On December 18, Arvind Agrawal wrote a rejoinder (Why we keep calling you Presstitutes: A message from the rest of us) to an opinion piece by Rahul Pandita that defended a critical media. The reply accused the media of bias and selling out. Here a journalist points out what Agrawal got wrong:

Dear Arvind Agrawal who “cannot put himself in the service of those who practice journalism”:

Actually what does that even mean? That you don’t want to be a journalist? Might as well say so, then, you think?

Thank you for a clearly spelled-out takedown of Rahul Pandita. I say this despite the flourishes of sarcasm, as in “What do we know?” and “You will rightly think of me as stupid”. I think these devices only cloud your own argument, but, well what do I know?

I promise you that is the last such device I’ll use.

I probably have one overarching problem with your article. It’s your confusion – deliberate or not, I don’t know – of the specific with the general, and in one particular way.

Let me explain.

Assuming a consensus

You mention Chitra Subramaniam who “never got due credit for busting Bofors”, and Sucheta Dalal “who uncovered some of the most creatively executed financial scams in this country”. Good picks. Both are remarkable journalists whose diligence and doggedness have been inspirations to plenty of others, me included. Then you ask: “Have you ever wondered why these people are never called by the term that causes so much indignation in your heart and mind?”

That term, of course, being “presstitutes”.

Now you’ll remember that the term got famous in April, when General (retd) VK Singh, Minister of State for External Affairs, tweeted this question: “Friends what do you expect from presstitutes?” As these things go, his label promptly got picked up by any number of people who used it to characterise journalists.

Here’s my first concern about Singh’s remark. He assumes there is a consensus of opinion on the general low character of sex workers – prostitutes, he means. What they do for a living, he assumes – and assumes his audience agrees – is somehow illegitimate or immoral. In his careful twisting of the word to describe journalists, he seeks to apply the same characteristics to them: that they are doing something similar and it is illegitimate and immoral.

My opinion: there’s nothing remotely “wrong” about what prostitutes do. If using their bodies or their skills to make a living is immoral, then we must also by the identical logic class as immoral how Sachin Tendulkar and Mridula Garg, PT Usha and Jagdish Bhagwati make their living. Has VK Singh or anyone else ever referred to journalists as “crocketers” or “disconomists” or some other clunky epithet derived from the name of a profession?

So much for that.

Let’s treat sex workers as ordinary members of our society, deserving of the same dignity and rights the rest of us get, instead of the source of an epithet we use to tar folks we don’t like. Let’s understand: a man who uses “prostitute” as an insult is himself, above all, deserving of our scorn.

Tarred with the same brush

But here’s my second concern about Singh’s remark. Granted he is frustrated with journalists and wants to lash out at them. But note that he did not use – as you so carefully did at least once – the word “some” (“Are we allowed to surmise that Shah Rukh Khan is calling some of you ‘presstitutes’?”, you wrote). He did not single out as exceptions – as you so carefully did at least twice – journalists whom he thinks have integrity (Subramaniam and Dalal were your specific examples).

No, Singh simply labelled the entire profession in general. That is, he labelled Pandita, Subramaniam, Dalal and every other person who practices this profession. Including me. Including you, if you were still a journalist.

And in his wake, plenty of others have used the same label, flinging it about freely without caring for qualifiers like “some”. Take you: you go even further, suggesting that if Pandita doesn’t jump through some made-up hoop or the other, “the word ‘press’ itself will become a synonym for shameless selling out”.

See what I mean about the specific and the general?

One more instance

No doubt some journalists got under Singh’s skin, or are corrupt, whatever. Just like some cricketers are corrupt, or some engineers are corrupt, or some doctors are corrupt. I’ve not noticed Singh labelling those entire professions with a derogatory label. I’ve not noticed you suggesting that “the word ‘doctor’ itself will become a synonym for shameless selling out”.

You ask somewhat disingenuously about Subramaniam and Dalal: “ever wondered why these people are never called by [that] term?”. The correct answer really is: “They have indeed been called by that term. To start with, by VK Singh himself.”

Let me clarify that I couldn’t care less what label VK Singh or you or anyone else uses for me, if they do at all. Like the overwhelming majority of journalists I know, I just go about my work and let it speak for itself, in whatever way, to whoever reads it. The name-calling has zero effect. And what “going about my work” also means is that for every Ease of Doing Business ranking and number of communal incidents that you wave, I can and must wave other things – India’s Human Development Index that has stayed stubbornly in the 130s for two decades, for a random example. Doing so – and indeed, raising questions about EDB and HDI and much else – is part of my job description. If that sends some among us (note I said “some”) into fuming efforts to find yet another smug insult, by now I know that’s the gravy that comes with the job.

Finally: Also part of my job description is that when you applaud Dalal and Subramaniam for their diligence – as I do too – I should cite another “feisty lady” (your words) in turn. I’m sure you’ll applaud her for her own diligence in “uncovering some of the most creatively executed” (your very appropriate words) killings in this country.

Her name? Teesta Setalvad.