How He Turned The Tables: The Rahul Gandhi Interview

If you are looking for a parody or, more appropriately, a lame attempt at humour, then please skip this.

Rahul Gandhi may not be a great subject for a television interview, he may not even turn out to be a good political leader, but on the much-touted first-ever interview in 10 years (he clarified on camera that this was not the first, but the first formal one!) he did exactly what he set out to do. Say his piece. What seemed like repetition, if not ducking, was a strategy he adopted to bludgeon the inquisitor softly, if not tire him out.

Some in the media have dubbed this a Rahul vs. Arnab fight. I am amazed at the ignorance. No one, I repeat no one, in the higher echelons of power will give such a big interview without vetting the queries. Therefore, Rahul Gandhi must certainly have been aware of what Arnab Goswami (AG) would ask. If AG added specific queries later, then isn’t it funny that at the beginning of the interview he makes it clear and RG says “You can draw me back as much as you want” but would he be okay if he took a broader look? Think about it. Besides, it does not take rocket science (ahem, those Bharat Nirman ads) to figure out what the nation as filtered by the media would want to know. As he said:

"I have done a little media interaction, prior to this. I have done press conferences & spoken to the media. But mainly bulk of my focus has been on internal party work and that's where I have been concentrating, that is where most of my energy was going."

In the latter half I will reproduce some salient points, with quick notes.

First, the minutiae: This was not a live interview; it was conducted at Jawahar Bhavan; it lasted for a little under 90 minutes. According to The Telegraph:

But sources said the Congress leadership wanted to ensure that Rahul’s “outing” should be with a journalist who has a reputation for being unsparing. An off-the-record session between Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Goswami, over pakoras and tea, also helped pave the ground for the interview, the sources said.

It just so happens that those who are building up this “unsparing” interviewer have rather short or selective memories. Some of us do recall his almost obsequious questioning of Bal Thackeray; even Raj Thackeray has managed to stand firm. So, let us not create heroes only because we need to look down on certain people.

Let us talk about some problem areas.

Why was RG not being specific?

Why should he? He will do so in his speeches when he addresses the nation, not for revenue-run TRP-driven media. Has Times Now donated to the Congress Party’s election campaign? Is there a quid pro quo? No.

Arnab did his business of mentioning names – as the tagline of his show states – and Rahul spoke about the issue. Yes, the issues are more important. It is the system that deals with individual offenders. If he took the names, or repeated them after AG, he would be a bloody stupid politician and VP of his party.

Why did he not take the Modi bait?

This was by far the best thing Rahul could have done. He treated Narendra Modi as just another guy. The persistent questioning about whether he would agree to a debate with the Gujarat CM elicited what I thought was a perfect clincher: “The debate is already going on.” This effectively took the battle to where it belongs – outside the TV studios.

Why did he not apologise for the anti-Sikh riots of 1984?

What would he achieve by doing so? Get brownie points from the viewers and a pat on the back from the media, with Times going berserk by claiming that it was their channel that brought about this major penance? The PM and Sonia Gandhi have both apologised, and if RG has to do so it needs to be done to the people who are waiting for justice.

Why did he not come clean about his degrees?

Here you have an anchor who has netted a huge catch, and he is quoting a shark lapping in the shallows. Arnab brought in Subramanian Swamy to put RG on the mat regarding his educational qualifications. With all his Ivy League credentials, Swamy comes across as an uncouth man. Besides, how is it important? This Oxford-Cambridge showing off might appeal to the urban upper middle class, not the majority of the population.

Has anybody bothered to check for how long exactly Modi ran a tea stall that he is using as his new USP? Is there any evidence of it?

Why did he not commit on the Aam Aadmi Party?

Simple. The AAP is not one that sticks to its own word, so how can anybody else? Here is one bit from the interview

Arnab: Are you using the AAP to split the Anti Congress vote bank, to keep Mr. Modi out of power
Rahul: You are implying that we have brought the AAP...

This was really giving it to those ones in the politest of tones.

Why did he keep repeating about RTI, empowerment of women, the system?

Because these are crucial subjects, though they don’t sound terribly sexy. Indeed, he used these terms to also answer unrelated queries, but as I said at the beginning, he was here to say his piece.

We have got so accustomed in the past few months to war cry rallies and dharnas that someone who comes across as vulnerable, yet refusing to fall prey, is not easy to accept. Calling Rahul Gandhi a fool might prove to be our biggest fallacy.

Here is how he answered some of the questions, from Modi to being attacked, and why moving off-track sometimes seemed to be just the right move:

RTI: Blindly transparent?

The Right to Information Act is in the news again because Rahul Gandhi spoke about it. This is what I had written earlier:

The RTI Act might become stronger only for a handful. Some of these celebrities could use this Act to have their way and use it as one more calling card. It is bad enough that much of the security machinery leaks out information to the media. This added empowerment of the pampered citizen will demote the right of the common person. Do you think anyone will want to know about kickbacks on tube-wells or how hooch tragedies take place? How many farmers are going to file PILs?

The important thing is not just getting information but whether anyone can act upon it. Who will be made answerable and to whom? Isn’t there a possibility that to snuff out corruption there could be more corruption with some big names smuggling out information using their good offices and a tacit barter?

