It gives me no pleasure to write this. But R Jagannathan must be told, opinions are like assholes--everybody has one. And today he sounds like just another asshole with an opinion.

What has gotten me riled completely is a piece he wrote on Gandhi versus Godse. Allow me quote from the piece: "So to posit Gandhi as anything other than a hero and Godse as nothing more than a villain, is to try and create black-and-white, cardboard characters, Bollywood style."

The sum and substance of his argument is that Gandhi's assassin Nathuram Godse be accepted for whatever he was and the ideologies he espoused. "Gandhi was as grey, as was Godse," Jagannathan argues.

Before I go any further, I have a few confessions to make. I know Jagannathan as "Jaggi". That's how all of us in journalism know him. The Jaggi I knew was gentle, mild mannered, cerebral and often ahead of his times. A wry humor accompanied him and it always had the newsroom rolling on the floor, laughing their guts off.  

I don't know why. I never asked him. And he never told me. But 17 odd years ago, he picked me, then an untested entity in the mid-twenties to edit a supplement he had in mind for the Financial Express, of which he was editor. The dot com boom was beginning to take off. Jaggi had quietly thought up eFE, an eight page daily pull out to go with the newspaper. He asked me to focus exclusively on technology, gave me a free hand, all the resources I needed and turbo charged my career. Along the way, he transformed that ghastly rag the Financial Express was into a newspaper everybody wanted to either be a part of or featured in. He taught me to edit copy, create headlines, appreciate the nuances of design, handle a team and carry everybody along.

I can't think of anybody who ever had an unkind word to say of him. As is usual, he went on to other assignments and I charted my own course.

Our paths crossed again at Network18, where I used to be managing editor of Forbes India, a group publication, until I was compelled to leave under rather unsavory circumstances. Jaggi, who was then my super boss, did not utter a word in my defence. Instead, he acquiesced when he knew all of what had transpired was wrong. But I don't hold that against him. Perhaps, he had his compulsions and in hindsight, I am glad I left.

That said, over the years I've watched Jaggi's trajectory with interest, as anybody would of their mentor. For many years, I thought of him a liberal. But in recent years, he came across as a  right winger--a closet Sanghi if you will. Nothing else explains his position on issues, of which the most dangerous and recent one is a rather lame attempt to defend the man who assassinated Gandhi.

Yes, Jaggi is right in that Gandhi has his quirks. But allow me quote Jaggi once again: "...where is our tolerance of dissent and freedom of thought and speech? If someone has the right to eulogise Gandhi, surely others have a right to criticise him or praise his nemesis? If we can today write books giving imaginary versions of Ravana's side of the story (and not Ram's), surely we can live with the ideas of those who think Godse was not pure evil?"

A couple of things come to mind.

• Is Jaggi suggesting dissent and freedom of thought and speech that leads to an assassination ought to be condoned? Surely, surely, he can't couch the act in a line that says "The only thing absolutely wrong about what Godse did was putting bullets through the Mahatma..." 
• That he espouses a violent world view is obvious when you read closely what he says next. "At best, complete non-violence can be an individual idea, not something for societies as a whole to emulate." But societies that have eschewed arms exist. Having an army might be practical, but it is not obligatory.
• And then there are those like Martin Luther King who embraced Gandhi's ideals and principles to extract what they wanted. And what of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people who have shunned violence in spite of all the atrocities committed on them?
• What of religions like Jainism and Buddhism that have flourished and continue to inspire millions? 
• Assuming you buy the Jaggi argument for a moment, you might as well obliterate all history that exists on India's freedom struggle led by Gandhi. For all of their efforts, Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose could not deliver what Gandhi eventually did. 
• And what exactly is the "imaginary version of Ravana's side of the story?" Are we to believe a 10-headed monster "actually" existed against whom Ram went to battle?

I can go on and on picking holes in Jaggi's rather ridiculous arguments that bat for Godse. I don't want to, because to my mind, Jaggi's world views are emblematic of a larger problem looming over Indian journalism. It is hopelessly outdated and lazy.

What he is churning out doesn't fit the definition of either reportage or informed opinion. Because both of these are built on the back of conversations with people, facts that are checked, and well formed after debates and interactions with those who know more. Jaggi isn't doing any of this.

Instead, I get the feeling he's just pounding his keyboard furiously to churn provocative words, attract eyeballs, valuations, and earn hosannahs on social media from an unwashed army of trolls who cheer anybody with blood on their hands.

I hate to say this again Jaggi. But opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. You. Me. Everybody. That is why, opinions, particularly uninformed ones, are best kept wrapped under the trousers. Or khaki knickers if you insist.