TheDaak review

By Avichal Warke

Abstract

Caste biases and discrimination against Dalits in Indian society have been enduring social realities. Historically, Dalits have faced social exclusion based on caste, lacking a legitimate place in the Hindu social order and being relegated to a subordinate status within society. Mainstream media content reflects a strong so-called upper caste bias, especially when caste becomes a focal point in the news. The role of mass media is pivotal in large democracies, not only serving as a source of information and entertainment but also playing a central role in facilitating discussions and debates on crucial societal issues. The examination of diversity, or the lack thereof, in newsrooms is a relatively recent topic to pique academic interest, but the discussion around it is very important to understand the deep-rooted social realities, and plays a key role in shaping public opinion. Dalit women in Indian society are triply exploited on the basis of caste, class and gender. The often paired patriarchal undertones to the feminist narratives by the media makes it a tremendous task for women to voice their own challenges and put forth narrative through their voice. This task becomes mammoth and more complex when it infiltrates the caste hierarchy.

Introduction:

  Turn in any direction you like, caste is the monster that crosses your path. You cannot have political reform, you cannot have economic reform unless you kill this monster (Ambedkar, 1936). Caste biases and discrimination against Dalits in Indian society have been enduring social realities. Historically, Dalits have faced social exclusion based on caste, lacking a legitimate place in the Hindu social order and being relegated to a subordinate status within society. Even today, Dalits encounter various forms of humiliation, stigmatisation, and exclusion, particularly in rural areas of India. They continue to face barriers in accessing resources, education, and employment opportunities, coupled with discrimination in various aspects of their lives. Dalits face systemic exclusion in all walks of life. They still reside in segregated settlements, engage in occupations associated with defilement and stigma, and endure routine contempt, abuse, and ridicule. Physical atrocities against Dalits are unfortunately prevalent. NCRB’s ‘Crime in India’ reports that crimes against SCs went up 13% and against STs by 14.3% in 2022 (Pandit, 2023).  Although urban India is not free from social exclusion of Dalits, the nature and intensity of this exclusion differ, manifesting in more subtle and sophisticated ways.

  The historical roots of the caste system have led to social hierarchies and inequalities, with Dalits bearing the brunt of marginalization. Despite legal efforts to address these issues, like Article 15 (1) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, caste, religion, sex or place of birth; Article 17 of the Fundamental Rights of the Indian constitution which abolishes untouchability; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and more, the lived experiences of Dalits often reveal ongoing challenges. They continue to face barriers in accessing resources, education, and employment opportunities, coupled with discrimination in various aspects of their lives. They face discrimination in workplaces, educational institutes, classrooms and also among their peer circles. There is a rise in student suicide cases which can also be termed as ‘Institutional Murders’ because of the kind of pressure that is built upon students and the lack of mechanisms that should be built around to help them (Pillai, 2023). The recent example of Dr. Ritu Singh, an assistant professor at Daulat Ram College who belongs to the Dalit community, peacefully protesting for more than 125 days in front of the Arts Faculty against the arbitrary termination of her contract in 2020 shows the apathy towards Dalit women in the present day.

  The latest studies done in the institution of mainstream media echo the same concerns and mark out the stark differences and dismal representation of Dalits in newsrooms. These studies bring forward how decision-making power still resides with the upper caste elites. The primary aim of this essay is to unveil the caste biases and lack of representation in media. It looks at the history and present status of recruitments in the newsroom along with analysing the prejudice that is built around the news of people from marginalised sections of the society. The primary objective is to examine the role of caste in media and diversity in the newsrooms. This may further lead to an examination of the discourses set around caste, diversity, gender, representation and narratives in media. This helps in locating our social realities and formation of public opinion through the media. Through various studies and analysis, this essay tries to critically examine the social locations of individuals working in media and the extent to which the institution of media is representative of them. The further examination is about the portrayal of issues of the people belonging to the marginalised communities, Dalits in particular, and the so-called upper caste bias in trying to erase the caste angle even in the cases related to caste-based atrocities. This essay also highlights the circumstances which led Dalit women to come forward to voice their opinions in this highly exclusionary space of media. Expanding further, the essay tries to substantiate the concerns through the case study of media portrayal of one of the tallest leaders of the country, Mayawati. 

