Delhi. The compilation Assi Ke Rai Sahab, published on the 80th birthday of senior journalist Ram Bahadur Rai, was launched on Friday (25 Sep) at the Ambedkar International Centre. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Union Minister Bhupendra Yadav and senior journalist Banwari released the book. Published by Prabhat Prakashan, its chief editor is Hemant Sharma, News Director of TV9 Network. The editorial board includes Manoj Mishra, Sandeep Joshi and Sanjeev Kumar. The volume contains more than a hundred memoirs and articles.
After the launch, Hemant Sharma wrote a long piece trying to explain why a book on Rai Sahab was necessary. He wrote that Rai Sahab is unparalleled in this era, that his life is the history of Indian politics after 1965, and that he is the heir to journalism’s “Prabhash tradition.” The real question, however, is not whether the book was needed. It is about the manner in which it was presented.
The presentation made it seem as if the book’s centre was less Rai Sahab and more editorial ownership. On the stage were names such as Rajnath Singh, Bhupendra Yadav and Banwari. Pragya Sansthan also described the event. Hemant Sharma’s article explained to readers why the book was required — but the real question begins exactly where that explanation ends.
Work on the book had already been under way. Why, then, was it presented as if the book would never have been published without Hemant Sharma? This is also not the first book on Ram Bahadur Rai. Comrade Kripashankar Chaube’s Rambahadur Rai: Chintan Ke Aayam had already appeared. Prof. Sanjay Dwivedi wrote of it that the book explains what it means to be Rambahadur Rai. Clearly, a book on Rai Sahab had already been written. Rai Sahab himself is aware of this.
Hemant Sharma holds a senior position at TV9. In close circles it was also said that he wanted the Prime Minister’s or the Home Minister’s time for this book. How much time he himself carved out of his busy schedule for the volume remains a matter of “guesswork.” Why did Hemantji need four editors for one book? In practice, the familiar Delhi pattern is visible: the editorial board does the work, a big name sits on the stage. Often this makes no difference to anyone. This time it did — because Ram Bahadur Rai’s name was attached to the book. How did he allow all this to happen?
Writer Gunjan Agrawal says the original conception of the book was his. In June 2025 he began preliminary discussions with people close to Rai Sahab, prepared a draft request letter for writers, drew up a list of nearly fifty authors, and sent six pieces to Sanjeevji. Vijendra Gupta’s article, which he had made available, was included in the collection. Even after that, according to him, the chief editor/editorial board dropped his own piece. Editing, abridgement or rewriting were options. No reason was given for complete exclusion. According to Gunjan Agrawal’s account, the reply to the charge came not through dialogue but through a block.
Hemant Sharma writes that some people said, “Whatever I write, you will not be able to print it.” Then why were those writers not given the assurance that the piece would be published so long as the language was not indecent? For a personality who has lived a life of dissent like Rai Sahab, it would have been more in keeping with his nature not to turn the book into a mere bundle of praise.
An editor’s job is selection as well as deletion. But when the claim is that the conception and the initial labour belonged to someone else, the basis of selection should also have been stated. The book is about Rai Sahab. The controversy is this: in the way it was presented, where did the balance of credit, labour and ownership go?
