Griffin Shouldn't Have Been on Question Time

“Shame. On. You. BBC!”



“Nazi. Scum! Off. Our. Streets!”


Facing a wall of policemen, anti-fascists and anti-racists screamed at the top of their lungs.


The outrage over the decision to invite the racist British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin onto a respected show like ‘Question Time’ had reached the BBC’s doorstep in Wood Lane, London. Inside, Griffin shared a panel for the first time with members of mainstream parties taking questions from a studio audience. He was hounded but never cornered. Although that doesn’t really matter because a man with views as odious as his should never have been on Question Time (QT) in the first place. The BBC was wrong to invite him.


A quick glance at some of the BNP’s claims to fame quickly reveals its racist agenda. It was only a few weeks ago that the party was forced by the court to change its constitution which earlier allowed only white people to become members. Griffin himself was convicted in 1998 for inciting racial hatred. His anti-Semitic past goes back a long way since he is understood to have read Mein Kampf at 13 and later said it had “some really useful ideas.”


Where this starts to become quite sinister is that he has been trying to give the BNP a veneer of respectability by talking about his extremist agenda in code or when it suits him, not at all. He has said, “This is a life-and-death struggle for white survival, not a fancy-dress party. Less banner waving and more guile wouldn’t go amiss.”


A more undeserving candidate for Question Time’s panel is hard to find.


The BBC was wrong for one principal reason. The format of Question Time legitimizes Nick Griffin. Having worked in television I know that the only way to get close to nailing down a double-speaking politician is to interview him or her individually and at length. Sort of like Karan Thapar’s demolition of Arjun Singh or Katie Couric’s demolition of Sarah Palin. However, with four other panelists, a moderator and an audience pulling the “discussion” this way and that, Griffin wriggled out just fine and for a while even managed to turn the tables on his fellow panelists who yammered on about failed immigration policies.


By placing him on a panel, he received the status of an “equal” or worse, won sympathy, going by the complaints the BBC received about unfair treatment towards Griffin. As if on cue, Griffin has complained that he was confronted by a “lynch mob” in London (where QT was shot) which according to him is “no longer a British city.”


After angry demands that the invitation to Griffin be withdrawn, the BBC dug in further saying censorship was the job of the government and not the BBC. I agree. And in fact, its not censorship that I want but a display of better editorial judgment. The BNP should not be removed from the airwaves. When their party wins an election or incites violence or does anything “newsworthy” then they must be covered. Nick Griffin must be interviewed, but just not on shows like Question Time that throw a cloak of respectability around the BNP.


The chief counter-argument in this debate is that not inviting Griffin violates his freedom of speech. But this is a slightly uni-dimensional way of looking at it because this line of reasoning ignores the fact that words can be used as codes - understood by the right audience, while staying within the law or simply as lies that suppress a darker agenda.


Griffin has said as much while sharing a platform with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, whom he ridiculously called “non-violent.” Standing before a crowd of white nationalists, Griffin told them it was all about using “saleable words” such as “democracy”, “freedom” and “identity”. “Nobody can criticize them. Nobody can come at you and attack you for those ideas. Perhaps one day, by being rather more subtle, we’ve got ourselves in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say yes, every last one must go (non-white immigrants).”


Words can be sweet and sinister. Such tactics allow the BNP to become more and more acceptable, while completely deflecting attention away from its real thuggish agenda. It is exactly that kind of creeping extremism that any society needs to guard against.


This brings me back to my argument. If we have genuinely committed to the dustbin of history the notions of racial purity and white supremacy, what we need today is not censorship but a much more rigorous cross-examination of the return of such destructive politics The BBC, which otherwise does this so well and which has truly earned the trust of its audiences, I regret to say, betrayed them this time.


This piece was published in The Indian Express on 30th October 2009.

Protests Outside BBC Against Invitation to Far-right Party

A poster outside the BBC Television Studios in Wood Lane in London.

A coalition of organisations under the umbrella of 'Unite Against Fascism' protested outside the BBC Television Centre in Wood Lane in London. Hundreds of people shouted slogans like "Shame On You BBC" and "Nazi Scum Off Our Streets" to protest against the BBC's decision to invite far-right British National Party leader Nick Griffin onto the show 'Question Time'. This is a highly respected show and anti-fascists argue that the BBC acted irresponsibly by allowing a racist like Griffin on because it gives him the legitimacy he craves. The BBC has said that in the interests of fairness and impartiality and by virtue of his winning two seats in the European Parliamentary elections earlier this year, they could invite Griffin and subject him to the same scrutiny that all political parties are put through.