Understanding Media:

  The role of mass media is pivotal in large democracies, not only serving as a source of information and entertainment but also playing a central role in facilitating discussions and debates on crucial societal issues.  According to the Habermasian concept (1989) of the public sphere, which is defined as the space where important matters are discussed and debated for citizens’ participation in public life, the media holds a significant position. In an ideal public sphere, all citizens have guaranteed access, and freedom of assembly, association, and expression to form something akin to public opinion. Habermas (1989) identifies newspapers, magazines, radio, and television as the media responsible for creating this public sphere. However, he notes that corporate media dominance undermines the proper functioning of the public sphere by creating media monopolies that prioritize corporate interests over diverse discussions. Gail Omvedt (2003) extends the idea of the public sphere to the Indian context, asserting that for an institution to be truly “public,” it must represent all sections of society. Drawing from Jotirao Phule’s perspective, she argues that institutions not allowing representation for all sections become a facade safeguarding private interests, even if they claim to be public.

  The examination of diversity, or the lack thereof, in newsrooms is a relatively recent topic to pique academic interest, but the discussion around it is very important to understand the deep-rooted social realities, and plays a key role in shaping public opinion. This issue gained prominence after racial riots in the United States in the 1960s, particularly in Detroit. The Kerner Commission, established in 1967 to study the causes of the violence, highlighted the lack of diversity in American newsrooms as a reason for biased coverage of issues related to the Black population, contributing to their alienation and resulting violence (Kerner et al., 1968). This scrutiny led to the American Society of News Editors (ASNE) setting a diversity goal in 1978, aiming to make newsrooms as diverse as American society. Despite ongoing efforts, US newspapers have yet to fully achieve this goal, but the number of journalists from minority communities has shown an upward trend. What remains extremely crucial here is the biases in reporting issues and the steps taken thereof to ensure how these biases can be mitigated. The simple and possible answer was to increase the diversity in newsrooms. The question that comes to the fore is why diversity is important? And what constituted bias in the reporting of the issues? The answers to both these questions are in tandem as the social elites did not want to keep the narrative of the underprivileged forward. The power to portray the news in a certain way benefits them to build a narrative which is completely devoid of any reality. This also helps to delegitimize certain claims and decriminalizes the offense as was seen in the coverage of racial riots in America. This is why diversity is important to bring into light those important narratives and stories which help underprivileged communities to grow and move forward.

In the Indian context, the problem of diversity in newsrooms, particularly the absence of journalists from SC/ST/OBC backgrounds¹, persists despite the emergence of so called lower castes in electoral politics. A thorough examination of not just the diversity of the newsroom but also the issues taken up by them and their portrayal, i.e. to say not just if they are getting represented but also how they are being represented is pertinent. The transition to a capitalist-liberalized phase in the Indian economy has not significantly altered the so-called upper caste domination in media. Mainstream media content reflects a strong upper caste bias, especially when caste becomes a focal point in the news, such as discussions on reservations², caste census³, or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act⁴. Dalits having their own media platform is not a new idea, dating back to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s initiatives in the 1920s. He ran three Marathi periodicals named Mooknayak (Leader of the Voiceless) in 1920, Bahishkrut Bharat (Ostracised India) in 1927-29, and Janata in 1930, which was later renamed Prabuddha Bharat (Enlightened India) in 1956. His most successful student, and the founder of the Bahujan Samaj Party, Kanshi Ram also emphasized having a media house of the party and published a newspaper Bahujan Sanghatak. However, these efforts, including separate Dalit literature, have not integrated into the mainstream media in terms of circulation, reach, revenue, and impact. The fact that Bal Gangadhar Tilak even refused to print the advertisement of Mooknayak‘s first issue through his newspaper ‘Kesari‘ hints about the eagerness of the mainstream to accommodate the voices of the marginalised.   

