Inside Rahul's System: Decoding His First Big Interview

Inside Rahuls system
Decoding his frst big interview

Copyright 2012 Firstpost
Table of contents
The reality of Rahul
3 things we learned about Rahul from his interview 04
Stuck between Arnab and a hard place: Rahuls quandary 07
Yes, Rahul is an anomaly but why is he proud of it? 09
Rahul Gandhi and mystery of the strangeness quotient 10
Why Rahul may be happier walking off into the sunset 12
1984 reignited
Frankly lying: Rahul Gandhi on 1984 and Gujarat 16
Rahul and other 1984 apologists: The big lie of Congs secularism 18
Has AAP outdone BJP by ordering SIT probe into 1984 anti-Sikh riots? 20
Did Rahul make a big mistake?
Rahuls TV interview: Congress in damage control mode? 23
How he turned the tables: The Rahul Gandhi interview 25
1984 riots, angry allies: Why Rahuls interview has backfred 29
How Rahul Gandhi ended up tying himself in knots 31
Rahul Gandhi interview: Why the Youth Congress is cheering 33
Et tu Modi?
The artful dodgers: Now that Rahul has spoken, will Modi follow? 36
The reality of Rahul
3 things we learned about Rahul
from his interview
Piyasree Dasgupta Jan 28, 2014
Y
ou know this man. As Pappu, if you are
a big Twitter hashtag junkie. As sheh-
zada if you are an ardent admirer of the
Narendra Modi school of retro nomenclature.
Or As the reluctant prince if you are a collector
of newspaper headlines with great recall value.
Rahul Gandhi probably has more nicknames
to his credit than Sushilkumar Shinde has had
blonde moments in his political career. We have
seen him upset, we have seen him angry, we
have see him happy and we have even seen him
kicking himself in the posterior (well, in any
political discourse, the blows Rahul has rained
on the Congress government amounts to exactly
that).
Some days we know he is Congress PM candi-
date, while on other days we suspect he is the
Congress PM candidate. And then there are the
days that were absolutely sure that Congress
wouldnt make him the PM candidate.
In his low key political career spanning roughly
ten years (he fought his frst elections in 2004),
Rahul Gandhi has been the sum total of a series
of conclusions we have drawn from his very
limited public appearances most of which
survived in public memory because of stand-
up comedians trying to outshine each other on
Twitter and hence churning a joke out of every
article and pronoun that he utters.
One would have said it was a clever move for the
Gandhi heir to appear on a television interview
and dispel the air of hopelessness around him.
In fact, from the promos on Times Now chan-
nel, the hopes went up once the viewers realised
that the anchor was speaking in a volume, a
few notches lower than what is reserved for his
usual guests.
Whether at the end of the interview, it still
seemed like a good move is debatable. But
heres what could be gleaned about him from
the said interview:
1. Rahul Gandhi either doesn't know or is
in denial about what specifc means
If you are a fan, you might want to read that as
Rahul Gandhi needs to shoot his manager right
now. Assuming that Rahul Gandhi doesnt just
share Goswamis deep concern for what the
nation wants to know and hence agreed on this
interview after a thorough intra-party brain-
storming, Gandhi seemed far from prepared to
grapple a diffcult question or two.
And these werent even questions that struck
him out of the blue thanks to an entity called
the BJP, these are questions that are metaphori-
cally lobbed at Gandhi religiously every other
day. So when Goswami declared right at the
beginning that he wants specifc answers to his
questions, Gandhi should have realised that the
nation doesnt want to know about the Gandhis
from him they dont want to throw Prakash
Jha out of work just yet. However, Gandhi re-
fused to answer a single question in a way that
didnt sound like a particularly unimpressive
voiceover for a Gandhi biopic. Sample this:
Goswami: Rahul Gandhi the frst point is this;
you have just avoided this whole question
about whether you are open to PM's post. It
seems to me Rahul that you are avoiding a dif-
fcult contest.
