Thiruvananthapuram, July 22 — Writer‑journalist T.C. Rajesh Sindhu on Wednesday defended his stand in the controversy over an unpublished feature written for a weekly supplement, saying he fully agreed with CPI(M) state secretariat member M. Swaraj that the decision to publish or reject an article rests solely with a newspaper’s editorial board.
The controversy began after the newspaper did not publish its weekly supplement on Sunday, triggering speculation that Rajesh’s feature on Vijayan of Muthippara, popularly known as “Kallan Vijayan”, had led to its withdrawal.
The weekly supplement was published on Monday carrying a feature on V.S. Achuthanandan, while Rajesh’s article did not appear.
Rajesh had earlier posted on Facebook that “the mistake was on my part”, prompting widespread discussion, while Swaraj later said the article had not come before him.
In a detailed Facebook post on Wednesday, Rajesh said he was issuing the clarification after deciding not to respond directly to repeated requests from television channels for comments. He maintained that there was never any insistence on his part that the newspaper was bound to publish his article.
Recalling his years in journalism, Rajesh said rejection of articles, editing of reports and rewriting of headlines were common editorial practices across media organisations. He noted that he had experienced such editorial decisions at different newspapers and magazines throughout his career and therefore did not consider the rejection of a feature unusual.
Rajesh said he had written the feature after being encouraged by the editorial team of the weekly supplement to contribute more articles. After revisiting Muthippara and speaking to Vijayan, he completed the feature and emailed it along with photographs for publication.
He said a journalist friend informed him on Sunday that the weekly supplement had allegedly been withheld because of his article. Believing that to be the case, he posted on Facebook saying “the mistake was on my part”, without disclosing the contents of the feature.
He added that he was not surprised when Swaraj later said no such article had come before him, as every submission need not necessarily reach the Resident Editor.
In a second Facebook post on Wednesday, Rajesh accused a section of the media of selectively quoting his earlier statement while omitting the portion in which he had endorsed Swaraj’s stand. He said the report had presented an incomplete picture of his position and created a misleading impression.
“If the intention was to destroy me, there were many other ways to do it,” he wrote.