Distributor of or Distributor for

Another person who greatly influenced my boyhood was my first cousin, Samsuddin. He was the sole distributor for newspapers in Rameshvaram.

[WINGS OF FIRE]

I don't understand why "for" is used here instead of "of".

Could "of" have been used here instead, without changing the meaning of the sentence? Or is there a difference between their usage in this context?

I guess both for and of could be used in this case.

Standard usage would be that if you distribute bananas you are a distributor of bananas. If you are doing it for a company that imports them, you are a distributor for that company.

Now, newspaper has several meanings. The first is obviously the collection of sheets of paper with printed news on them. If you distribute those, you are a distributor of newspapers.

However, the word is also used to mean the publishing company that produces said collections of printed paper, as in William Randolph Hearst bought several mayor newspapers. That sentence probably doesn't imply he went to a kiosk to by some paper, but rather that he paid some serious money to buy the companies that produced the papers.

If you work for several of those companies that publish newspapers in Rameshvaram, distributing their papers, you are a distributor for those companies, ergo a distributor for those newspapers.

With the proviso that the example seems to be written in Indian English, which may not have such a distinction:

He was the sole distributor for newspapers in Rameshvaram'

= In Rameshvaram, he was the sole person who (or owner of the only business that) acted as a distributor of anything on behalf of the newspaper industry, i.e. if a newspaper had wanted him to distribute leaflets or free gifts or pens to their reporters, he would have done this, too.

He was the sole distributor of newspapers in Rameshvaram

= He was the sole person who (or owner of the only business that) distributed newspapers in Rameshvaram. Nobody else distributed newspapers.