Rahul Gandhi: See, if you look at the speech I
gave at AICC a few days back. The issue is ba-
sically how the Prime Minister in this country
is chosen. The way the Prime Minister is chosen
in this country is through the MPs. Our system
chooses MPs & MPs elect Prime Minister.
Or this:
Goswami: The growing belief is that if Rahul
Gandhi has not picked up the challenge offcial-
ly that means that there is a fear of loss, he is
avoiding a direct one on one battle with Naren-
dra Modi, you must answer that?
Rahul Gandhi: To understand that question
you have to understand a little bit about who
Rahul Gandhi is and what Rahul Gandhi's
circumstances have been and if you delve into
that you will get an answer to the question of
what Rahul Gandhi is scared off and what he is
not scared off.
The real question is what I am doing sitting
here, you are a journalist, when you were
small you must have said to yourself I want to
do something, you decided to become a jour-
nalist at some point, why did you do that?
Your take-away? Rahul Gandhi likes the sound
of Rahul Gandhi and hence likes saying Rahul
Gandhi aloud many times in a sentence.
In fact, this was the frst opportunity during the
interview, where Gandhi could have sounded
out a strong message to the Opposition by fol-
lowing the bible of politics which suggests a
slightly adamant, but still strong-sounding no.
However, his stream-of-consciousness answer
that eventually led to Arnab Goswamis nursery
school ambitions, just reinforced the picture of
a leader whose goal is as unclear to himself as it
is to his party. Then from 1984 riots to Adarsh
Scam, from his education to his willingness to
be part of the political system, Gandhi batted
away every question with catchphrases we are
familiar with, thanks to his speeches. In the
traditional political narrative of our country,
hubris is often read as confdence and Gandhi
missed a chance to dig in his heels as a leader
who commands attention.
2. Rahuls favourite word: system; his
least favourite: Modi
Final score: System: 73 Modi: 3
Rahul Gandhi evidently loves the word system
way more than Yo Yo Honey Singh likes his own
name. In fact, it is to him what many would say,
mitron is to Narendra Modi. While his limited
vocabulary is not greatly worrying, what is, is
his how his relationship with the word, as it
applies to India at present, is completely misdi-
rected.
Here is the Vice President of a party, which is
the incumbent government, talking about how
the system needs an overhaul. If system is the
political establishment that runs governments
in the country, Congress while not being re-
sponsible for the whole of it, is certainly respon-
sible for the biggest section of it.
So did Rahul Gandhi declare he is going to
shake the entrenched political malpractices up?
No he didnt. He carefully skirted past the issue
of Maharashtra Congress ministers originally
implicated in the Adarsh scam report.
Did he strongly demand all political parties be
brought under his trophy policy RTI? No. He
said, if the legislature is made answerable to the
public, so should the judiciary and the media.
Did he clearly enumerate the steps he is tak-
ing to make the system more accessible to the
country. No.
Given the fate of his earlier initiatives to make
the party more inclusive, Gandhis anti-system
assertions lacked the thrust of a concrete action
plan.
His web initiative Khidkee fzzled out after a
week-long run in which it effectively turned into
a scrapbook for platitudes for the Congress.
We have still heard nothing of his initiative
to have aspiring legislators fll up a fve-page
application form for purposes of transparent
nomination. No one knows who compiles these
forms, who screens them, and what the process
involved in the elimination of candidates is.
3. Rahul is not equal to Congress?
It is probably not just Ajay Maken who has been
haunted by his question every time Rahul opens
his mouth to speak. Though it was a warped
question at its best, Rahul seemed unwilling to
shoulder the burden of the wrongs of his party,
though he doesnt quite mind revelling in its
history of political hegemony in India.
While it might be slightly unfair to ask Rahul to
apologise for the anti-Sikh riots as the anchor
framed it, the Gandhi heir cannot still afford to
not acknowledge this phase of Congress history
because he was not a functional member at
that time.
The attempt to dissociate a political narrative
from selected phases of its own development
can only produce a discordant and desperate
appeal to look into the future regardless of the
past. And that runs the risk of being read as
disregard for the past, lack of penitence and
an evident absence of humility. The voter will
compelled to ask, if you dismiss the past, where
is the assurance that you have learnt from it and
wont repeat its mistakes?
