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)