If the idea is empowerment, then the signature campaigns should include those whose rights are being fought for and not merely unsolicited spokespersons. Today, we have a situation where landmark structures are being given special security while badly constructed buildings crash every other day. Does anyone want information about that?

Such talk only works as a style statement and sheds no light on the right to know. And knowledge does not stop with information.

---

This is to give perspective before I launch on the speech! Here it is: How he turned the tables: The Rahul Gandhi Interview

Sonia, Modi and Accountability

Narendra Modi is doing what he is programmed to do as a politician: rake up issues to show the opposition in a bad light. His latest salvo that turned out to be a whimper is to make public the travel and treatment expenses on Congress chief Sonia Gandhi.

The media has made it into a Modi versus Sonia war. The timing is obviously to cause some embarrassment, for Ms. Gandhi launched her party’s campaign in Gujarat today.  

The problem is that there is no embarrassment in politics – kickbacks and killings are par for the course. There is only one-upmanship. 

Sonia Gandhi in Rajkot...words, words

Ms Gandhi’s speech sounded rather lame:

"The Congress has laid down the foundation for growth in Gujarat. The Congress has tried to live up to its ideals, we have come a long way and still have miles to go. It is unfortunate that our opponents only see darkness and cannot see the development. The work the Congress has done for the development of Gujarat, no one else has done. The opposition always misleads people about our development-oriented policies. It is the habit of some people to take credit for the work done by other people, let them do it.”

This indirectly conveys that there is major development. People are not interested in who laid the foundation stone, how much money the Centre is pumping in. They see the glitz and the man with the Midas touch, even if it is fiction.

And then she went straight into the lion’s den without even realising it:

"The whole country is concerned about corruption today. We are too. The UPA brought in the Right to Information Act. People against whom there were corruption charges; the law has taken its course. I want to know what the BJP is doing about corruption. Why is there such a difference between their walk and talk?"

It is an RTI report that Modi has been flashing in public. The BJP may not walk their talk, but what happens to their allegations?

Indeed, Modi should realise that when he wants to target someone powerful outside his state he should come armed with facts that will not fall flat on their face. The bizarre figure spent he said was Rs. 1880 crore.

Ramesh Verma, whose petition, was used said:

"If Modi is referring to my RTI, neither have I received any such information nor have I leaked it to the media or any politician.”

Then, where did it materialise from?  The Congress has gone on the offensive on this slippery ground using invective to counter invective. If Modi is a liar, then nail his lie.

Modi with the other handy Gandhi

He is a shrewd player. It is quite probable that he used hyperbole precisely to get such a reaction. The Kapil Sibals, Manish Tewaris, Rajiv Shuklas are frothing at the mouth, and he is watching the fun. In fact, he has come forward with empathy:

"I say the government should spend as much amount as is required for treatment of Sonia Gandhi. We are for humanitarian cause. I would like to tell the PM to spend as much amount of money as needed but if people want to know the details of the expenses, should not the government give the details? Is it not the right of the people to know how much of their money is being spent? I am not questioning Sonia Gandhi. I am asking the PM how much money from the exchequer has been spent on Sonia Gandhi.”

There are some people who want to know: why now? Why did he or his party not raise the issue earlier? In fact, one is amazed at the media’s silence and ‘respect for privacy’ where Ms. Gandhi’s illness and trips abroad are concerned. Let us not forget that other politicians are made into public spectacles for their ailments, whichever party they belong to.

Modi may be using this time opportunistically, but is the query not valid? Why the secrecy about expenditure and trips made? I don’t think anyone should press for details of her illness, if this is a specific request. (In which case, the media should leave others alone, too.)

There is a suggestion that he won the 2007 elections by abusing Sonia Gandhi and is hoping it will work again. Much as I dislike his politics, Gujarat is in his pocket. The earlier abuse is replaced with a mix of concern for the nation’s wealth, at a time when the prime minister has just come out with his plan for the economy.

Sonia Gandhi’s speech has not helped. The Congress party spokespersons’ casual attitude could well be counter-productive outside Gujarat too when people have to shell out more for household items. If only they came out with a clear indicator, they’d earn goodwill and be seen as a serious political force, and not just a party of quiet hangers-on.

A few days ago, I got this email from a saffron party person:

"The latest India Today reports that Rahul Gandhi visited Singapore for three days to watch the Formula One race.  Since the race duration itself is about half-a-day, one has to wonder what exactly he did for the rest of the time.  Also, one has to wonder how the trip was paid for, since his wealth declaration, required at the time of filing the nomination to stand for Lok Sabha elections, indicates that he is a person of modest means."

Should these queries not be posed? Are they irrelevant to what else he does? In this case, it is possible that the F1 people invited him and sponsored his stay. It begs the question: Should a leader of a national party accept such freebies, if that is the case? Then, was not Narendra Modi invited by Gujarati businessmen in America? Expats have kept the Hindutva movement well-oiled. Almost all politicians make trips abroad; some take a huge entourage even on official trips. Industrialists lend their private jets. Helicopters are used for short sorties.

Where do we draw the line and for whom? 

- - -

Cartoon: Mumbai Mirror

Pix: NDTV, TOI