From Continuity to a More Inclusive Conversation >>>>> 26th Friday Evening Team Meeting (FETE) : Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 From Continuity to a More Inclusive Conversation

26^th 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 26^th 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 26^th 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 26^th 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.