‘On TV evidence, Rahul doesn’t have it to be PM’

Rahul Gandhi‘s interview with Times Now editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami has already led to a torrent of scrutiny and criticism, and there will be more tonight as the wise sages in Bombay and Delhi sit down to parse every paragraph and syllable.

But how did smalltown India receive Gandhi’s arangetram against the stylish backdrop of an M.F. Husain painting?

Here, K.B. Ganapathy, the erudite editor-in-chief of the evening tabloid Star of Mysore shares his thoughts.

***

kbg

By K.B. GANAPATHY

Last evening I had my sundowner early enough to be ready to watch the TV channel Times Now at 9 pm waiting for the soon-to-become prime minister of India, Rahul Gandhi. He was to appear before Arnab Goswami, that loud-mouthed Times Now anchor who loves his own voice more than those whom he interviews and tackles in a panel discussion.

I was ready with a writing pad and a pen to write about the interview.

This interview, Arnab claimed, was Rahul’s first since he won the 2004 parliamentary elections. Rahul’s response was a denial saying he had given many press interviews but dodged the crux of the question that it was Rahul’s first TV interview.

Now, after I laboured through a languorous interview of over an hour, I discovered that this was the way Rahul was answering every one of Arnab Goswami’s questions. I am sure many attentive viewers too may have made the same discovery as yours truly.

Rahul, apparently in a show of bravado, told Arnab Goswami, who was going back in time, “…draw me back as much as you want.”

Arnab grabbed the opportunity and asked why Congress was avoiding announcing the prime ministerial candidate. The answer was something like this: “Issue is how a Prime Minister is chosen. It is MPs who select the Prime Minister. We have respect for the process.”

Arnab Goswami: What about 2009?

Rahul Gandhi: There was an incumbent Prime Minister.

In fact, knowledgeable people know whenever there is a person available in the Gandhi dynasty to become Prime Minister, that office would go to the member of that dynasty only.

In 1984, Rajiv Gandhi was sworn-in as prime minister, soon after Indira Gandhi’s assassination without consulting the MPs. It was the majority of CWC that chose the prime minister even though, left to the MPs, Pranab Mukherjee, being No. 2 in Indira Gandhi’s Cabinet, would have been chosen.

In fact, that was the reason for Pranab Mukherjee to leave Congress. Rajiv Gandhi too ignored him after assuming power. Let it be.

Sadly, Rahul Gandhi was unable to explain convincingly about this contradiction in what he told Arnab Goswami and what had happened in the Congress Party in the matter of choosing a Prime Minister.

Rahul Gandhi, in his detour of an answer, denied there was ever any arbitrary decision taken in choosing a PM, whatever it meant.

Questioned if he would face Narerddra Modi in a debate, once again the answer was devious and said, ‘You must understand Rahul Gandhi. I want to ask you a question…’ For this, Arnab’s answer was, ‘I can’t be a half journalist. I ask this question because Narendra Modi is challenging you on a daily basis.’

Answering further questions, Rahul went rambling — people of honesty are destroyed by the ‘system,’ question of losing or winning an election does not arise, etc.

After the interview, Arnab Goswami invited Vinod Mehta, that veteran journalist and mentor of Outlook magazine along with another author for their opinions about Rahul’s interview. Vinod Mehta rightly said, recalling Rahul’s concern for correcting the ‘system,’ that all these years, all those who tried to fix the system got themselves fixed and threw up their hands in despair.

I thought of Rahul’s father Rajiv Gandhi to whom the ever helpful media gave the reverential epithet Mr. Clean. This Mr Clean went to Bombay soon after becoming the Prime Minister, delivered an India-shaking speech criticising the power brokers in his party and vowed to end this menace that was the cause for corruption.

What happened? Soon Rajiv Gandhi himself got mired in corruption scandal of Bofors gun deal, lost the election to V.P. Singh and the rest was tragic history.

Question: Narendra Modi calls you Shehzada. Are you afraid of losing to Modi?

The answer was again abstract and irrelevant. ‘Rahul Gandhi wants to empower women. We will defeat BJP etc., etc.’

Question: Is Narendra Modi responsible for Gujarat riots? Courts gave him clean chit. Congress wants to put Modi on the back foot on this issue. What about 1984 Sikh massacre in Delhi? Was Congress responsible?

Here, Rahul Gandhi had a new take by way of answer. According to him, in Gujarat, the government headed by Narendra Modi abetted the massacre, while in Delhi the Congress government tried to contain the killings.

Arnab Goswami told Rahul Gandhi that while Narendra Modi got the army in 48 hours, in Delhi, it took 72 hours and many Congress leaders were arraigned in criminal cases in this Sikh massacre and the cases are still being dragged on.

Listening to this part of the interview, I was wondering why the learned media wizards and the smart politicians don’t see a distinction between 2002 Gujarat riots and 1984 Delhi massacre. The Gujarat violence was a communal riot. It is not important who provoked it because that will not justify killings at all.