A wall of policemen blocked the protesters from behind and from the front.

Police blocking one of the main entrances to the BBC Television Centre. Nick Griffin had to go in through another entrance.

Random dude who had climbed onto the traffic lights. He seemed fairly uninterested in the protest itself. He even had a smoke up there.

People of all ages and several different ethnicities and backgrounds came for the protest.

Shakila Mann from the Southall Black Sisters, an NGO working for the rights of Black and Asian women said, "The BBC can make a choice. They have a free will as a broadcaster. They won't show any programs that are pro-Palestinian and get a lot of pressure from the Zionist lobby - for example not to show fund-raising for the Palestinians which happened recently and they made a choice not to run that fund-raising campaign. Why is it that they can make a choice there but can't make a choice on this?

Protests Against the BBC for Inviting Nick Griffin

BBC’s decision to invite the British National Party’s (BNP) Nick Griffin onto its programme ‘Question Time’ has rightfully invited a storm of protests by anti-fascists. The BNP is a racist political party which until a few days ago had a constitution that did not allow Blacks and Asians to become members of its organisation. The BBC has had to defend its decision vigorously, saying it is not for them but the government to censor groups like the BNP. Their justification for inviting him is that editorial impartiality demands it and that if more than a million people had voted for the BNP in the European elections, practical reality as well.


It has also been framed as a debate between those who oppose free speech and those who uphold it.


All of this is rejected by the coalition of ‘Unite Against Fascism’. At a protest meeting last night at the Conway Hall in Holborn (picture above), the debate was framed quite differently. Does freedom of speech really apply in a case when a party is committed to suppressing the rights and freedoms of an ethnic minority? So what if the BNP won a certain percentage of the vote in the European Parliamentary elections, doesn’t their racist ideology remain wrong regardless of whether 6% or 60% voted for it? Isn’t the BBC legitimizing a well-known fascist who incidentally has also learnt how to adapt his message depending on the audience he is speaking to?


I heard an interview Nick Griffin did with Sky News and its obvious that the man has learnt how to speak in code. For instance, he’ll say that although not “indigenously British” he has absolutely no problem with law-abiding Asians or Blacks. They may stay. But those who can’t stay within the law, can’t stop snatching British jobs from British workers and can’t stop ruining the peace and tranquility of these lovely islands, should leave. And on and on he can go while appearing as though he is being targeted for standing up for the rights of white people.


I think there are very clear-headed reasons for not allowing Nick Griffin onto Question Time. I’ll update this space with an op-ed soon.

How Not To Conduct a Press Conference

Cliff Kincaid speaking at the National Press Club at a press conference held by 'The Campaign for Justice for Victims of Weather Underground'.

Retired police officer James Pera.

Larry Grathwohl who said he infiltrated the Weather Underground while working for the FBI.

On March 12th, the ‘Campaign for Justice for Victims of Weather Underground Terrorism’ held a press conference at the National Press Club in DC. It was held, in hindsight rather inappropriately, at the First Amendment Lounge. Part of the conference was used to rant against Rupert Murdoch’s publishing company Harper Collins for promoting former Weatherman, Mark Ruud’s book. Cliff Kincaid, journalist and editor of Accuracy in Media (AIM) demanded, “Kill this book, a despicable terrorist memoir.” (He later clarified that he didn’t want the book banned, he just wanted Harper Collins to drop it.)

The group called the conference to highlight their call for justice for Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell who was killed in 1970 when a bomb went off at the Golden Gate Park Police Station in San Francisco. They want the Justice Department to redouble efforts in helping solve the case by providing all evidence it has. Furthermore, one of the speakers, Larry Grathwohl, a former FBI agent who infiltrated the Weather Underground claims Bill Ayers, the group’s founder told him that his wife Bernadine Dohrne planted the bomb at the police station.

The group wants Ayers and Dohrne to testify under oath before a grand jury if they really are innocent as Bill Ayers has claimed in media interviews.

All perfectly reasonable so far.

But heres why this post is titled 'How not to Conduct a Press Conference'.

Things started to sound really strange when words such as ‘Marxism’ and ‘Communism’ were bandied about as though it was the height of the Cold war and Sputnik had just been lobbed into the outer atmosphere. The speakers' clocks seemed to be set to 1959 instead of the current year.