  “The media serve and propagandize on behalf of the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well-positioned to shape and constrain media policy. This is normally not accomplished by crude intervention, but by the selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors’ and working journalists’ internalisation of priorities and definitions of newsworthiness that conform to the institution’s policy” (Chomsky & Herman, 1988: 11). A major challenge with legacy media, i.e., old media prior to the Information Age, particularly print, film & music studios, advertising agencies, radio and television, lies in its predominantly corporate ownership, making the industry undemocratic and discriminatory. Media monopoly and cross-media ownership, without regulatory frameworks, contribute to an industry driven by profit maximization rather than democratic principles. Advertisements, a primary revenue source for media corporations, lead to a bias in content that caters to the upper strata and excludes content related to the poor and rural masses which Chomsky and Herman defined as the ‘Propaganda Model’ (1988). The lack of diversity in media and its content thus encompasses both caste and class dimensions, shaping a media landscape that often prioritises the interests of the privileged while marginalising the voices and concerns of diverse sections of society.

Tracing the History of Underrepresentation:

  In the mid-1990s, Kenneth J Cooper, an African-American and then South Asian Correspondent of The Washington Post, raised a poignant observation about the dismal representation of so-called lower castes in Indian newspapers⁵. This critical insight into the demographic makeup of newsrooms necessitated B N Uniyal, a seasoned journalist based in Delhi associated with the Pioneer, to embark on a retrospective examination of his three-decade-long career. To his surprise, Uniyal realized that he had never encountered a fellow journalist from the Dalit community throughout his extensive tenure⁶. The purpose of the study was not an academic or detailed survey of the composition of different caste groups in the Indian newsrooms. The goal was to simply put the views of a Dalit journalist in one of Kenneth’s reports. This revelation became a pivotal moment, leading to broader implications for the diversity and inclusivity within India’s media landscape. It is interesting here to note that it required an African-American to ask such a groundbreaking question.

  The profound impact of these realizations manifested in the submission of a memorandum to the Press Council of India in late 1998 by a Dalit organization. This memorandum titled, “End Apartheid in Indian Media — Democratize Nation’s Opinion”, marked a significant call to action. It urged the establishment of a National Commission for Democracy in Indian media, aiming to rectify the stark underrepresentation of Dalits. The overarching goal was to align the caste composition within media organisations with the broader demographic distribution of the population by the year 2005 (Jeffrey, 2001).

  Jeffrey (2001), in his scholarly exploration of the dynamics within the Indian press, echoed the concerns raised by Cooper and Uniyal. He highlighted a disconcerting reality – the almost negligible presence of Dalits in roles critical to the journalistic process. This absence extended to reporters, subeditors, and even editors, with no Dalit-run dailies contributing to the media landscape. Jeffrey’s observations underscored not just a lack of representation but a systemic exclusion of Dalits from key decision-making positions in the media industry. Siddharth Varadarajan, writing in The Hindu in 2006, drew a direct link between the lack of diversity in newsrooms and the biased coverage witnessed during the anti-reservation agitation. His proposition was clear – a more diverse newsroom, inclusive of voices from historically marginalised communities, would not only bring forth untold stories but also contribute to a more nuanced and balanced portrayal of events.

  In the same year, the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) conducted a comprehensive survey that illuminated the stark reality of caste dynamics within Indian media. It conducted a survey which found that “of the 315 key decision-makers surveyed from 37 Delhi-based (Hindi and English) publications and television channels, nearly 90% of decision-makers in English language print media and a substantial 79% in television belonged to the ‘upper caste_^‘7.” This statistical evidence starkly illustrated the lack of diversity in crucial positions within media organizations, further corroborating the qualitative observations made by Cooper, Uniyal, and Jeffrey.

