Now it has become amply clear that the host of the mostwatched TV talk show – Arnab Goswami - can also trigger controversies while interviewing honest and inexperienced political leaders such as Rahul Gandhi, who chose him for his first formal TV interview after a 10-year silence. Goswami, no doubt, was well prepared for the scoop but to me, he came across as an interviewer who, at times, was asking questions not on behalf of the Indian voters, but Gandhi’s opponents.
Some experts have accused Goswami of a tilt towards BJP because of his father’s affiliations with the party, but I did not sense that at all during the entire interview. However, it was not clear to me if the interview was about the man himself to find out where he is coming from, or about his election strategy as he heads the Congress Party’s 2014 election campaign. One thing was clear at the very outset - that Goswami was trying hard to force Gandhi to say that the 2014 elections will be a contest between him and BJP leader Narendra Modi, which the Indian Press has been hyping for months now. And when Gandhi insisted that he views the elections not as a clash of personalities but a clash of ideologies, Goswami shifted gear to trap him into making some controversial remarks on Modi or the 2002 Gujarat riots or the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
Sometimes I wondered how different the interview would have been if it was done by journalists such as N Ravi, Inder Malhotra, Punya Prasun Bajpai, MJ Akbar or Shekhar Gupta. What bothered me the most was Goswami’s consistent efforts to keep the interview limited to accusations either made by the Opposition against Gandhi or by the Congress Party against the Opposition. Whenever Gandhi tried to talk about his aim of changing his party’s basic structure to uproot corruption, Goswami’s refrain was that it should be part of his speeches, and not the interview. Gandhi managed to come across as a crusader who really wanted to change Indian politics by decentralizing power and eliminating power-brokers responsible for corruption, but it was apparent that he has a lot to learn about how not to give long answers, but short and pithy ‘bites’ that news-hungry TV channels can use over and over again.
During the interview, it seemed as if the electronic media had become a part of the establishment, instead of questioning the establishment. However, Gandhi maintained his stance as a non-conformist and agent of change, but alas long-term change, definitely not a recipe for winning the 2014 elections or winning TRP points for Goswami!
At one point, when Goswami asked him why he had kept quiet when the media exposed the Commonwealth Games scandal and the 2G scam, Gandhi quickly distanced himself from them saying that at that time, his position in the party only allowed him to offer his views to the Prime Minister, which he did. This was clear indication that Gandhi wants to start his bid for the top job with a clean slate by blaming the past corruption and scandals on the outgoing Prime Minister. Why Goswami did not mention the Robert Vadra scandal is anybody’s guess.
Also, deconstructing the interview, I find that Goswami’s tone all through was accusatory, his method hackneyed and style, at places, immature. But despite all that, Gandhi emerged as a genuine and honest person - traumatized by the assassinations of his grandmother and father – who is fighting against power-hungry politicians within his party to change the system that he holds responsible for the two deaths. Gandhi emerged from the interview as a young Congress leader who has his father’s reformist genes and is desperately trying to make his ‘Panchayat Raj’ dream come true.
That brings me to another interview I watched on Aaj Tak just two days earlier. This was with another non-conformist leader - AAP’s Arvind Kejriwal – done by eminent Hindi anchor, Punya Prasun Bajpai. This was an example of real journalism in which the interviewer was not busy accusing Kejriwal all the time, but also patiently listening to his side of the story and then firmly questioning him about the practicality of his philosophy.
Bajpai didn’t corner him in an aggressive manner, but very softly and subtly questioned his intentions of hurriedly putting up candidates for the 2014 general elections. Bajpai also discussed with him how difficult it could be to replace ‘crony capitalism’ with ‘participatory democracy’, which is Kejriwal’s dream. Bajpai did not try to put him on the defensive by repeating what his opponents are accusing him of, but also got deeply involved in a discussion about the pitfalls and the promises of the risky and the less-travelled road the anti-establishment leader was taking. It was a treat to watch how far Hindi journalism has come despite the step-motherly treatment it has been receiving.
We need more anchors/analysts like Bajpai, who have the necessary knowledge, experience and depth and can hold an intelligent discussion with any political leader.
(Author/news analyst Ravi M. Khanna is a former South Asia bureau chief of Voice of America. He now does freelance reporting from New Delhi.)
Feedback: ravimohankhanna@gmail.com
