The editors guild of India has reacted to the “termination” of services of Forbes India editor Indrajit Gupta, and the “resignation” of his colleagues Charles Assisi, Shishir Prasad and Dinesh Krishnan.
The guild has termed Network 18′s summary decision as lacking in “elementary courtesy” and that it cuts at the “very root of editorial independence”.
Below is the full text of the statement issued by guild president N. Ravi, former editor of The Hindu:
****
“The editors guild of India is deeply concerned over the abrupt termination of four senior editorial team members of Forbes India including its editor Indrajit Gupta, managing editor Charles Assisi, executive editor Shishir Prasad, and director photography Dinesh Krishnan.
“The four senior journalists had worked with the magazine since its inception as part of the launch team, and their sudden removal without reasonable notice and even elementary courtesy cuts at the very root of editorial independence. (emphasis added)
“Basic security and protection from arbitrary action are essential if senior journalists are to go about their task with courage and fairness.
“Whether their termination is a reaction to their insistence on exercising their contractual rights to employee stock options (ESOPS) or is the result of an overall restructuring exercise undertaken by the company is a question to be settled in another forum, and preferably by way of negotiations leading to an agreed solution.
“Considering that senior journalists are involved in this dispute with a media house, the guild would reiterate at this stage that it is essential that all contracts should be honoured.”
***
Photograph: Network 18 boss Raghav Bahl (courtesy Forbes)
***
Also read: How the Forbes India editors were forced out
IJR 
The tone of the statement somehow indicates that everything would have been acceptable if the journalists in question weren’t seniors..
I agree and its a shame.
Perfectly right, reuters is doing the same with with its junior/lower level journo in Mumbai
While one would readily agree with the statement that the handling of the termination/ resignation was lacking in elementary courtesy, attributing that the sacking cut at the very root of editorial independence is simply reading too much. The whole episode is a HR/Personnel issue; “editorial independence” hardly finds a place.