One is initiated into journalism with the percept that it is news when man bites dog and not the other way round. Exceptions are likely to be news because they stand out from the mundane. Sajani Kundu, Debabrata Dakua, Sandip Bhowmik, Subham Chatterjee and Samir Mondal were hailed as exceptions in “Salute to HS heroes” published by The Telegraph on June 1, 2015.

Sajani is the daughter of a vegetable seller in Kolkata. She has scored 88.20 per cent in her higher secondary examination with support from her uncles. Debabrata is the son of a contracted labourer and has regularly contributed to his family by growing vegetables in the backyard. He has scored 85.80 per cent. Sandip has scored 77 per cent. His father suffers from kidney ailments and cannot work. Sandip does odd jobs to run the family. Relatives sponsored the education of Subham after his father was forced to stop work owing to complications in the retina. Subham has scored 75.60 per cent. Samir is the son of a rickshaw puller in Calcutta. He lost his right hand at an early age and writes with his foot. He has scored 83.40 per cent and is also a chess champion at the district-level.

Every year, news organisations give space to underprivileged students with high scores. This annual ritual that highlights their achievements leads to satisfaction and prevents scrutiny of the larger system that denies education to the multitudes. Celebration of the anomaly is legitimisation of the system as the former is born of the latter. Such euphoria invites public attention to the specific and distracts from the economic inequalities that plague the general.

What the likes of Sajani, Debabrata, Sandip, Subham and Samir achieve every year is commendable. But short-sighted revelry over their exceptional success poses the possibility of obtuse conclusions. For instance, the second headline, “Poverty no hurdle”, which accompanies the “Salute to HS heroes” piece on another page, is an outright contradiction of the facts reported in the story. Other than Sajani, either the students or their parents have expressed serious doubts over the continuation of studies in the immediate future. Even taking the next step, that is, going to college is a distant dream for some.

The Telegraph has run other success stories about differently-abled students and those from weak financial backgrounds. Responses to the previous stories appeared on the same day on which “Salute to HS heroes” was published. Indranil Sanyal has written, “No appreciation is good enough for these bravehearts. Their achievements remind me of John Milton who wrote ‘all is still not lost’ and how that ‘indomitable spirit’ will become triumphant.”

I Ahmed has responded, “Their courage and invincible determination have shown the world that if one is really passionate and sincere in pursuing one’s cherished goal, nothing can deter his or her soaring ambition from being fulfilled.” Srilekha Roy Chowdhury has written, “They have renewed our faith in human spirit.” BN Das has written, “They have shown the world that if there is a will there is always a way. Their success will surely inspire several others.”

The responses indicate that the readers have elevated these students to the status of not only heroes but also to that of idols who serve as examples. And this is exactly where the politics of consolation is registered. Neither journalists nor readers highlight or flag the issue of access to education or the lack of it through the year. But once results of the board examinations are declared, a list of achievers who managed to succeed “despite the odds” are promptly garlanded with verbose epithets. However, there is little effort made to deliberate pressing questions like: Why are these odds faced year after year?

There is also a bigger politics at play. It must be noted what I Ahmed and BN Das write in responses to such stories. Two phrases are of particular interest – “… if one is really passionate and sincere …” and “… if there is a will there is always a way.”

What they mean is a person can overcome all obstacles if she/he has the inner power. Thus, the responses put the onus of success squarely on the individual and ignore the circumstances that make it infinitely more difficult for the teeming millions to get what they want.

It is essential for the likes of Ahmed and Das to reflect why they have the privilege to be commentators and not players in a game that is marked by historical unfairness. It makes readers look like the hated Roman emperor Commodus who stood out for his apparent love and respect for gladiators but never took part in the brutalities of the arena – at least not when his opponents were able-bodied and determined.