  The latest study to find out the social composition of the newsrooms was conducted by Oxfam–NewsLaundry (2019). This report again shows the domination of upper castes in Indian newsrooms, including television, print, and digital media. Out of the 121 top positions analysed under the study, 106 were shown to be occupied by upper caste journalists. None of them belong to the SCs and STs. The report states that three out of every four anchors of flagship debates are upper caste. No one belongs to the SC (Dalit), the ST (Tribal or Adivasi), or the OBC. For over 70% of their flagship debate shows, news channels draw the majority of the panellists from the upper castes. Not more than 5% of all articles in English newspapers are written by Dalits and Tribal. Hindi newspapers fare slightly better at around 10%. Over half of those writings on issues related to caste in Hindi and English newspapers are upper caste. Around 72% of by-lined articles on news websites are written by people from the upper castes. The situation is quite serious, if not alarming as, according to the Census of 2011, the SCs are 16.6% of India’s population and the STs constitute 8.6%. According to the estimate of the Second Backward Class Commission, popularly known as the Mandal Commission, the OBC population is 52%. The Oxfam–NewsLaundry report shows that these three social groups are almost non-existent in leading positions in Indian media. These reports showed that there is a visible lack of social and caste diversity in Indian media and it has been largely an upper caste domain.

  While explicit evidence of conscious discrimination in recruitment processes remains elusive due to the opaque nature of media hiring, informal factors such as journalists’ networks have come under scrutiny. In the intricate tapestry of Indian society, human networks often operate within the deeply ingrained formula of caste. This raises questions about the influence of such networks on the hiring process and the perpetuation of existing caste-based imbalances.

Portrayal of Dalit issues and the problem of representation:

  Over the last two decades, there has been an increased focus on Dalit issues in mainstream Indian media compared to earlier times. This change can be attributed to various factors, including the heightened visibility of Dalit movements in several states following the Ambedkar centenary in 1990. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Dalit Foundation and human rights activists like Kiruba Munuswamy have also played a crucial role in exposing atrocities against Dalits across India. In Tamil Nadu, English print media outlets like Outlook, Frontline, The Hindu, and The Indian Express have dedicated more coverage to Dalit issues than Tamil newspapers and periodicals.

  It is crucial to note that this enhanced coverage does not necessarily correspond to greater representation of Dalits in the editorial departments of English media. English media organizations, operating at a national level, often project themselves as progressive on a larger scale. While they may highlight instances of violence against Dalits, they may not necessarily scrutinise the broader system of caste and state policies affecting Dalits. In contrast, vernacular media, functioning within a more localized and caste-centric framework, may not feel the same obligation to present themselves as progressive. However, the issue goes beyond the mere inclusion or exclusion of news on Dalit issues; it also involves how the media portrays these matters. The media’s historical representation of violent incidents against Dalits often lacked an examination of untouchability or human rights violations. For instance, the Keelavenmani incident in which 42 Dalit individuals were burned alive in 1968 was initially reported as “Clashes between Farmers”, framing it as a class issue rather than addressing caste oppression.

 Even in the post-1990s era, certain Dalit issues have been portrayed negatively by the media. The media’s handling of events such as the Tirunelveli massacre in 1999, where 17 Dalits were brutally killed in a police attack, involved efforts to convince people that the victims died by drowning in the river rather than due to the police attack. Similarly, the Khairlanji massacre showed a negative facet of the media towards Dalit issues. It is important to note here that the DNA was the first newspaper to report the issue after eight days of the atrocity. It was done only after massive protests were organised throughout Maharashtra. When the media initially covered the Khairlanji incident, it conspicuously omitted any mention of caste, attributing murders to what they called ‘moral reasons’⁸. What should have been identified as a glaring symptom of caste hatred was instead mischaracterised as personal vendetta or ‘moral disputes’ (Mhaske, 2023). Anand Teltumbde (2008) writes that “such reporting masked caste realities and ensured that readers had no sympathy for the victim”.  The same pattern was repeated in the Hathras case too, which played on the expected line of denying the existence of caste angle to the criminal act of rape and murder.  Mainstream television news reported that “it is only when the political parties politicise a women’s issue for their interests, the caste comes into the picture in such rape cases” ⁹

