Ten years ago, on April 27, 1994, we came out with our first issue. Our routine remarks that little has changed over all these years are challenged by our own image in the mirror. What change? We would leave the readers to define for themselves. All we can hope for is we have come this far a landmark with our integrity and commitment to expanding the scope of the picture that must be placed in the city square for unhindered public viewing.

We have tried to exploit our resources to the best of our abilities and offer no excuses for our inability to expose certain realties that make up our world. But we could have certainly been more successful in our effort had there been no halters placed around our necks by all those in authority -- halters which we have been trying to remove.

Beginning with the sacred cows that can still not be touched, in the name of national interest, for considerations of personal safety and due to business interests. It is quite amazing, and at the same time sad, that all versions recorded and all sides covered, a journalist still has to hold on to his story for better times to come, when everyone will be bound by a uniform law. No law is required to ensure such type of obedience on the part of the scribe; all that is needed is to create an example out of a supposedly errant journalist, and the deterrent is created.

The quest for greater knowledge is even more difficult in the absence of institutional support for journalists either from the organisations they work for or from trade union bodies which have been weakened with time. To the extent that the journalists can be told by the employers that they deserved no special awards for their work and hence should reconcile with the 'universal' market principles. Without any fears of a reprisal.

When we talk about the period between 1994 and 2004, we are actually bringing into focus ten years that we have spent virtually without an anti-thesis to rampaging capitalism. It was a difficult time for journalism and those journalists who still searched for an ideological basis to their 'progressive, anti-establishment, pro-reform, pro-people' being. Yes, in the changed environment a pro-people, leftist journalist has come to be regarded as a traditionalist, even as a conservative who shuns development out of a perennial fear of competition and would rather stay in his shell. Let us be a bit pompous for a change and say that we are a progressive and liberal news magazine in a traditional sense of the word and are in no mood to surrender to the narrow-minded conservatives whose national interests are subject to the changing situations. Nor are we overtly impressed with the forces of the market. Doing it subtly or bluntly, our charges remain the same.