At the end of the five speeches after everyone had collectively dreamed up the insidious phantasm of radical leftist ideas raging wildly across college campuses, it was time for q and a with the media, even the gangrenous liberal one.

The first question came from an African-American reporter from Free Speech Radio. The reporter’s long-winded question was about why none of the speakers had addressed the question of police brutality and the tumultuous backdrop of the 1970s. He was silenced rudely by Cliff Kincaid and another speaker, James Pera, a retired police officer who accused the reporter, of being an “ignoramus who only reads books” and listens to radical preachers, among other things. Then they accused him of rationalizing violence and terrorism and finally threatened to call security. The reporter shot back saying, “I’ll leave on my own. Would you like me to?” Kincaid replied, “I want you to be quiet and let us talk.”

Moral of the story is this: There are some basic mistakes that should be avoided to ensure that you will be taken seriously by the media. Or anybody. Do not threaten to throw out reporters from the room because you don’t like their questions. Do not provide information 20 years late (such as the threat of Communism) and if you can help it, do not use the words “ignoramus” and “books” in the same sentence.

DEMOCRACY SHOULD BE ON THE AIR AND IN THE PAPERS

Indian journalism hit a new low when covering the Aarushi murder case earlier this year. Journalists appeared to have lost all sense of decency; hounding a grieving family, based on the sketchy, sordid details provided by the police.

I don’t want to dwell on the distasteful coverage again. I have written about it here before.

But the questions that remain are: What lessons has the Indian media learnt from the episode? Has it evolved a standard for the future? Will it self-regulate or will wait for a national outcry again, before learning to behave?

I’m sure there are internal codes of conduct for every organization but this needs to happen at an industry-wide level. In neighbouring Pakistan, the media has understood its influence as a player in politics and in fact even its power to make and break governments. And while the country is not exactly the beacon of democracy, Pakistani journalism is taking a few very democratic steps, worthy of emulation.

Speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C., Zaffar Abbas, the resident editor of ‘Dawn’ in Islamabad said last month, “We handled the previous government; a new government has come in but it’s now time to have a self-assessment of our own performance.”

According to Abbas, “The role of the vernacular newspapers has become very important with 3 to 5 million newspaper readers and 50 to 60 million viewers of 24/7 news channels. It has suddenly changed Pakistan – changed Pakistan to an extent and with a speed that now people have started to say – what are these TV channels telling us? Is that the real politics in this country? Should there be some kind of control over the way issues are being raised? People are raising questions about anchors and reporters - have they become real players in making and breaking governments? Should that be allowed?”

To temper this new found power and influence the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists has evolved its own code of conduct, part of which involves the setting up of a Media Complaints Commission.

Abbas explains, “We need to have a commission largely because some newspapers and TV channels in this country have started on the notion that since we are independent we can broadcast anything that we think is right. The difference between what is right and what we think is right is huge! And that is why the whole debate has come in. Do TV channels have the right to intrude upon anyone’s privacy? Can they cross the line of objectivity? What should be reported and what should not be reported?”

“So the whole concept is to go for self-regulation and to allow the members of the public to approach the complaints commission with their own views and their own complaints.”

A panel of retired judges and professors will look into the complaints and decide whether a particular newspaper or TV channel has violated the self-made code of conduct.

It sounds like a fairer, more democratic way of doing things although it is still in its nascent stage and has not yet been tested. And of course, being open will bring with it attendant problems. For starters, it will probably require tremendous effort and paper work to keep such an operation going.

It is however still worth trying in India because in a democracy why should power be concentrated so heavily with the media? Why should the media go unchallenged if it destroys reputations and careers without evidence? Why shouldn’t people be able to contest the way they are represented? If a free press is a crucial pillar of democracy, shouldn’t the media also be more democratic?

In the spirit of fairness, that most basic of journalistic tenets, this is worth trying.

SOME THOUGHTS ON ORISSA

Houses and churches were vandalised even in the first round of violence that hit Kandhamal district over Christmas 2007. Nearly 11 people were killed. Photo credit: Dr. Angana P. Chatterji

The Indian media devoted significant chunks of time and space to the Indo-US nuclear deal. But in the US, its coverage was conspicuous by its absence. The 700 billion dollar bail-out package and the shenanigans of the legislators on the Hill overtook everything else. Bush’s rare foreign policy ‘success’ went largely unnoticed.

So, given that a huge story involving India, of tremendous national and international importance got the royal ignore, how did the communal conflagration in Orissa make it to the front page? In the New York Times this morning was a colour photograph with a story headlined – ‘Hindu Threat to Christians: Convert or Flee.’

