video

Part II

N Ram has won several Awards including the Padma Bhushan award, Asian Investigative Journalist of the Year Award, Press Foundation of Asia's Manila award, B D Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism(shared), The New Delhi Award (citation mentioning Bofors investigation), Freedom of Information Award, National Citizen's Award, Vasirddy Malathy Trust's Award, Krishnan Memorial Award, XLRI's First JRD Tata Award for Business Ethics, and the Alumni award from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He has served as member of the National Integration Council.

Chennaionline's H Ramakrishnan interviewed N Ram. Excerpts:

Ramakrishnan: Good Morning, Mr Ram. Nice meeting you. Can you kindly recall your early years, your childhood days, your education ....

N Ram: Yes, I can remember very well. First, I was admitted to Church Park Convent. After a few months, I was shifted to the Rosary matriculation School. I remember that very well. The school was very interesting. It was largely a girls' school. Mr P Chidambaram, who is now Finance Minister was my classmate. We were together. When we were in the Fourth Form, they kicked us upstairs. They gave us a double promotion, because they didn't want boys who were getting older to be in a Girls' School.

KURUVILLA JACOB

So both of us were moved to the Madras Christian College High School. That is the real memory, because we had a remarkable Head Master, Mr Kuruvilla Jacob, who was a legend in Head-mastery. He was modern. He was progressive. He knew every school boy there. He was broad minded and believed in many-sided education. He became the Head Master much before I entered the School. He is the most important educator in my life and the life of many of my contemporaries and classmates, who went through this unique experience. A few years ago, we celebrated his centenary.

In the Madras Christian College High school, apart from studies, I was interested in Humanities, although I liked Science. I played a lot of Cricket. To combine these two was not easy. Now, these days, if you play Cricket, you will have to basically give up your studies, although you may be a good student. Ramanathan Krishnan, Vijay Amrith Raj, Venkataraghavan, Satvendar Singh, Srikant, Kumble and various other renowned sports-persons were very good students as well. You have got to balance the two. If you merely play sports, I think you may have to lose out. If you don't concentrate on sports, then again, you lose out. To strike a balance was difficult and in that school, it was possible. I was not a cricketer in that kind of league. But I made it to the University and marginally to first class cricket. I also played some tennis, table tennis and a little bit of softball. The school, led by a very inspiring Head Master was a shaping experience.

LOYOLA COLLEGE

Then we moved on to the Loyola College, a very fine college, where you had to do a pre-University course. I can recall these things very well. I did History. Chidambaram went on to the Prsidency College, where he did his Statistics. I then did my M A in Presidency College and went on later to do my journalism course in Columbia University.

I have merely catalogued the years of my education. Through this I think you understand the need for two things. One, the quality of education is important. A kind of a rounded education is important. But access is also important. In the Christian College school of those days as well as in Loyola College, you met people from all walks of life. You became sensitive to different social requirements, backgrounds and so on. People from all religions, castes and from different cultural backgrounds. It was quite a good exposure to the magnificent diversity that is India. I went largely to Christain institutions till I went to Presidency College. They were very good. Whether it was a Catholic School like Rosary Matriculation or the protestant school like the Madras Christian College High school or the

Jesuits College, they were excellent. There was no discrimination, nothing suggesting narrow mindedness. It was a tremendous experience.

Apart from quality, these schools also brought in diversity. They were not in that sense 'elitist'. None of them. Loyola College has made progress in bringing more diversity, by providing opportunities for those from disadvantaged and deprived backgrounds - more than in my days. This is something I am very happy about.

QUALITY Vs ACCESS

The whole point is, in all intellectual endeavour, there is a tension between the commitment to quality - you want to be world class, you want to be out there and opening your gates wide to society, to people from all backgrounds. It is very easy to say it on paper, but very hard to do it in practice. How do you provide equal opportunity or compensate the opportunities for those who have been socially and historically denied the opportunity to study like those, who want to become the first graduates in their families. If you merely do that, if you merely open your gates wide and don't pay attention to quality, it is useless. You will produce only rubbish education. And, if you concentrate merely on quality and don't open your gates wide, provide for diversity, give opportunities to people from disadvantaged backgrounds, women in particular, then it is no use, because then you are island of self-proclaimed excellence, not making any kind of social contribution, not tapping the talents in your society. These are things that I learnt from Schools, not always in a very conscious way. Looking back, you are grateful for these things and people like Kuruvilla Jacob, Father Lawrence Sundaram, Father Coyle and Father Sequera, were tremendously committed to education, but also in a broad sense. I can recall those school and college years pretty well.