Asked, why he didnt deem it necessary to speak
up during the 2G scam and why was he so re-
moved from the party that he didnt even smell
the wrongdoings, Gandhi said, My position was
that I report to the Prime Minister. Whatever
I felt I had conversations with the Prime Min-
ister. Whatever I felt about the issues I made it
abundantly clear to the Prime Minister. I was
involved in the legislation, RTI legislation. And
now I have helped pass the Lokpal Bill. I bring
you back. The real issue here is participation of
people in politics.
It wont be completely off the mark to say that
Rahul is in a great hurry to distance himself
from every scam the Congress has been caught
in.
The mark of a good leader is one who knows
how to drag his brood out of muck if the party
were to be caught in it. His passing the buck on
the Prime Minister reveals another pathological
problem his refusal to take responsibility or
his expertise to shoulder it alone.
The primary weapon in a political partys arse-
nal is a strong defence a mix of denial, refusal
and counter-allegation. And Gandhi seems keen
on defending and promoting just those aspects
of the partys activities he has participated in,
leaving the rest to their own devices. It can be
read as selfshness, it can be read as ineptitude
and it will most certainly be counted as a big
leadership drawback. And its ripples are bound
to be felt by the several lower rungs of the party
who have associated Congress with other lead-
ers before Rahul.
Rahuls anti-Old Congress stance can only gain
credibility when the investigations in the sev-
eral scams reach a conclusive end. If the Adarsh
scam is a template to go by, wed rather not
place our money on that one.
Stuck between Arnab and
a hard place: Rahuls quandary
In the end after some 100 questions, the nation got to
know many things from Rahul Gandhi. Its just
that most of them were not answers to
questions Arnab asked.
Sandip Roy Jan 28, 2014
A
very telling moment in Rahul Gandhis
interview with Times Now's Arnab Gos-
wami was when Mr.-India-Wants-to-
Know was pugnaciously grilling him about the
1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi.
Rahul: All I'm saying is there is a difference be-
tween the 1984 riots and the Gujarat riots. The
difference is that the government of the day in
1984 was not aiding and abetting the riots. That
is all I'm saying.
Arnab: So you don't need to apologise for the
'84 riots. If someone seeks an apology from you,
will you give it? Your Prime Minister has apolo-
gised for the riots. Expressed deep regret. Will
you do the same?
Rahul: First of all I wasn't involved in the riots
at all. It wasn't that I was part of it.
Everyone knows that the frst statement is non-
sensical. Congress leaders were very much part
of the aiding and abetting in 1984. For Rahul
Gandhi to just deny it baldly is rewriting his-
tory, especially since at some point of the inter-
view he conceded that some Congressmen were
probably involved.
But then he can hardly be expected to go on na-
tional television and do a grand 1984 mea culpa
either on behalf of his party. However, he could
have said that unlike Modi, Manmohan Singh
has specifcally apologized for 1984. Instead it
was left to Goswami to remind him of that.
The interview clearly shows how Rahul is in
effect stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Rahul is held accountable in the interview for all
the sins of the Congress, even dating back to a
time when he was not involved with the party.
On one level thats unfair. Modi is not called
upon to defend everything the BJP/NDA has
ever done. But the problem for Rahul is Modi
has his own track record. Rahul does not.
Rahul has created his own predicament. Af-
ter spending much of the last decade acting as
some would put it as a glorifed intern allegedly
rebuilding his party, he has little record of his
own. He could have been a union minister if he
had so chosen but he did not. If he had done
that, Arnab could have talked about his achieve-
ments and failures there instead of attacking
him about everything from the riots of 1984 to
corruption scams under Manmohan Singhs
watch.
Rahuls response to all those charges was simply
to duck and recite homilies about empowering
women. He tried to set himself up as the outsid-
er when in fact he is the prince, not the pauper.