I am surprised not because it made the front page. I am surprised because there is enough and more happening on the campaign and in the American economy to dominate the front page. This is not to say that I am disappointed. I think such awareness forces India to be more accountable for its actions and that is a very, very, good thing.

What intrigues me is why this particular story received such prominent status.

The obvious answer is of course that several western Christian nations, the Vatican included, have questioned India on what it is doing to protect its co-religionists.

But a somewhat deeper and more convoluted answer is that the concern of the west is itself part of a long tradition of Christendom. For instance, before the 20th century, humanitarian intervention in military form, to protect people other than the intervening nation’s own nationals was largely done to protect only Christians from the Ottomans. In fact, “human” in the word 'humanitarian' two centuries ago usually meant being Christian. Persecuted Jews and Turks were ruthlessly massacred with nary a word of concern from anyone.

And interestingly, the discussion in India over the Orissa story has involved the damage to India’s image because it is the powerful west for the first time seeing one of its interests threatened inside India and raising questions on its conduct. Contrast this concern over the dent to the Indian image with the outrage over the US denying Modi a visa over Muslim killings in Gujarat. There was plenty of nationalistic anger over Indian sovereignty being undermined. With the Orissa story it is almost entirely about ‘image’.

Isn’t the contrast interesting?

WOMEN AND THE MEDIA

The following piece is the text of a talk given by my friend S. R. Madhu on 'Women and the Media.' I thought this would be a good place to reproduce it.


Friends,
Before I plunge into the subject of "Women and the media," let me conduct a little quiz on the subject.

Who is the first journalist to earn a salary of a million dollars a year? (Barbara Walters)
Who is the lady journalist from Kerala who covered several wars for CNN and Time magazine? (Anita Pratap)
Who is the editor of the best-known Indian magazine for women’s empowerment? (Madhu Kishwar, editor of Manushi)
Who is the only woman editor today of a major Indian daily newspaper? (Mrinal Pande, editor of Hindustan).

Why should we study women and the media? Because this subject is a mirror of women’s empowerment, according to Gloria Steinem herself. There’s a strong connection between women’s media and women’s empowerment.

What are the strengths of women as media specialists? They are more observant than men, they are more sensitive to unfairness and injustice than men, they often speak and write better than men.

Further, women are more effective than men in drawing people out, getting them to speak. They are more effective interviewers than men, particularly when the subject is a celebrity. One reason is that women have easy access to the celebrity’s wife, daughter, sister or mother – who are often the best sources of rare nuggets of information.

In my talk today, I’ll compare the status of women in the media about 50 years ago and now. I’ll discuss some issues concerning women in the media, then give you a few snapshots of some outstanding or exciting women achievers in the media today.

The status of women in the Indian media has undergone a tectonic shift. In the 1960s, most newspapers did not even have a single woman. Rami Chhabra was 19 when she met Prem Bhatia for a job in the Statesman of Calcutta. She was well qualified, she had just won an award from the BBC, and she was passionate about working in a newpaper.

Prem Bhatia looked up from his desk and said "Young lady, if you want to work in a daily, wipe off that lipstick and remove those ear-rings. Pretty girls shouldn’t be in newspaper offices. They distract the men." Prem Bhatia went back to his work, and Rami Chhabra stood dismissed. She approached other newspapers, but they said: "We know you write well. But why don’t you just sit at home and give us articles? We’ll both be happy."

In fact, some of the most legendary editors in India uttered similar sentiments. Girirlal Jain of the Times of India said a daily newspaper was no place for a woman. Later his own daughter joined a daily newspaper. Pran Chopra, another great editor, denied Razia Ismail a job saying "I’m sure you’ll refuse to do night shifts." Razia Ismail later had a distinguished career in the United Nations.

Difficult working conditions

But gradually, the prejudice against women in newspapers weakened. Newspapers in India started hiring women as reporters and subeditors. But they faced difficult working conditions.

-- There was no separate toilet for them, and a girl reporter often had to go down three floors or go up four floors to find a ladies’ toilet.
-- Usha Rai of the Times of India, wife of famous photographer Raghu Rai, says that when she got pregnant, she was shocked to discover that there was no provision for maternity leave! She had to fight for it before she got it! Some newspapers peremptorily divided three months of maternity leave into six weeks before the baby, six weeks after the baby. If the lady said, "I want only one week before the baby and seen weeks after the baby," managements didn’t agree.
-- Women had complaints about unequal pay and work conditions. Women were often given low-fee contracts, not absorbed on the staff. And women were always assigned soft stories – flower shows, gallery shows, fashion shows, beauty contests, book launches, film and drama reviews. They were thrown crumbs from the reporting beat, while men covered Parliament, the Prime Minister’s office, the Home Ministry, Finance Ministry and so on.