Rama: I think you got the University First rank in MA. What were your feelings?

Ram: It didn't go to my head, because it was very hard work. History didn't attract much competition either. While I was pleased about it, I didn't think to be on top of the world or anything like that. These days very few people will choose History in a general College. May be they might go to Aligarh Muslim University or St. Stephens or the Delhi University. I don't know where they have this specialisation. But, History is now relegated to the sidelines in India; not abroad, not in the best Universities of the world, not in the JNU either. Looking back, I am quite grateful that I did History. But I was allowed to do History because the kind of pressure that the young people face today was not there. Today, it is all Engineering, Commerce, IT etc. It is good that there are so many . Professional opportunities. But what is not good is the looking down upon subjects like History. Unfortunately the quality is also not good, the kind of syllabus, the curriculum that they have. If you have the interest, you could do quite a lot.

OBSESSION

There is an obsession with professional education. On the one hand it is a good thing that so many opportunities are there. There are 250 plus Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu, an equal, if not in a greater number of them in Andhra Pradesh. Karnataka may have 200. Those days all you had was the Guindy Engineering College and IIT. Today, there is a sea change and that is a good thing. But in the bargain, you are missing out on study of humanities, history and the like. If you don't study History in some form, how can you consider yourself to have had rounded education. You wouldn't know anything about Ancient India, the Moghul Empire, the European arrival, the British rule or our freedom struggle. Then, what kind of an educated person are you?

Rama: How was your experience at the Columbia University in new York?

Ram: That was a tremendously exciting time. I went in 1967-68. During that year there was enormous ferment not only at the Columbia University, but right across young America. There was a protest movement against the war of aggression in Vietnam. There was a black power movement and many radical ideas in the air. And, Columbia University was the storm centre. I think I got influenced by it. I was radicalised by the experience. I also became an anti-war protester and then, I would say I then moved left.

Rama: Isn't it ironical that you moved towards the left in the United States?

Ram: Of course, because of the very strong movement there. In India I was largely an admirer of Jawaharlal Nehru. In fact I can tell you about my MA History exam, for which I scored very high marks. Nehru had just died. As you know students try to anticipate questions. Here it was quite frightening. You had to write one essay for three hours totally from your memory, without any notes whatsoever. Much depended on your correct guess. Of course, they will give a choice of three or four. I guessed it right, because Nehru had died and I had prepared for an essay on the Nehru Age for which I scored extremely high marks, largely because I was in sympathy with the subject I had prepared. And, because of the preparation for that subject, I became a serious admirer of Jawaharlal Nehru, his politics and his world-view. I read quite a lot about them. Still I have a lot of respect for Pundit Nehru. But while in the United states, I became more critical of him, the party he led, the movement he led, his Government and their policies. I began to look at India more seriously from the U S, and as you said, it is a paradox. . .

Rama: You have been in journalism for the past forty two years. In reporting, editing, editorial-writing, investigative journalism, sports journalism and magazine journalism. Among these, which on is your favourite?

Ram: I think Daily Journalism, although magazine journalism taught me a lot, particularly about long form writing, featuring and use of pictures. Nevertheless, I would say my aptitude is really for daily journalism. In fortnightly or even in weekly, you miss something. I am sure , it is the same thing for you as well. You had been in the thick of it and no body likes to be away from it. You have too much time on your hands. At the same time , my years I spent as editor of Frontline were also valuable because you learn to reflect more and it was harder work. It is fairly easy to run a daily, contrary to what people think. Not only because it is a larger team, but, you make decisions on the spot, right or wrong. You don' t bother too much about what is perceived to be the superficiality of journalism since it is still a news-providing medium in India, certainly. Elsewhere they would say you have to go behind the news or behind the front page function. But you will still be largely with the news, but also with analysis, background and comments. So daily journalism , I think provides excitement and is certainly more stimulating, as long as there as a real readership for daily journalism and in India we have that. Without it, I think it will be difficult.