In a recent article written by Tavleen Singh in The Indian Express, she stated that  affirmative action or reservations are ineffective and only the politicians benefit from it. She also propounded the popular myth that at the time this affirmative action was introduced, Dr. Ambedkar suggested that it should last for only ten years. This is a blatant misappropriation as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar suggested no such restrictions on reservation in education or government jobs. The initial time limit of 10 years was imposed only on SCs/STs being elected to state and central legislatures through debates in the Constituent Assembly. However, Ambedkar was not in favour of any time limit even on political reservations. In his constitutional assembly speech that he delivered on August 25, 1949, he stated:

“I personally was prepared to press for a larger time, because I do feel that so far as the Scheduled Castes are concerned, they are not treated on the same footing as the other minorities…it would have been quite proper I think, and generous on the part of this House to have given the Scheduled Castes a longer term with regard to these reservations…For the Scheduled tribes I am prepared to give far longer time.….

“But all those who have spoken about the reservations to the Scheduled Castes or to the Scheduled tribes have been so meticulous that the thing should end by 10 years. All I want to say to them in the words of Edmund Burke, is ‘Large empires and small minds go ill together’.”¹⁰

 This brings into question the editorial scrutiny of the print media. Aren’t the facts cross-checked while publishing an article? Or are these facts deliberately hidden or misrepresented to spread misinformation which continues to harm the underprivileged of society? This paper strongly argues that the exclusion and misrepresentation of Dalit issues in the mainstream media is a direct result of the social exclusion of Dalits in the Indian media. Social exclusion refers to the denial of equal opportunities imposed by certain societal groups, leading to individuals’ inability to participate fully in the political, economic, and social functions of society.

  Drawing parallels with the United States, achieving a balanced staff in newsrooms that reflects the community’s makeup is considered socially responsible. The American Society of News Editors (ASNE) set a “Year 2000 goal” in 1978 to ensure proportionate representation of blacks and other social minorities in all American newspapers. The success of this initiative demonstrated that major publishers recruited from ethnic minorities to maintain news diversity. The U.S. experience underscores the importance of social responsibility and diversity in sustaining the media industry. Private media companies, despite being privately owned, cannot insulate themselves from reservation policies, as emphasized by the chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. To address the under-representation of Dalits, media organizations should offer special scholarships to train Dalit candidates in journalism and organize job fairs to recruit them, similar to the model adopted by the Asian College of Journalism in Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

Dalit Women and Media 

  Dalit women in Indian society are triply exploited on the basis of caste, class and gender (Kumar, 2009). Dalit women are subjected to discrimination from upper caste men and women and also men from their own community. The Indian media, over the years, has left little or no space for Dalit journalists and Dalit women were never shown the light of mainstream media. The often paired patriarchal undertones to the feminist narratives by the media makes it a tremendous task for women to voice their own challenges and put forth the narratives through their voice. This task becomes mammoth and more complex when it infiltrates the caste hierarchy. The demand for Dalit women to run news portals like Khabar Lahariya and Meena Kotwal’s Mooknayak brings to the fore the argument that the voices and Dalit narratives are lacking in the mainstream media. This exclusion from media led by upper caste men side-lining Dalits prompted the rise of the new era in 2002 when a group of Dalit women came together to create “Khabar Lahariya’ (News Waves), which started off as a newspaper and now has branched out into the digital platform. Kavita Devi and Meera Jatav are the founders of Khabar Lahariya. Khabar Lahariya takes the edge of hyper-local journalism to retaliate against discrimination. These women journalists are redefining the boundaries of politics in an institution that has been dominated by men since its inception. Their story inspired the production of a documentary called Writings with Fire. The documentary showcases the indomitable grassroots-level work of a group of women as they determinedly tell their stories against all odds. Winning many international accolades Writing with Fire was also nominated for the best documentary (feature) at the 94th Academy Awards in 2021. Khaber Lahariya focused on the overlooked parts of rural India through which it showed reports and stories to the country’s national media. Kavita Devi is the first Dalit woman to be a member of the Editors Guild of India. Her challenge and vision is to discard the label of ‘timid and emotional’ which are often attached to women journalists by mainstream media to separate them from newsrooms.As the CEO of ‘Chambal’, Kavita brings forward women into the so-termed ‘challenging‘ field. Kavita envisions bringing more and more women from the marginalised community to a collective space of not only journalism but also as filmmakers and producers. These women have resisted a caste-ridden patriarchal society through their writings.  By doing so, they are breaking many rigid stereotypes of women and Dalit women that previously existed in the media. 