There was sexual harassment. In Mumbai, a news bureau chief assigned a girl to do a story on pornographic literature on the pavements, and passed on to her on his collection of pornographic limericks as "research material".

Ammu Joseph who lives in Bangalore, has written a book titled Making News: Women in Journalism. It is based on interviews with 200 women journalists from different parts of India. The book contains many interesting stories and anecdotes, many of them unpleasant.

In a newspaper office the night shift is the most important. Meena Menon of the UNI says when she volunteered for night duty, the news editor remarked: "So you don't mind being raped!' And broke into a laughing fit till he became breathless. Some women who walked home after night shift were harassed on the road. People assumed that a woman alone on the street at night could only be a prostitute.

In the 1980s, labour laws were passed saying that no woman should work alone on a newspaper night shift, there should be at least two women. And they should be provided transport back home. Because of this rule, many newspapers all over India did not employ women on the night shift.
On the other hand, some newspapers were sometimes overly protective about women. Usha Rai was once covering a price rise demonstration outside the Super Bazar in Delhi. Word broke out that the police had resorted to tear gas. Her bosses in the Times of India broke into a panic. They got two male journalists to locate and rescue Usha Rai.

In The Statesman, Tavleen Singh, who is one of India’s best-known columnists, insisted that she would drive home in her own car after night duty, she wouldn’t take the office car. For a whole year, The Statesman sent a chauffeur- driven office car behind Tavleen Singh’s car, to escort her.

The Renaissance: Women in the Media after 1976

In 1976, after the emergency was lifted and Mrs Gandhi was thrown out of power, the Indian press went through a renaissance. Many new magazines started. For women, it looked as if the floodgates had opened. Opportunities for them expanded and opened up. And today, newspapers and magazines are teeming with bright women. They are everywhere, doing everything -- covering political and economic news, the CBI, the foreign office, sports and even the stock market. They are talented, well-educated, sharp, and extremely ambitious. And TV news is dominated by women.

I would like to provide a few snapshots of some of the best and brightest women in the media business today.

Snapshots: Anita Pratap

Anita Pratap first came to the limelight when she interviewed
Prabhakaran of LTTE and wrote on the shameful anti-Tamil riots of 1983. In fact there were rumours of a romance between her and Prabhakaran, and she discounted them fiercely, she said Prabhakaran was grateful to her for her coverage of the ethnic problem. She wrote the book "Island of blood" on Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict.

Anita also reported several wars for the CNN and Time magazine – the Afghan war and the Taliban’s triumph, India-Pakistan wars, the Naxalite menace in the northeast, India’s nuclear tests. She has interviewed the Prime Ministers or Presidents of several countries.

She was the first TV journalist to report from the highest battleground on earth, the 22,000 ft Siachen glacier, where Indian and Pakistani armies exchanged fire almost every day.

Anita Pratap writes forcefully, insightfully, often caustically on political subjects. Besides hardcore breaking news, Anita Pratap has reported on development issues such as population, education, health care, poverty alleviation, women’s concerns. She is now an independent documentary film-maker.


Madhu Kishwar

Let me now talk about Madhu Kishwar, a social activist and the editor of Manushi, and a great symbol of women’s empowerment. Manushi has been described as one of the world’s best women’s magazines, also as the voice of India’s conscience.

Manushi was founded in 1978 by Madhu Kishwar and a few others with a capital of Rs 500. What makes the magazine unique is that it accepts no advertisements and no donations. Sometimes the magazine doesn’t have money even for postage. In its early years, it could not even afford a typewriter. The magazine has 6,000 subscribers in India, Europe, the US, Africa and Australia.

Says Madhu Kishwar. "In India, you get a lot of affection and respect if
if people are convinced that you're not out to make money, that you are a genuine social worker."

Madhu Kishwar desribes Manushi as a "catalyst to make our society more just and humane. We don’t just passively put together articles that come to us, we initiate positive and corrective change."

