measuring scientist.” The Anglo-American economist, Ronald Coase, gave an interesting economic reading of this statement: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” It is true that governments and institutions do indulge in data torture, a practice of repeatedly interpreting source data until it reveals a desired result.

The editorial seems to be oblivious to this caution from the Nobel laureate. Its statement that “during earlier instances of backcasting of GDP data, the political environment was not as deeply polarised as it is now, and so the exercise remained more academic” fails to capture the full picture. In all the earlier changes, the methodology was not only robust but also transparent, and incomparable parameters were hardly used to deduct a number to understand macroeconomic reality. This was an editorial of forking paths, for how do we reconcile the assertion that “the release of the back series by the Niti Aayog goes against convention and is bad in optics” with the conclusion that “this should not be reason to contest the integrity of the new numbers”?

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in"

           My response to the comment of the Readers' Editor

Dear Sir,

I refer to your column in The Hindu today.

Though you are hesitant to comment on editorials, I think you have every right and perhaps even duty to make objective observations on anything that concerns readers. Readers do read, nay even study, the editorials in a newspaper like ours.

As a former banker, I have very often observed that a manager averse to lending ultimately selects a wrong borrower to lend.  In a similar way, though you are averse to comment on an editorial, you have finally chosen a wrong editorial to criticise.

You have noted the assertion that "robust, updated data are , in fact, insurance against politicians hijacking what is essentially an economic exercise" is a statement yearning for an ideal reality (sic) rather than one that is based on reality. In the process, you have ignored the presence among readers of those who look forward to The Hindu to play an effective role in shaping the tone and tenor of economic discussions. Freeing economic discussions from political prejudices is not only desirable but also essential to promote economic development. That The Hindu has done this in the editorial under reference despite the newspaper's proclivity to be harsh on the present powers-that-be is welcome. Please don't dissuade the editors from objective analyses.

The editorial has rightly drawn distinctions between who prepared the data and who communicated them to the wider populace. We should not stigmatise the data because the communicator (Niti Aayog) is allegedly political. The leader has correctly referred to the "fact that it has been generated by a thoroughly professional organisation , the CSO, and the methods have been scrutinised by experts ------". What else do you desire?

I salute The Hindu for its brave attempt to elevate economic discussion from the cesspool of dirty and partisan politics. I hope that the newspaper will continue this crusade despite the dominant presence of carping critics with a hidden political agenda.

Regards,

K.R.Srivarahan,

"Letter from a concerned reader"

One Mr.J.Mathrubootham who identifies himself only as a retired senior executive of a nationalised bank writes a weekly column in The Hindu. It appears in the Sunday Magazine section.

Titled "Letter from a concerned reader", this column justly trivialises what we normally (mis)take as important issues. The writer expresses his humorous thoughts conversationally and interestingly. Inclusion of this weekly contribution is a pleasant surprise from The Hindu which is normally associated with sedate seriousness and staid statements.

This is a double surprise because bankers are considered to be too serious to be concerned with lighter moments of life and flippant observations on those moments.

Teacher's tricks

The following was published in The Hindu on September 29th:

Coping mechanisms in today's classrooms of the new generation

On voluntarily retiring from a commercial bank after 30-odd years of service as an unsuccessful manager, I wanted to become a teacher. Didn’t George Bernard Shaw say, “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches”?

It did not take long for me to be convinced that I was a successful teacher. Session after session, students thanked me profusely, claiming that my lectures were proving to be an effective cure for their insomnia, but without any side effects.

However, very soon the impact of a new teacher was wearing thin. Participants started coming late to class. All my pleadings that punctuality was essential for maintaining academic discipline and to ensure that they did not miss any part of the lessons taught were in vain. Finally I made it a rule that late-comers would occupy the front row. Late arrivals ceased forthwith!

Students avoided the front row, fearing that sleeping there would be noticed easily. They are perhaps not aware that many teachers focus more on the rear rows where mischief normally occurs. Whenever the front row was vacant, my ego would receive a jolt. So, after the arrival of all students I would quietly remove the chairs in the front row.

I found to my amusement that students’ knack of enjoying forty winks during lectures has crossed an evolutionary threshold. They have now developed the knack of sleeping with their eyes open. My doctor friends tell me there is a medical term for this: ‘lagophthalmos’. Though doctors treat this as an inability to close the eyelids completely while sleeping, present-day students have made it an ability to sleep with eyes open!

The practice of lagophthalmos among the student community makes the job of a teacher frustrating. It becomes difficult to know whether astudent is actually sleeping or not because all have their eyelids open. Whenever I suspected that a person was sleeping though the eyes were open, I would go near the person and ask a question on what was being discussed. Students usually outsmarted me because they were not only sleeping with their eyelids open, but in addition were talking in sleep (a cultivated condition called ‘somniloquy’). Though what the student was mumbling would have no relevance to the topic under discussion, I would prefer to think the student was in fact attentive and would walk away. This would keep my self-confidence as a teacher intact.

I was always interested in knowing how I was shining as a teacher in comparison with others. To my utter shock, another teacher told me once that when he checked up with a student in my class, he could not even remember what was discussed in the class. From that dismaying day, I ensured that I always wrote in block letters the subject of discussion on the white board. It is my firm hope that seeing in bold letters the topic of discussion for 60-odd minutes would make it impossible not to remember at least the topic. But to my odd blend of eternal joy and consternation, the students make the impossible happen.

It was not as though I wanted to become a teacher only after quitting the bank. When I was the manager of a large branch, a General Manager of the bank visited the branch for an on-the-spot assessment of my performance. The branch was notorious for its non-performing assets and therefore my main focus was on recovery. The General Manager made it clear to me that my performance was far from satisfactory. Unrelated to this, I had earlier applied for a faculty position in the Staff Training College of the bank. The interview to select the faculty members was held the next day. The General Manager who visited the branch the previous day was on the interview panel. I was hoping that I would be selected because my branch performance was ‘unsatisfactory’. But the wily General Manager initiated the interview asking me why I was interested in teaching when my field performance was ‘excellent’. I was tongue-tied and, needless to say, was not selected for that post.

srivarahan@yahoo.com

Printable version | Sep 30, 2015 5:02:13 PM | http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/a-teachers-tricks-and-treats/article7699190.ece

© The Hindu

The Hindu

There are many in Chennai who are 'addicted' to The Hindu and treat any developments in or to The Hindu as personally significant. Such readers are now unpleasantly intrigued by what is happening in the still developing story of Rahul Panditha's exit from the newspaper.

Rahul Panditha  was till recently the OP-ED editor of The Hindu. A renowned journalist, he was deemed a prize catch for the newspaper in March, 2014. Last week, he resigned and placed his resignation letter in the public domain. He was offended by the Editor Malini Parthasarathy's micro-management practices which he termed as illogical and stumbling blocks to journalists. His exit follows, though not in a connected way, those of Siddarth Varadarajan, P.Sainath and Praveen Swamy. (Readers are wondering when Suhasini Haidar will depart!)

The Hindu has not reported the details of Panditha's abrupt resignation. It is not expected to report either. But it has published a letter from CRPF IG questioning the veracity of various reports filed by Panditha. The newspaper has also regretted "any inaccuracies" in the reports. Panditha wonders in the social media why the newspaper did not consult him on inaccuracies if any.

In this situation, it was perplexing to hear N.Ram expound the concept of 'Freedom of the Press' at Srinivasa Sastry Hall, Mylapore on 3rd inst.