Media’s Silence on Mayawati’s Achievements: Unveiling Caste Bias 

   Mayawati, the former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and President of the Bahujan Samaj Party, has undeniably emerged as a significant Dalit icon, marking a new era in the Dalit movement. Historically dominated by Dalit males, the movement witnessed a paradigm shift which Mayawati led not only as a symbolic figure but also as a head of government. Mayawati was inspired by Dr. Ambedkar’s life and mission from her early childhood and also mentioned her desire to her father when she was in Class 8, “If I work like Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar then will people celebrate my anniversary after my death as they celebrate Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar’s anniversary?”. Growing up in a Delhi slum, born to an illiterate homemaker and a low-level government clerk, she managed to dream and pursue civil services, leaving her dream to join Kanshiram’s movement. She later left her house as her father was against her decision to join politics and after a lot of hardships and struggles, she managed to reach the pinnacle of success when she became the youngest and first Dalit Woman to be the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Despite her substantial achievements, especially recognized by international media such as Newsweek – a US weekly magazine, that declared Mayawati to be one of the eight most powerful women in the world – the Indian media has maintained a surprising silence on her accomplishments.

  A notable contrast can also be seen in her attire and mannerisms compared to the so-called upper caste woman in Indian politics. We can observe that most upper caste women in Indian politics who have some stature, carry a typical image of an Indian woman wearing a sari. Indira Gandhi, Vijeraje Sindhia, Sonia Gandhi, Jayalalita, Vasundhara Raje Sindhia, Sushma Swaraj, Brinda Karat, Pratibha Patil to name just a few (Kumar,2009). Barring a few, most cover their head with pallu, an act of being polite in the Hindu culture to the elders. Mayawati never wore a sari but a salwar-kurta with dupatta challenging the notion of patriarchy in Indian politics. However, the Indian media’s silence, especially considering their often critical portrayal of Mayawati, raises questions about their biases and priorities.

  The media’s historical hostility towards Mayawati is evident in instances where her statements were distorted, her character was assassinated, and derogatory news was published against her. Despite her significant achievements, such as being the Chief Minister of India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, the media tends to focus on negative narratives, perpetuating an image of her as a politician with unaccounted wealth. The media’s reluctance to celebrate Mayawati’s achievements, including global recognition, raises concerns about its role and priorities.

 Unveiling Prejudice: Casteist Remarks against Mayawati and the Conspicuous Silence of Indian Media

  The incident in Uttar Pradesh, involving the use of derogatory language by Mahendra Singh Tikait, a prominent leader of the dominant Jat caste, against Mayawati, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and the President of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), sheds light on the enduring caste bias against Dalit women. While the offensive remarks may be hastily dismissed as vulgar and unparliamentary, a more in-depth exploration reveals the deep-seated historical and sociological underpinnings within the intricate caste structure of Indian society.

  The Jats proudly proclaim their position as “number two Hindus” (Kumar, 2009: 78) after Brahmins and Baniyas, showcasing a staunch belief in their invincibility and asserting their autonomy in an agricultural occupation. While Jats may not overtly practice Untouchability, their disdain for Dalits manifests in subtle yet impactful ways. In villages, Dalits are addressed with derogatory terms, reflecting the prevalent societal contempt. Jats, despite the evolving socio-political landscape and the rise of movements like the Bahujan Samaj Party, continue to exert dominance economically, as seen in their control over wage payments to other castes, particularly Dalits. This economic subjugation, combined with the influence of Jats in local structures, keeps Dalits subdued, despite their potential for revolt.