Manushi is more than a magazine. It provides legal aid, it conducts human rights campaigns, it publishes books, it even organizes street plays. It exposes discrimination against women. But it is not a magazine for women only. Manushi is also every thinking man's magazine.
Early issues of Manushi focused on atrocities against women and the pliht of the landless poor. But now, the magazine is more reflective and philosophical. It carries inspirational people profiles, it discusses Indian traditions and tribal rituals. It carries poetry, film reviews, book reviews, short stories and analyses of social trends and political events. Every issue carries a thoughtful piece by Madhu Kishwar herself. She once outlined a down-to-earth 10-point plan to strengthen Hinduism.
Readers almost died laughing when Manushi ran a piece on the superiority of Indian-style toilets over Western-style toilets!

Madhu Kishwar has remained unmarried. She is strongly attached to her family. Her father is a retired LIC officer, her mother is a housewife. She says she derives her strength from the unconditional love showered on her from her family – not just her parents, but grandparents, aunts and uncles.

Madhu Kishwar says "The only women I have had problems with are Indian feminists. They empathise with Western feminism, not with our own society and people. For some reason they're the only ones who can't stand Manushi. Nothing satisfies them. I don't understand what they want. I have an uneasy feeling that they want to remould Indian women into creatures alienated from their own social environment." Not everyone agrees with Madhu Kishwar but everyone respects her.

Barkha Dutt

Barkha Dutt is perhaps the first lady of Indian television. She has recorded so many "firsts," and won several awards, specially for her coverage of the Kargil war. She does interesting programmes every week. For her, and for many other TV reporters and anchors, nothing matters more than a good story. They are prepared to do anything -- even maybe risk their lives or break the law -- for a good story.

To illustrate this trait in Barkha Dutt, here's an anecdote. She wanted to visit Afghanistan and do an eye-witness story. India's Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh was going to Kandahar on a political visit, he wasn't taking any press people with him. But Barkha was determined to go. She rushed to the airport. When she saw a bread van about to leave for the tarmac and deliver bread to Jaswant Singh's plane, she sweet-talked the driver of the van, got into it and reached the plane. The Finance Minister was horrified and ticked her off. Barkha was disappointed that she couldn't pull it off. "But at least I tried", she told herself.

Mrinal Pande

Mrinal Pande is an icon of Indian journalism. She is the first Indian woman to be the editor-in-chief of a national daily newspaper, Hindustan. It is part of the Hindustan Times group and comes out from several cities.

Mrinal Pande has studied English and Sanskrit literature, ancient Indian history, archeology, classical music and the visual arts. She published a short story at the age of 21, and has been writing ever since, for the past 40 years – journalism, fiction, drama and essays. She has also been a columnist, broadcaster and television presenter.

She has spent several years on the National Commission for Self-Employed Women, inquiring into the conditions for rag-pickers, vegetable sellers and domestic help. Her recent book "Stepping Out, Life and Sexuality in Rural India", is a revealing book on the condition of women in rural India.

Mrinal Pande says "I may have neglected my family because of my work. But I believe that writers are selfish. Others make more room for writers, than they make for others."

Sucheta Dalal

Sucheta Dalal, 45, is one of India’s most powerful journalists. She is the person who exposed the Harshad Mehta scam in the early 1990s and the Ketan Parekh scam a couple of years ago. She is a consulting editor of MoneyLife, a personal finance magazine. She is a columnist for the Indian Express and for rediff.com, and a consulting editor of Financial Express.

Sucheta Dalal is known for a simple terse style, free of flourishes. She writes from the standpoint of the common citizen and the average investor, and she fearlessly exposes what is corrupt, what is dubious, what is questionable.

Sucheta is the author of two books,. One of them is about stock market scams, the other is a biography of industrialist A D Shroff. She has worked with two financial dailies -- Business Standard and The Economic Times. The government made her a member of the Investor Protection and Education Fund, and that has been warmly welcomed by the general public.

Bachi Karkaria

Finally, a few words about Bachi Karkaria. She is an excellent writer – witty, forceful, elegant. She has held one of the prize jobs in journalism in India, that of editor of the Times of India. She says her father passed on two mantras to her. One: make your own sunshine. Two, be flexible. If you bend, you won't break.

She is outspoken about how far women have come in the media. She says "The women we interview for jobs are so much better than men, that sometimes we take a man just as a token gesture for men." About the biggest challenge facing women in the media, she says: They should stop thinking gender, they should only think professional.

I think that’s a great message for the future. The media in India belongs to women – provided they don’t talk gender, they only talk professional.