The above passages are perhaps the most illuminating definitions of the
type of professionalism Indian media has been performing since 2014.
In contrast to the previous generation of butlers, Stevens explains that
his generation was less snobbish and much more idealistic regarding the
owner’s status they serve. The former considered their service worthy
only to the ‘old families’, and the latter centre their “professional
prestige” around the moral status of the owner. By which Stevens says
he means, “we were ambitious, in a way that would have been unusual a
generation before, to serve gentlemen who were, so to speak, furthering
the progress of humanity” (1989, p. 114). Under what category does the
Indian media fall, one could ask? Do the Indian media further the cause
of humanity or their political masters? In part, to both. The very idea
that some commentators have categorised them as “godi” media, or
“Modia” [combining Modi and media], testifies to the latter
(Kumar, 2019, p. 35).
Incorporating characters from the butler profession and giving them a
whole history of the profession cuts at the elitist idea of the
profession, that is, that it is like any other profession with its
traditions and exemplary figures, its hierarchy and knowledge claims,
and who gets to make what claims. For instance, Stevens says that when
the figures like Mr Graham would gather at their servants’ hall, they
would have “some of the most stimulating and intelligent debates on
every aspect of our vocation” (Ishiguro, 1989, p. 31). However,
Stevens’ details about the butler profession do not include women
professionals into its fold, as “there was actually no serious dispute
as to the identity of the men who set the standards amongst our
generation” (Ishiguro, 1989, p. 29 emphasis added). For example, the
Hayes Society, which follows a patriarchal hierarchy, does not have one
woman member (1989, pp. 31–33). Likewise, Ono’s venture into the art
world does not have a single woman as his pupil. The primetime debates,
in a similar fashion, have a scant number of women panellists, as
pointed out this issue by a study in 2018 that demonstrated that women’s
representation is four times less than men’s (Patil, 2018, para. 03).
The question of women representation in the novels and the primetime
debates in question both seem lacking. Both the main characters, the
protagonists, disregard the views of women.
One of the characters defines in detail the wastage of one’s life:
‘As the new generation of Japanese artists, you have a great
responsibility towards the culture of this nation. I am proud to have
the likes of you as my pupils. And while I may deserve only the smallest
praise for my own paintings, when I come to look back over my life and
remember I have nurtured and assisted the careers of all of you here,
why then no man will make me believe I have wasted my time’. (Ishiguro,
1986, p. 151)