From Continuity to a More Inclusive Conversation
26th
Friday Evening Team Meeting (FETE)
September
18, 2026: Press Club Hyderabad
Vanam
Jwala Narasimha Rao
The
Twenty-Sixth Friday Evening Meeting at the Press Club Hyderabad was somewhat
different from the twenty-five gatherings that preceded it. The intervening
Vinayak Chavithi-Navaratri holiday period meant that many of the regular
participants were away, and therefore the gathering was necessarily smaller.
Yet, the character of the evening remained very much within the spirit of what
has gradually come to be known as the Friday Evening Team, or FETE.
Among
those who participated were senior journalists and long-time friends Amar
Devulapalli, Lalita Iyer and BS Ramakrishna, along with Dr Bharath and myself.
There was no attempt to recreate the elaborate, focused discussions of some of
the earlier Fridays, nor was there any sense that a smaller gathering
constituted a break in continuity. Instead, the evening became an opportunity
to pause, look back at what had evolved during the first twenty-five meetings,
and think quietly about where the initiative could go from here.
In
that sense, the 26th meeting was less about a particular subject and
more about the idea itself: what happens when a simple weekly conversation is
allowed to continue long enough to acquire its own character, memory,
relationships and methodology. Looking back, the journey from the first Friday
to the twenty-sixth has been neither linear nor deliberately programmed.
The
meetings began with a simple desire to bring together a few like-minded
friends, exchange experiences, recall professional journeys and preserve
memories that might otherwise disappear with time. Gradually, however, the
conversations moved beyond memoirs. Journalism, public communication,
administration, governance, democratic institutions, electoral processes,
constitutional questions, social movements, technology, culture, history and
even civilizational thought entered the conversation naturally.
Some
evenings had distinguished guests; some produced unexpected recollections; some
were driven by contemporary developments; others were lighter, humorous and
almost entirely spontaneous. What remained constant was the method:
conversation rather than presentation, participation rather than performance,
questioning rather than assertion, and reflection rather than immediate
reaction.
The
document of the earlier meetings itself records this evolution: from memory
into dialogue, from dialogue into collective reflection, and from reflection
into an emerging public resource. The 26th get-together therefore
need not be measured by the quantity of discussion. Its significance lies in
recognizing that continuity does not mean every meeting must look alike.
The
exchange among the participants this time, logically turned towards
strengthening the methodology and taking the concept forward in a more
systematic manner without allowing it to become unnecessarily formal. There was
a shared understanding that the strength of these Friday Evenings has always
been their informality, with no chairperson presiding over a conference, no
fixed speaker occupying the centre, no compulsion to reach a fixed conclusion
and no requirement that everyone should agree.
At
the same time, the experience of twenty-five meetings suggests that informality
need not mean randomness. A light-touch methodology could help the
conversations become more purposeful while retaining their freedom. One
possibility is to continue beginning with a broad contemporary issue, allow
participants to bring their own experiences and perspectives, and then permit
the conversation to travel wherever informed curiosity takes it.
Another
is to maintain a gentle continuity between meetings, so that an issue raised on
one Friday can reappear, develop or be reconsidered on another. Such an
approach would preserve the essential character of FETE while giving the
evolving process a stronger internal coherence. The earlier meetings have
already shown that conversations often continue beyond a single evening and
mature through repetition, participation and reflection.
An
equally important thought concerns participation. From the beginning, these
gatherings were never intended to become a closed circle of a few familiar
faces. The earlier record repeatedly reflects the desire to widen the circle,
bring in new voices and invite people with different professional experiences.
The next phase could therefore consciously encourage greater participation by
members of the Press Club Hyderabad who find value in such conversations.
This
need not be through formal invitations or an organised membership system. The
strength of the idea has always been that people come because they wish to
participate, listen or contribute. Senior journalists, younger colleagues,
former professionals, communication specialists, administrators, academics,
lawyers, technologists, writers, artists, social workers, entrepreneurs and
people from other walks of public life can each bring a different window
through which the same contemporary reality may be viewed.
The
objective is not to increase numbers merely for the sake of numbers. It is to
increase the range of experience around the table. A larger conversation
becomes meaningful not when more people speak, but when more perspectives
become available for consideration. This assumes greater significance at a time
when the country and the State are moving through a particularly rapid pace of
developments.
Public
institutions, technology, media, economy, social relations, political
communication and citizen expectations are changing simultaneously. Information
reaches people almost instantly, but understanding does not necessarily travel
at the same speed. Social media can bring an event before millions within
minutes, yet the context surrounding that event may remain fragmented. Opinions
are often formed before facts are fully examined, and conversations can quickly
become positions.
