oans who love their motherland, to put
their money where their mouths are, and do something
for Goa."

To quite some extent the problem with contemporary
Goa's journalism is governments who don't like
criticism and therefore target certain newspapers or
journalists. But this is not the entire story.
Managements who seek to use their papers to get undue
favours, licences, or whatever are another part of the
problem. So are us journalists who don't carry on our
job neutrally and without quid-pro-quo motives. But the
editors who have long been acting as censors, and
implement the agendas of the first two categories
above, are also part of the problem. Unlike in the
'eighties, you can hardly expect an editor to stand up
for you in today's Goa.

Journalists in Goa are facing a situation where space
to write the truth is increasingly shrinking; and
editors, including Rajan, have also played their role
in making this happen. At another level, the State is
working overtime to incorporate journalists, promote
'friendly' publications and thus indulge in other means
to control opinion. While Rajan Narayan has undeniably
been one editor who was willing to say the things
others were simply not willing to say, this was done
not very consistently. Quite a few who worked under
Rajan would probably have their own story to tell. It
would really help if the average Goan was less gullible
and didn't judge issues along emotional lines alone.

The plus side also needs to be taken into the equation.

It was Rajan who pointed out to the importance of the
readership of government employees and pensioneers; to
the fact that international news needed to be focussed
on countries which Goa had long links with, or had
large Goan expat populations. He told his staff
something that seems to be beyond the comprehension of
many Goan editors: "There is also considerable interest
in Portugal. An election is scheduled in Portugal soon.
Let us keep track of the election and other
developments in Portugal."

(But one should not get misled into thinking that those
working under Rajan always had clear policy guidelines
to work under. Most of our time at least, policies were
based on whims and fancies, to gauge the rationale of
which often left one bewildered.)

He was also among those to try and shift out of the
protocol reporting -- an attitude which says 'this
report has to be there, because it has to be there' --
that journalism in a Navhin