  Tikait’s hurling of abuse at Mayawati, a Dalit woman holding the significant position of Chief Minister, serves as a stark testimony to the persistent mindset prevailing in these regions. The incident prompted a substantial response, involving the deployment of ten thousand policemen, administrative interventions, and local Dalit engagement, underscoring the severity of the situation. Surprisingly, amidst this controversy, the Indian media chose to remain conspicuously silent. The media’s attempt to portray Mayawati as misusing state machinery, coupled with the absence of condemnation from women’s organizations, adds layers to the discourse, prompting a deeper reflection on whether caste bias or other underlying factors contribute to this silence. 

Conclusions:

  The absence of Dalits in significant roles within Indian media, as highlighted by these seminal observations and research findings, is indicative of more than just an oversight. It is an alarming reflection of media managements’ inattention to the social diversity of their editorial desks, leading to the perpetuation of social prejudice in media content for over seven decades. The urgent call remains to address these deep-rooted disparities and foster a more inclusive, representative, and equitable media landscape in India. While this may spark debates about quality and availability, media owners must recognize their social responsibility to diversify their newsrooms. The collective silence of the Indian media on Mayawati’s achievements highlights not only their limitations but also raises crucial questions about inherent biases, priorities, and the need for a more inclusive and intersectional approach to women’s issues.

Notes:

1. Oxfam-NewsLaundry. 2019. “Who Tells Our Stories Matters: Representation of Marginalised Caste Groups in Indian Newsrooms,” New Delhi.
2. IIaiah, Kancha. 2006. “Merit of Reservations” in Economic & Political Weekly Vol. 41, Issue No. 24. https://www.epw.in/journal/2006/24/reservations-higher-education-special-issues-specials/merit-reservations.
3. https://thewire.in/media/backstory-media-obc-caste-census-farmers-protest
4. https://thewire.in/media/backstory-the-dalit-public-and-the-media
5. Cooper, J Kenneth. 1996. “India’s Majority Lower Castes Are Minor Voice in Newspapers; Few Journalists, Periodicals Advocate Interests of the Underclass”. In The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1996/09/05/indias-majority-lower-castes-are-minor-voice-in-newspapers/4acb79e3-13d6-4084-b1d9-b09c6ed4f963.
6. Uniyal, B N. 1996. “In Search of a Dalit Journalist.” Pioneer, 16 November.https://www.anveshi.org.in/broadsheet-on-contemporary-politics/archives/broadsheet-on-contemporary-politics-vol-2-no-1011/in-search-of-a-dalit-journalist.
7. https://www.forwardpress.in/2019/09/social-profile-of-the-key-decision-makers-in-the-national-media-in-2006.
8. Pillai, Geetha. 2023. “17 years after Khairlanji Massacre: Reflecting on a Dark Chapter in Dalit History.” In The Mooknayak. https://en.themooknayak.com/dalit-news/17-years-after-khairlanji-massacre-reflecting-on-a-dark-chapter-in-dalit-history#:~:text=in%20Dalit%20History-,17%20Years%20After%20Khairlanji%20Massacre%3A%20Reflecting%20on%20a%20Dark%20Chapter,and%2021%20too%20were%20murdered.
9. Sulochana, Akash. 2020. “No case for Dalit woman victim? Politics of rhetoric in response in responses to Hathras gang rape and murder” In Countercurrent.org. https://countercurrents.org/2020/10/no-caste-for-dalit-woman-victim-politics-of-rhetoric-in-responses-to-hathras-gang-rape-and-murder.
10. Chavda, Rajesh. 2023. “Abolish reservation after 10 years: The illusion of merit and what BR Ambedkar never said.” In Scroll.in. https://scroll.in/article/1061196/abolish-reservations-after-10-years-the-illusion-of-merit-and-what-br-ambedkar-never-said

References:

Ambedkar, Bhimrao. 2014. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches (Vol 1), V Moon (ed),New Delhi: Dr Ambedkar Foundation.  