It
is precisely in such an environment that a space for patient conversation
acquires value. The purpose of the Friday evenings is not to compete with
television debates, social-media commentary or formal seminars. It is almost
the opposite: to create a small space in which people can slow down, ask
questions, hear experiences different from their own and examine developments
without the immediate pressure of taking a side.
The
earlier meetings have repeatedly emphasized understanding over advocacy,
multiple perspectives over simplistic conclusions, and informed judgment over
the expectation of unanimity. That principle may become even more relevant as
the speed and intensity of public discourse continue to increase. There is also
a larger democratic and professional value in preserving such a space.
Journalism,
at its best, has always depended upon questioning, verification, context,
diversity of viewpoints and the ability to listen even when one does not agree.
The Press Club, by its very nature, is more than a physical facility for
journalists. It can also serve as a meeting point where professional memory,
public experience and contemporary thought intersect.
The
earlier Friday evenings have demonstrated how a recollection about an old
newsroom can illuminate a present professional question; how an administrative
experience can explain an institutional problem; how a historical episode can
provide context for a current development; and how a guest from another field
can challenge assumptions that journalists may unconsciously carry.
The
idea is therefore not to create another forum where people speak to those who
already think alike. It is to create a forum where like-mindedness means a
shared willingness to listen, examine and converse, even when conclusions
differ. ‘Agree to disagree’ has already emerged as part of the spirit of these
gatherings, leaving room for disagreement without making disagreement the
purpose of the meeting.
The
26th meeting also suggested that the evolving methodology may
benefit from a conscious balance between continuity and expansion. Continuity
gives the initiative its identity; expansion gives it relevance. One without
the other could weaken the idea. If participation remains confined to a small
group, the conversation may gradually become repetitive. If expansion becomes
the principal objective, the intimacy and freedom that made the meetings
meaningful may disappear.
The
middle path, therefore, could be to retain the familiar core while continuously
introducing new participants and occasional guests who bring knowledge,
experience or a different perspective. Some meetings may focus on a
contemporary issue; others may feature a person whose professional journey
deserves to be heard; some may revisit an earlier discussion in the light of
new developments; and some may simply allow conversation to flow.
The
documentation can continue alongside this process, not as a rigid record of
proceedings, but as a way of preserving significant ideas, experiences and
reflections. In this manner, the evolving methodology can remain flexible
enough for spontaneity and disciplined enough for continuity. It would be an
organic strengthening rather than a formal restructuring.
Ultimately,
the significance of the Twenty-Sixth Friday Evening Meeting may lie precisely
in its modesty.
A
smaller gathering during a holiday period did not interrupt the journey; it
provided an opportunity to think about the journey itself. Twenty-five meetings
have demonstrated that continuity can create something that no single meeting
can create: familiarity without hierarchy, trust without obligation,
disagreement without hostility, and memory that gradually becomes collective.
The
next stage may therefore be neither a programme nor an organisation, but a more
conscious culture of conversation at the Press Club Hyderabad: one that
welcomes participation, invites experience, accommodates disagreement,
encourages thoughtful questioning and remains open to people from different
walks of life. At a time when developments are moving rapidly and public
conversation is often compressed into immediate reactions, such spaces can
offer a necessary pause: not a withdrawal from public life, but a more
considered engagement with it.
If
the first phase of the Friday evenings was about ‘Meet, Reflect, Share and
Continue,’ perhaps the next phase can add four more words: ‘Include, Examine,
Connect and Evolve.’ The destination need not be predetermined. The value lies
in continuing the journey together, conversation by conversation, perspective
by perspective, with the simple conviction that a society which continues to
talk to itself thoughtfully is better placed to understand its present and
prepare for its future.
Personally,
I remain deeply confident that this journey will continue to grow in both
spirit and substance. The enthusiasm, cooperation and genuine willingness among
participants to share experiences and exchange knowledge have already created a
rare sense of collective ownership.
Equally
heartening is the warmth with which every guest, irrespective of who introduces
or invites them, is received and treated as a personal guest of the entire
group, with every little courtesy and protocol that an invitee naturally
expects.
This
culture of openness, friendship and mutual respect gives me great optimism that
the Friday Evenings will continue to evolve, widen their horizons and become an
enduring tradition of meaningful conversation, shared wisdom and collective
enrichment.




.jpeg)

.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)





