How caste plays out in India’s newsrooms
This story was first published in News Laundry, and is a transcript of a video report posted by News Laundry refering to their project report on how caste system plays out in the Indian newsrooms. You can watch the full video report (source of this story) by News Laundry by clicking here.
Did you know that three out of four anchors of flagship TV news debates are upper caste? That not one is Dalit, Adivasi, or OBC?
That merely 10 out of the 972 articles featured on the covers of a dozen magazines that we studied are about issues related to caste?
That no more than five percent of all articles published in the country’s six largest English newspapers are written by Dalits and Adivasis?
These are some of the shocking findings contained in the report Who Tells Our Stories Matters: Representation of Marginalised Caste Groups in Indian Newsrooms, which was published last year by The Media Rumble in association with Oxfam India.
Sometime in 1996 a foreign correspondent called up journalist BN Uniyal to ask him if he knew any Dalit journalist, after spending days talking to friends and colleagues Mr. Uniyal was unable to find anyone like zero literally. In 2017, after having conducted a similar search across the country for more than 10 years journalists Sudipta Mondal said he was only able to find eight Dalit journalists in English media and only two of them risked coming out to him.
Between October 2018 and March 2019 News laundry and Oxfam together conducted a research project to find out more about the representation of marginalized caste groups in Indian media, the results were shocking to say the least, three out of every four anchors in flagship debates on TV news were upper caste not one Dalit or Adivasi or OBC. Only ten out of the 972 articles featured on the cover pages of the 12 magazines that we looked at were about caste related issues and no more than 5% of all articles in English newspapers were written by Dalits or Adivasis. The research suggests that Indian media is still dominated by upper castes, scheduled tribes are almost entirely absent while scheduled castes are represented mostly by social activists and politicians not by journalists OBCs are similarly underrepresented even though they are estimated to constitute over half of India's population. The fact that me a ‘Suvarna’ is sitting here telling you all this in a video is testimony to the findings of this report.
The report is basically aimed at opening and informing a public debate on discrimination and social exclusion in media. Let's go back to the basics first, caste is an ancient system of discriminatory segregation that is determined by birth. It is based on notions of purity and pollution and is rooted in the Hindu doctrine, the caste system divides Hindus into four varnas or categories these are, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra, those who fall outside these endogamous groups each with a preordained social function are known as Dalits or Scheduled Castes and Adivasis or Scheduled Tribes the still pervasive caste system unsurprisingly raise its ugly head in our newsrooms - there are vast sections of India's marginalized caste groups who lack access to media platforms and discourses that shape public opinion. This leads to certain voices not being represented in our news ecosystem.
Take for instance leadership positions in newsrooms, of the 121 newsrooms that the report looked at a whopping 106 were occupied by journalists from upper castes and none by those belonging to Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribes. Let's take a peek at the panelists on English TV news channels, a mere 5.6 percent of panelists across the survey channels belong to Scheduled Castes and shockingly not even 1% of them belong to Scheduled Tribes, what's even more bizarre is that during the discussions on caste issues 62% of the panelists across news channels were from the general category, 89% of leadership positions in English TV news channels belong to the general category along with a 76% of anchors who hosted flagship shows the results got even more skewed when we looked at Hindi news channels where hundred percent of the leadership positions belong to the general category and so did 80 percent of the anchors on prime time shows.
Let's take a look at newspapers, according to the report media professionals from marginalized caste groups do not occupy any leadership positions in the six English newspapers and seven Hindi newspapers that we looked at. In the 16,000 articles that we poured over in English newspapers over 60% of the articles were written by upper caste writers in Hindi newspapers nearly 56 percent of writers belong to the general category the only silver lining was Amar Ujala where hundred percent of the articles published on caste issues were written by contributors belonging to the marginalized caste groups.
Now let's look at digital media 84% of all leadership positions belong to the general category just like newspapers and TV news channels there is no representation from scheduled tribes and scheduled castes in the digital media space, in fact the study found that 56 percent of writers belong to the general category and yes news laundry was also one of the organizations that was surveyed. Now coming to magazines the study chose 12 magazines covering a range of interests
among them 63.5% percent of the total output came from the writers belonging to general category and only 11.2% from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes combined while OBC writers contributed to a meager 1.1%.