The law of the land should prevail, not mass violence.

Here, both Hindus and Muslims died, but majority of people who died were Muslims. However, in Delhi, it was not a communal riot. It was a pogrom, like what happened to Jews during World War II in Germany.

Just because two Sikh security guards killed our Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, some Congress party members and admirers of Indira Gandhi allegedly massacred innocent Sikhs in a sudden, surprise attack. Now, 30 years on, our country’s legal system could not punish the culprits!

Will Rahul Gandhi, if and when he becomes the Prime Minister fix this ‘legal system’ so that aam aadmi gets justice without delay. Can he? I doubt.

To be honest, much as Congressmen would like to make Rahul Gandhi the Prime Minister of India, my gut feeling, after seeing him face the interview, is that he will not fit into the Prime Minister’s slot.

He was simply not clear in his mind what he wants to do for the country’s many challenging political, economic and social issues.

Yes, I must mention here that Rahul was asking Arnab Goswami why he was not asking questions about issues related to corruption, women empowerment, bringing youngsters into politics, etc. This was when Rahul was unable to face the tricky, difficult questions from Arnab Goswami.

Rahul did not seem a person with intellectual streak or with oratorical or debating skill.

Power of speech is what makes a leader.

History is replete with such leaders — Julius Caesar, Antony, Hannibal, Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Lenin, Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose…. At present Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal.

After seeing the interview, I don’t think, Rahul has what it takes to make one a Prime Minister or a great leader.

He was asked: If he wants to end corruption, how can he have alliance with Lalu Prasad Yadav of Bihar who has been convicted of corruption? The clever answer from Rahul was that the alliance was with the Party RJD and not with Lalu Prasad Yadav.

Likewise, he was asked about the ‘dynasty’ of which he is the No. 1. His answer was again a clever one: “In every party one could see ‘dynasty.’ I did not sign up and say I must be born in this dynasty or family,” etc., etc.

He further clarified in his own rambling, inchoate manner, to a question, his opinion about the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). It was a non-answer ! He was for opening the ‘system’ to end dynasty but there is no Abracadabra to do that.

I must appreciate here that for once that talkative, argumentative, belligerent Arnab Goswami was too condescending to Rahul Gandhi; too patient, too gentle and may I say too sympathetic to a person sitting before him, tensed up, with a smear of sweat on his pink visage, not sure of himself in answering the questions.

And I thought it was rather rude and even unkindly on the part of Arnab Goswami to ask Rahul Gandhi if he was prepared for a TV debate with Narendra Modi.

By now I had come to anticipate Rahul’s answer to such direct, taunting question and, as I correctly guessed, he said ‘his party would be ready for such a debate’. Now Manish Tewari, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Digvijay Singh… please get ready to face Narendra Modi.

And finally, it was interesting to hear in the beginning of the interview itself about Rahul Gandhi’s educational qualification about which that acerbic Dr Subramanian Swamy had some doubts. Surprisingly Rahul in turn asked Arnab Goswami if he was ever in Cambridge.

When the answer was yes, Rahul mentioned about an ‘affidavit’ he had filed etc., etc. about his having a degree from Trinity College.

Well, that was an insipid, boring interview, but I was left wondering, as I retired to bed, how could Vinod Mehta say Rahul’s was a creditable performance? Honesty in journalism may not always be the best policy.

After all, his own magazine Outlook has described Rahul Gandhi as ‘Sunset Prince’ and after watching this interview, I don’t think Outlook was wrong in its opinion.

(This piece was originally published in Star of Mysore)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses to “‘On TV evidence, Rahul doesn’t have it to be PM’”

  1. DHL Says:

    If 2014 Lokasabha elections is compared to the Legendary Kuruskesthra War. Rahul Ghandi is a Gaint slayer.

    Equate Modi to Legendary Bhisma and Rahul to Shikandi. Modi will just give up and go sleep on some mat in a Motel.

    I do see some productive use in Rahul Ghandi being a PM. Provided we have enough Food for Sustanace; A PM Rahul can bore the Nation with his Speech and put people to sleep.

    World needs Hibernation.

  2. Akshay S Dinesh Says:

    “Power of speech is what makes a leader”

    Maybe from this year, we’ll replace elections with a speech/debate/declamation contest.

  3. Deepak Says:

    Good to see that one MSM journalist is stating the truth. While social media and online media like firstpost expressed the truth about Rahul Gandhi interview, shameless MSM like TOI and DH were busy with sycophancy. The articles in the papers were classic example of media boot licking of Congress.
    Social media is a great thing as people get to see the truth, which is hidden by Main Stream Media.