Anand, Atul. 2015. “Representation and Hindi Language Newspapers: A Study in Bihar and                      Jharkhand,” thesis, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

Aswanu, Tarushi. 2023. “Two Dalits Students’ Suicides in Two Months Highlight ‘Institutionalised Discrimination’ at IITs”. In The Wire.

Balasubramaniam, J. 2011. “Dalits and a Lack of Diversity in the Newsroom.” In Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 46, no. 11: 21–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41151964.

Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge: Polity Press. — (1990): Moral Consciousness  And Communicative Action, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chavda, Rajesh. 2023. “Abolish reservation after 10 years: The illusion of merit and what BR Ambedkar never said.” In Scroll.in.

Chomsky Noam and Edward Herman. 1994. “Manufacturing Consent: The Political   Economy of the Mass Media.” London: Vintage Publications.

Cooper, J Kenneth. 1996. “India’s Majority Lower Castes Are Minor Voice in Newspapers; Few Journalists, Periodicals Advocate Interests of the Underclass”. In The Washington Post, 

Habermas, Jurgen. 1989. “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a      

IIaiah, Kancha. 2006. “Merit of Reservations” in Economic & Political Weekly Vol. 41, Issue No. 24.

Issac, Elizabeth. 2023. “Dalit Women Journalists’ Resistance Against The Caste Bias & Discrimination” in Feminism in India

Jeffrey, Robin. 2001. “[Not] Being There: Dalits and India’s Newspapers,” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, Vol 24, No 2, pp 225–38. — (2005): “There Is Still No Dalit Newsreader on Any TV Channel.” Outlook, 17 October. 

Kahn, Jeremy. 2009. “Mayawati: The Rise of India’s Caste Warrior.”  New York: Newsweek. 

Kerner, O et al. 1968. “Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders,”U Government Printing Office Washington, DC.

Kumar, Vivek. 2009. “Locating Dalit women in the Indian caste system, media and women’s Movement.” Social Change Vol. 39, No. 1: 64-84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258185392_Locating_Dalit_women_in_the_Indian_caste_system_media_and_women’s_movement

Mandal, Dilip. 2020. “upper caste Domination in India’s Mainstream Media and Its Extension in  Digital Media.” In Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 55, Issue No. 46. 
https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/46/perspectives/upper caste-domination-indias-mainstream-Media-and.html.

Mayawati, Kumari. 2006. “Mere Sangharshmai Jivan, Evam Bahujan Movement Ka Sugarmama- Part I (Hindi).” Bahujan Samaj Party. New Delhi.

Mhaske, Dilip. 2023. “17 years of Khairlanji massacre, Modi govt has a Dalit opportunity.” In The Print.

Omvedt, Gail. 2003. “The Struggle for Social Justice and the Expansion of the Public Sphere in the Public and the Private”. In Issues of Democratic Citizenship, Gurpreet Mahajan (ed),New Delhi: Sage Publications.    

Oxfam-NewsLaundry. 2019. “Who Tells Our Stories Matters: Representation of Marginalised Caste Groups in Indian Newsrooms,” New Delhi.

Pandit, Ambika. 2023. “Crimes Against SCs Went up by 13% And Against STs by 14.3% I 2022: NCRB” In The Times of India. 

Pillai, Akshaya. 2023. “Rise in Institutional Murders: The Pressure of Caste, Class And Gender” In Feminism In India. 

Pillai, Geetha. 2023. “17 years after Khairlanji Massacre: Reflecting on a Dark Chapter in Dalit History.” In The Mooknayak.  

Ranjan, Pramod. 2009. Media men Hissedari: Social Profile of Journalists in Patna, Patna: Pragya Shodh Sansthan.

Singh, Tavleen. 2023. “Time to end reservations” In The Indian Express.

Sulochana, Akash. 2020. “No case for Dalit woman victim? Politics of rhetoric in response in responses to Hathras gang rape and murder” In Countercurrent.org. 

Uniyal, B N. 1996. “In Search of a Dalit Journalist.” Pioneer, 16 November.