Talking about giving space to caste issues only India Today, India Today Hindi, The Caravan and Sarita gave space to caste issues on their covers. However, a majority of the caste stories published in these magazines were penned by general category writers. At India today Hindi this percentage stood at an overwhelming 99.5 percent the report clearly signifies the dire need for the inclusion of marginalized groups in India newsrooms for an equitable and developed society the representation of all is a must and more than anywhere else this applies to our newsrooms.
This story was first published in News Laundry, and is a transcript of a video report posted by News Laundry refering to their project report on how caste system plays out in the Indian newsrooms. You can watch the full video report (source of this story) by News Laundry by clicking here.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Nicobar Tribal Council Alleges FRA Violations in Great Nicobar Wildlife Sanctuaries
Sri Vijaypuram (Port Blair): The Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar has alleged fresh violations of the Forest Rights Act in the notification of three wildlife sanctuaries linked to the Centre’s ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, even as the Calcutta High Court is set to hear petitions challenging the mega project over similar concerns next month.
The Union government had, in October 2022, notified three wildlife sanctuaries in parts of Little Nicobar Island, Menchal Island and Meroe Island for the conservation of leatherback turtles, megapodes and coral ecosystems. The move came after the government acknowledged that the proposed infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island would affect coral colonies and nesting habitats of endangered species.
However, the tribal council has maintained that the sanctuaries were declared without consultation with the Nicobarese communities who traditionally inhabit and manage these islands.
In a letter dated April 23 addressed to the Assistant Conservator of Forests of the Nicobar Forest Division, the council reiterated its opposition to the sanctuaries and objected to the formation of a committee to determine eco-sensitive zones around the protected areas.
The council said its chairman had not been consulted before being included in the committee and was informed of his membership only a month after the committee was constituted.
The three notified sanctuaries include the Leatherback Turtle Sanctuary in parts of Little Nicobar Island, the Megapode Sanctuary covering the entire Menchal Island and the Coral Sanctuary spanning the whole of Meroe Island.
According to the council, Menchal and Meroe islands hold deep cultural and spiritual significance for the Nicobarese community, which believes the islands are inhabited by the spirits of their ancestors.
The council demanded that the sanctuary notifications be revoked and the eco-sensitive zone committee dissolved, alleging that both decisions were taken against the wishes of the indigenous community.
Meanwhile, Jairam Ramesh has written to Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in the process of obtaining consent for diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project.
Ramesh argued that consent should have been obtained through the Tribal Council representing the Nicobarese communities instead of through Gram Sabhas representing settler families. He also questioned how the government-controlled Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti could provide consent on behalf of the Shompen community, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.
He urged the Tribal Affairs Ministry to intervene and seek withdrawal of clearances granted for the project under the Forest Rights Act.
Earlier, Ramesh had also written to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav alleging that environmental impact studies for the project were conducted in haste and without the detailed seasonal assessments mandated under environmental laws.
The dispute dates back to 2022 when the Andaman and Nicobar administration initiated the process for notifying the three sanctuaries before holding Special Gram Sabhas for diversion of forest land linked to the Great Nicobar project.
In May that year, the administration invited objections and claims regarding the proposed sanctuaries. Subsequently, on July 19, the Nicobar Deputy Commissioner certified that no objections or claims had been received.
The tribal council later wrote to the district administration stating that the notification process was carried out without ensuring that residents of Little Nicobar Island were informed as required by law. It alleged that no public announcements seeking objections were made in villages such as Bahua, Muhincoihn and Kiyang, whose residents traditionally use and manage parts of the notified areas.
The council said the Nicobarese community had protected the islands and wildlife for generations through customary practices and traditional belief systems.
It further argued that the sanctuaries would interfere with long-standing rights over forests and coastal areas. They noted that these areas are used for rituals, plantations, collection of forest produce, construction of huts and canoes, harvesting medicinal plants and worship.
In November 2024, the council objected to draft Island Coastal Regulation Zone plans, demanding basic infrastructure, instead of proposed eco-tourism activities in the sanctuaries. The council demanded better public restrooms, jetties, water facilities, pathways, and mobile connectivity.
The Nicobar administration issued a clarification in May 2025, stating that the sanctuaries would not affect hunting rights available to Scheduled Tribes in the Nicobar Islands. The council, however, rejected the clarification, stating that their dependence on forests and coasts extended far beyond hunting activities.
Earlier this month, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court dismissed preliminary objections raised by the Union government against petitions challenging the diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project. The matter has now been listed for final hearing in June.
