CHRONICLE is public property...

VERY RECENTLY AIRIEF supremo

Shri G. Krishnaswamy had kicked up

a controversy when the Chronicle published

AIRIEF Circular No.4 which had made

known to the pensioners their (AIRIEF)

decision to implead themselves in our

Supreme Court case.

Normally Chronicle published circulars of LIC pensioner organisations. This has been appreciated by the pensioners as it provided to them the much needed information especially the news relating to court cases. We have been regularly publishing important circulars of the in-service and pensioners organisations. All Bank inservice and pensioner organisation circulars are also being published by us. That exactly is the very purpose of having this free platform: Chronicle. 

The news regarding AIRIEF joining the court fray was promptly published in the Chronicle. We had ample reasons to do so. The Chronicle had conducted a detailed discussion following our own Editorial on the subject. It was our original idea to send a personal cheque for an amount to the Federation. Displaying the image, we wanted to give a call to all the pensioners to contribute to the fund. But before we could do anything in the matter came embarrassing mails how the circular in question reached the Chronicle and why this was published. The main point of discussion was about leakage of their circular prior to the date it was intended to be released. It was then, and only at this point that we realised that we had really achieved a journalistic distinction of publishing an association circular even before the same was 'released'! Had we this realisation that we had achieved something of this dimension we would have flashed the news in more captivating words. 

A reader made a comment in the comment box whether this news was a bogus one. So to confirm the news, we made enquiries through our own sources and we got the circular in question from 3 (three) such sources. As we have a practice of keeping the source as secret (since it is a question of integrity of the Editor) we found no reason to disclose the source and promptly carried the circular. 

• It is only later we realised that the circular was released one day before the official date of release. IT WAS A PROUD MOMENT FOR THE CHRONICLE AND AN EMBARRASSING MOMENT FOR THE FEDERATION.  In future our readers may rest assured whenever it is possible, we will try to do such feats again. That gives a proud moment for the Editor, a feather in the cap of Chronicle. The other occasion when we could such a job of journalistic excellence was when we published the news of dismissal of Contempt Petition. Two more such distinctions were denied to us when the news published in Chronicle was withdrawn at the instance of AIRIEF functionaries.

Our publication of Federation circular was followed by a spate of embarrassing remarks by many tall leaders of the Federation. Shri Krishnaswamy asserted that the circular of the Federation was their PROPERTY.  Others joined the chorus and brought a lot of publicity to the Chronicle. But one claim of the Federation that the Circular was the property of the Federation did not satisfy us. What was it ? It has to be examined.

An exclusive Chronicle news is referred to in the Circular of AIRIEF as can be seen above. 

It says, "as it was being aired that no such letter was received by them (GNS & others) right from Tuesday & Wednesday, I wanted to direct my efforts....".  What is interesting in the above news is that the Federation is indulging in double standards. While it says that the Federation circular is their property, they assume that the exclusive news appearing in CHRONICLE is a public property and so they can access it. This is beyond our comprehension.

• It may be pertinent to add here that SHRI KML ASTHANA says he gives the Federation news concerning court cases to his personal friends only. While he laboured to say so, he had forgotten that he had himself promptly and directly sent us a long statement (a very long one) prior to their Bangalore conference. We had then given the exclusive privilege of his own statement being published while replies filed by Shri Sreenivasa Murty and Shri BR Mehta were not published at all. Why Shri Asthana sent the statement to the Chronicle when he faced rough climate in Bangalore is yet to be explained. Why the Chronicle space was utilised then to carry his statement ?

Again the Federation's prominent leader Shri RBK made use of Chronicle space till recently when we refused to publish his statements. For the last 3 years or so, we had been telling him  that we cauld publish only a max of 500 words, but gave him a privilege of 1000 words, and we told him that his repetitive statements

which exceeded 3000 words cannot be published. Then he stopped sending any statements to Chronicle. After about 3 months, he resumed sending statements to Chronicle. He requested to publish his statements in red and violet font colours. We told him, rather we explained to him in so many words that ours is an humble venture. It has a format. We cannot deviate from our editorial policy and allow an individual a choice of colours. Despite this exchange of mail, we continued to accommodate him. Many times we could not give him front page, still we published the long statements on the second  page. On a couple of occasions, we made it simple for us by giving a LINK to AIRIEF blog which lessened our burden. And finally when our problems assumed huge proportions, we refused to publish a clarification he had filed about a Chronicle discussion. We had only made a general discussion about articles being published, about our decision to format all pre-edited materials etc. There was no mention of anybody's name. Yet he wanted to explain thinking that the whole discussion was about him. We said NO. Beyond this, we do not wish to say anything more. We have closed that chapter much to the relief of the Editor and the readers.

• The point being emphasised here is that while the Federation functionaries including Shri HKA one-time spokesman utilised Chronicle space to meet their requirements whenever they wanted, what is their right to emphasise that their circular is their property. We feel that Shri G. Krishnaswamy should apologise to the pensioners if he ever understands and appreciates our submission. 

We assure our readers, Chronicle Editor is doing a service not for the purpose of getting any recognition from anybody or any organisation. We didn't start our work when a Jaipur court gave a verdict in favour LIC pensioners or since when the case was adopted and supported by the Federation in 2010.  We also do not have any funds...

On the right-hand bar, the Chronicle Editor has published a few sentences about his contribution to the Corporation. Thousands of Rupees have been spent for this work, never a Rupee is accepted as a token of recognition for these services and finally when the Editor lost even promotion, he did not even submit a representation to the Corporation for promotion. He thought in his wisdom that the treatment of denying promotion is apt and the Editor deserved to be kicked. 

You can kick us again. 

But to the Editor it is a way of life. 

He will have no complaints.