  4. KK Says:

    It appears that Rahul’s sister Priyanka accompanied him to studio

  5. asha Says:

    TV interview or no interview…this guys is a misfit not only for politics but for anything else too..he is only a lucky sperm being touted as intelligent guy..look at the decline of the nehru clan starting from JNehru to IG to Sanjay to Rajiv to Rahul..nature has a way of taking its own revenge on the numero uno family. He also looked stoned during the interview proving again he needs cocaine to go for a interview…

  6. M Says:

    “Power of speech is what makes a leader. History is replete with such leaders — Julius Caesar, Antony,……………. Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose…. “.

    I am not sure if M. Gandhi was an orator. Can someone please enlighten me on this. He became a leader and a Mahatma because of his ‘understanding’ of the Indian society. I think in the last 100 years, he is the only one who has travelled the most in the Indian subcontinent and visited almost every city and town in India. He even came to our ancestral town of Theerthalli (in Shimoga dist.) which is a remote town even to this day.

    Speech is not considered to be of much value in India. Because orators (like Nehru) have delivered nothing. And thus the saying ” mathu mane kedasthu”.

  7. Rajarshi Roy Says:

    While Mr. Ganapathy rightly terms 1984 as a pogrom, he seems to be satisfied with calling 2002, a mere Hindu-Muslim communal riot. I am sure such an accomplished editor is aware of the facts of what actually went on in Gujarat during those fateful days of 2002. This is intellectual dishonesty at best.

    Finally, though I have not seen the aforesaid interview, Arnab Goswami went to Oxford and not Cambridge, as Mr. Ganapathy seems to be referring to.

  8. Gaampa Says:

    After listening to Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech, i am stunned and sad. Why can’t India’s present generation top leaders have such evocative and convincing oratory prowess?
    His pitch, delivery were perfect. Wish India’s PM and President are Blessed with such skills

  9. asha Says:

    Rajarshi Roy,

    1984 was a pogrom or ethnic cleansing..congress goons aided and abetted by the PM of India went on a killing spree in several places in India and massacred Sikhs who had nothing to do with IGs assassination. It was a one sided affair of Sikhs getting killed at the hands of congressi goons. Gujarat 2002 was communal riot because there were causalities on both sides..Hindus and muslims. Hope this clarifies your doubt. Some of the congressi thugs involved went on to become cabinet and state ministers and there was no conviction for the 1984 riots after 20+ years.

  10. Vinay Says:

    Rajarshi Roy:

    1984 pogrom: 3000 Sikhs killed 0 Hindus/Muslims killed.
    2002 riots: 754 Muslims killed, 254 Hindus killed (approx., that too with a 1:8 population ratio of Muslims:Hindus)

    Even a school kid will tell you which is a pogrom and which is a riot.

  11. DHL Says:

    Leaders with Charisma and great Oratory skills can motivate people to very psoitive things. MGR, NTR, Rajkumar had such Charisma and Hold on people. Rahul is an reluctant Politician people are pushing him into Politics to further their career.

    They say India PMs job is a tough job, if one gets a Ego boost inagurating functions it is just a waste of time.

  12. N.Paramasivam Says:

    Mr.Ganapathy is right in a way that R.G. is sun-set prince. But he cannot appreciate oratory skill of Kejriwal, who see negative in everything. Though he says that he is a follower of Anna Hazare, it is only to cover up his face and anarchic actions.

  13. krishnamachary Says:

    It is a mistery that so many intellectuals being there in Congress just lick the boots of dynasty which is worthless.

  14. Sanjeeva Says:

    @M, I think it is not the oratory skills which matter, but it is the simple art of communication. The other day, Arvind Kejriwal was giving an interview. It was so simple and matter of fact way! It was as if two friends sitting in the drawing room and discussing the politics. He was convincing. Great speeches, effective body language, wit and humour, powerful voice, etc. may draw the people in hordes and may be liked by lakhs, but it may not necessarily fetch votes! After all people are not fools. They can see through the words and deeds. That is where Mahatma stands out. If he was not a great communicator, how could he have made hugely diversified people of a big country like ours become united for a cause.

  15. harkol Says:

    Krishnamachary:

    It is no mystery at all. ‘Sucking up’ to those in power has been the practice from time immemorial.

    The true mystery is – Why people vote for a party blindly. i.e. Why do atleast about 25% of Indians keep voting Congress loyally, for all their life, when it has done precious little for them.

    Rajashri Roy:

    Pogrom = Organized persecution of an ethnic group

    Riot = A state of disorder involving group violence

    So, the question is if there was an ‘organized’ attempt to kill just ‘an ethnic group’ in 2002. Since it was both Hindu mobs and Muslim mobs trying to target each other in an organized way, and Police shot dead both Hindu & muslim mobs – it can’t be called a pogrom.

    It was a vicious riot. A blot on Modi’s career. But, riots have been common in North India (much fewer in south).

    But, 1984 organized massacre of Sikhs by state was unprecedented.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: