More than a few journalists I know – several of them desk hands – have moved on to publishing houses after a few years of working as scribes. The work’s more relaxed, and the money comparable, if not better. It’s a fairly smart thing to do, particularly when you stop getting that “kick”- whatever that means.

Some end up doing well. Seasoned hands in magazine and newspaper desks have an eye for detail – a skill one would assume is imperative to being a good editor.

I’ve thought about it too – screw the neck-breaking news drill, edit books at leisure, go to office in the morning and come back in the evening at a decent hour. Sounds pretty easy and laidback, right? Until I stumbled upon this advertisement by a publishing house seeking an editor.

Navayana is looking for an editor.

Applicants must be well-read in matters related to caste and the dalit movement. In the least, they must be familiar with DrAmbedkar’s key writings. Gandhians need not apply. Those unable to make a clear distinction between the politics of Ambedkar and Gandhi can stay away as well. Familarity with Navayana’s books and work is expected. Prior experience in publishing will be a plus. Pay will be commesurate with abilities and experience.

Working with Navyana will be challenging and rewarding. The editor will gain  in-depth experience on issues of caste, and get to know the workings of independent publishing, quality book production, design and marketing. All this with the opportunity to work with a range of authors and creators: B.R. Ambekdar, N.D. Rajkumar, DurgabhaiVyam, PremanandGajvee, MeenaKandasamy, Ajay Navaria, Arundati Roy, Venkat Raman Singh Shyam ,Siddalingaih, Jeremy Seabrook, KanchaIliah and SlavojŽižek, among others. (And yes, you’ll endear yourself if you cared about the caron  ˇ or háček on Žižek’sž’s, or if you pick proof mistakes in this copy.)

Preference will be given to Dalit candidates and beefeaters. The job, to be based in New Delhi, will involve extensive research, fact-checking, and maintaining an eagle eye for errors.

If you think you tick many of these boxes, send in your case (to anand@navayana.org) along with a list of the last five books read, and the books you are currently reading, with a brief note on each of these books. All email entries should say “Application for the post of editor” in the subject-line.

Last date for applications: 25 August 2014

Okay, first things first.  At least five copy mistakes in the copy (and I don’t even have “an eagle-eye for errors”). But we’ll leave it at that and move on to the trickier part.

Navayana is (or at least claims to be) “India’s first and only publishing house to focus on the issue of caste from an anti caste perspective”. Navayana was recently in news because Ananya Vajpeyi, an academic writing a book on BR Ambedkar, ostensibly sought to ban a book written by Arundhati Roy that it had published.

Now, back to the advertisement that got me so daunted (in spite of the fact that I thrive on beef).  S Anand, the man who, in all probability, wrote it, obviously thought he was putting a point across. I haven’t read Anand ever, but have had the opportunity of corresponding with him through emails. His emails were articulate and to the point. I’m glad he wasn’t trying to be funny because if the ad is anything to go by, he’s not very good at it.

Am I ranting? Yes. Because for all of Navayana – and S Anand’s – “anti-caste perspective”, the ad is outright casteist and reeks of the same Brahminical exclusivity that it claims to be fighting. In fact, it is much more than that. It is megalomaniacal and suggests a highly inflated (and disproportional) sense of self-importance.

The ad mentions that “Gandhians need not apply”. The rider can, at best, be described as a banal (and myopic) assumption that being a Gandhian and having a sound perspective on Dalit rights is mutually exclusive. Of course, one gets that an editor working for a publishing house such as Navayana must be perceptive about issues relating to caste oppression, but who’s to say a Gandhian can’t be so?

There’s no contesting the difference between the Gandhian and Ambedkarite approach to caste and uplifting of Dalits. Even so, is it necessary to subscribe to a particular ideology to edit prose based on it and do a good job of it? Will my editorial integrity be compromised if I am sympathetic to both schools of thought – and see the world from a not-so-binary black and white lens?

Also, the fact that Anand mentions preference will be given to Dalit candidates is utterly hypocritical. Yes, Navayana has published some great work but it has gained more than a fair amount of traction by virtue of being publishers of Arundhati Roy’s edition of Annihilation of Caste.  Roy’s father was an upper-caste Bengali and her mother a Syrian Christian from Kerala. So Navayana’s blue-eyed author is far from being lower caste. In fact, a cursory glance through Navayana’s authors shows that many of them are not Dalits. The latest book from the publishing house is authored by a Slovenian. So does that mean preference to Dalits and beef eaters is limited only to in-house positions and when it comes to the authors it publishes, the choice is based on more formidable credentials? Why the double-speak on who gets to author a book and who gets to edit it? One would have understood the clause had Navayana been strictly a space for writings and writers from the backward castes.

Finally, what’s with the beef-eating clause? How many Dalits even eat beef for that matter? Or are we just talking about steak-loving Ivy-League returned ones? I may be “well-read in matters related to caste and the dalit movement” (and an Ambedkarite) and yet not eat beef. A choice that could have its origin in my love for animals, and not the scriptures. And also as someone from the northeast pointed out on Twitter, what about pork eaters? Eating beef in India, in any case, is more contingent on region and religion than caste.

Having said (more like ranted) so much, and with the benefit of hindsight of 800-odd words, I admit I understand where Anand’s militant resentment comes from. It is, to more than a certain degree, legitimate, but to hijack (and almost monopolise) discourse over something that goes very well beyond the realms of being a Dalit and beef-eater is just, to reiterate one more time, an extension of the same exclusivity you’re battling. And to repeat an often-exploited cliché – an eye for an eye will make the world blind. Yes, I just quoted Gandhi.