The big interview--wasted opportunity
Like many Indians, I was also eagerly looking forward to the first formal one-on-one interview of Rahul Gandhi with Arnab Goswami on Times Now (Read here and watch here). In retrospect, the Congress party must be regretting the decision to grant the interview. We instantly, as the interview was being telecast, came to know what the Twitter folks thought about the interview – the jokes and all the rest of the 140 character wisdom. We now also know from the commentary that appeared in the media, the day after, that the interview did not do much to change anybody’s opinions about Rahul Gandhi.
That being said, I would like to start by saying that I found the interview fascinating at two levels. At one level it was about the journalistic optics of one-on-one interviews, and at the second level, a more substantive one, what the interview told us about Rahul Gandhi’s self-perception of his political being, the purpose that drives his politics and seeming naiveté in his approach to the serious and tough vocation of politics.
I will come to the substantive issues later; let us first examine the optics of the interview from a journalistic perspective. The purpose of one-on-one interview, preferably conducted in a conversational style, is to learn about the thinking process and views of the interviewee on a series of substantive issues through open-ended questions. It is usually not about getting answers to so called “specifics,” which in this case were mostly tied to political controversies -- 1984 riots, Gujarat 2002, allegedly doctored CV and yes the scams galore in UPA-2.
‘Gotcha You’ interviews serve a more fruitful purpose in shows such as Question Time on BBC, Aap Ki Adalat on India TV, Devil’s Advocate on IBN, and shows with multiple panelists such as News Hour on Times Now and The Buck Stops Here on NDTV.
On the whole I think this was a lost opportunity for everyone -- the people of India, the news media and Rahul Gandhi. From the interview it is very clear that Arnab Goswami came armed with questions that he wanted to ask Rahul Gandhi as if he was a guest on the News Hour. We cannot fault a TV journalist for focusing on specific shiny objects – that is the nature of the medium. Probing journalists such as Arnab Goswami never shy away from doggedly pursuing controversies and constructing a media spectacle. However, it was for the media advisers of Rahul Gandhi to lay the ground rules for his first major prime time appearance in the news media. To any observer of Indian news media it would have been very obvious that Arnab Goswami was not the type of journalist you go to seeking explanatory journalism. It could be that the TRP of Times Now prompted the media handlers of Rahul Gandhi to approach Arnab Goswami, but that can be best answered by the party.
I think it was a big mistake, although, Rahul Gandhi tried his best to use the opportunity to talk about his place in politics and his political vision by resorting to the tried and tested strategy, often used by politicians – ignore the questions asked, answer the questions that you would have liked the journalist to ask and you have prepared yourself for.
On multiple occasions it seemed that Rahul Gandhi was under the impression that this was going to be a “conversation,” a Charlie Rose type, on his political views and his one or two big ideas for India -- which brings us to the substantive aspects of the interview.
So now we know from Rahul Gandhi’s answers the following: He does not think that he chose to enter politics of his own volition, but he is in politics because he was born into the political family and the tragedies that struck the family have thrust him into taking up the leadership of the Congress party. He thinks if he had not taken up the responsibility of leadership, it would have been betrayal to his family and the Congress men and women who look up to the family to lead them and the country.
When Arnab Goswami asked why he was in politics, Rahul Gandhi said “You sort of implied that, but maybe I look like an anomaly in the environment that I'm in. Maybe that's what you're saying and frankly in a lot of ways, I am an anomaly in the environment that I'm in. The power is poison remark, and I tell this to my sister, I tell it to my mother and my mother tells it to me. I don't get driven by the desire for power. I'm just not driven by it. For me power is an instrument that can be used for certain things. But for me, it's not interesting to own it, to capture it or to hold it. Maybe it’s because of my family circumstances and what happened to my family. Power per se, the quest for power, the thirst for power is not there in me.”
Now these sorts of statements made during the interview only went on to further cement the perception that Rahul Gandhi is a reluctant politician and a leader. Moreover, such statements would not command a lot of confidence from the party members, despite what they say in public. A leader has to not only belief in his/her vocation, but must have the ambition in him/her to win fairly the political battles and capture power in order to convert his/her political vision into a reality.
For example, Rahul Gandhi said, “My long term view is that we need to take the Indian political system to a different place. We need to bring in youngsters and we need to move away from this concentration of power. Unfortunately the political system today is at a particular place and I can't simply ignore the fact that the political system is at that place, so certainly there are points at which you might have to take a decision that you are not a 100% happy with but the long term idea for me is to transform the system, to bring in youngsters and make sure they are empowered.”
Talking about his big ideas, he sounded more like a social worker and not a leader of a major political party. A party that not only led the country to freedom, but has admirably kept it democratic when many of its peer countries have fallen astray into dictatorships and anarchy.
It is not that having an outlook of a social worker is not admirable, it is – but then what is the difference between Anna Hazare and Rahul Gandhi. Hazare also wants to deepen Indian democracy, change the system and its corrupt structures without capturing power. If Rahul Gandhi wants to transform the Congress party into social movement, I do not think his party men and women are on board with him on that vision of his. Is it possible to be a social worker and politician? Yes, but then one has to be ready to bear the cross like the real Gandhi, the Mahatma.
Finally, to be fair to Rahul Gandhi all this talk about his political vision for Indian democracy and his big ideas on RTI, decentralisation of power to the grassroots, women empowerment and India becoming the manufacturing hub of the world would have not sounded naive if the interview itself was devoted to exploring and interrogating his big ideas. The fact that interviewer was more interested in getting answers to the pointed “specifics” on the political controversies, the shiny objects in the media, pushed the big ideas to fall by the side. Now again that is not the fault of the interviewer, who in this is known for his pointed approach, rather it was a wasted opportunity by Rahul Gandhi and his advisors.
(Anup Kumar teaches at the School of Communication, Cleveland State University, OH, USA. He is the author of The Making of a Small State: Populist Social Mobilisation and the Hindi Press in the Uttarakhand Movement)