When Goswami asked how the party could
preach about attacking corruption and con-
template an election alliance with someone like
Lalu Prasad Yadav in Bihar, Rahul said, "These
decisions of the Congress party are made by
senior leaders."
If Rahul honestly thinks he is not a senior lead-
er in his own party with little say in electoral
alliances then someone should tell the party
that before it goes to the polls. But in reality its
a classic Rahul move to shy away from uncom-
fortable truths by pretending to be an outsider
to the system.
But as elections draw closer that is just not
going to work. The Congress, or any party for
that matter, needs to be led from the front by
someone who actually has a hunger for power.
Theres nothing wrong with that, provided ones
hunger for power is about effecting change rath-
er than lining ones own pockets. Rahul thinks
its a virtue to appear free from that hunger. As
he told Goswami:
I don't get driven by the desire for power. I'm
just not driven by it. For me power is an instru-
ment that can be used for certain things. But
for me, it's not interesting to own it, to capture
it or to hold it.
The point is his party wants to capture it and
hold it. And Rahul does it no favours by his act
of half-abdication.
To his credit, Rahul for all his vague replies, put
himself up for an Arnab Goswami inquisition
though the editor held back on his usual incen-
diary freworks. Perhaps Narendra Modi will
do the same at some point but up to this point
Modi has avoided the lengthy sit down televi-
sion one-on-one. Modi is in reality quite inac-
cessible. He is just very visible and his visibility
gets mistaken for accessibility.
Bashing Rahul is easy to do and a favourite
political sport for commentators. But its also a
fact that the man put himself through an inter-
view that could not have been the most pleas-
ant experience. At the end of it he emerged as
someone earnest but vague, preferring to re-
treat to the safety of the broad stroke instead of
answering the specifc question put to him. He
spoke about himself in the third person as if the
whole interview was an out of body experience
for him.
In the end after some 100 questions, the nation
got to know many things from Rahul Gandhi.
Its just that most of them were not answers to
questions Arnab asked.
Yes, Rahul is an anomaly
but why is he proud of it?
He had ten long years to prepare for it, and yet Rahul
Gandhi turned up grossly undercooked for the frst
television interview of his political career.
Dhiraj Nayyar Jan 29, 2014
H
e had ten long years to prepare for it,
and yet Rahul Gandhi turned up gross-
ly undercooked for the frst television
interview of his political career. Clearly, he had
done some last minute mugging, memorising
key words like RTI, youth, women and system,
but for an interview that lasted almost 90 min-
utes bandying about those terms repeatedly
could not earn him a pass grade.
Politics, like some examinations, is a cruel al-
most brutal past time. Rahul Gandhi was being
honest and sincere when he said that he was not
driven by a thirst for power. But in that single
admission, he also revealed why he remains
unft to hold high offce.
Forget Prime Minister, Rahul Gandhi did not
appear convincing enough to be a Cabinet
Minister, except perhaps for Youth Affairs or
Womens Empowerment. To succeed in politics,
like in any other profession, a person needs to
be driven, have a fre in the belly, a keenness to
learn, a desire to achieve, an ambition to rise to
the top in rapid time. Rahul has none of those.
Perhaps more important than the fact that
Rahul Gandhi doesnt possess those qualities is
the fact that he doesnt perceive the need to try
and acquire them. That is the curse of his inher-
itance. He is born to lead the Congress party.
The thought that he may one day be deposed
for non-performance would not have crossed
his mind such is the servility of the party to the
Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Thus assured of a per-
manent leadership position, win or lose makes
little difference to Rahul. Even a huge political
loss cannot ignite his fre.
Unlike most other politicians, Rahul Gandhi
can afford to lose, just as he can afford to bum-
ble through an interview. He can say that he
will take full responsibility for the defeat of the
Congress because there are no consequences
for him especially since he has no thirst for
power. He is an anomaly. To be fair, Rahul said
as much. Except that he seemed proud of it.
It is not a matter of pride. It is a matter of
shame that Indias oldest political party has a
leader (make no mistake, he is the boss) who is
not interested in the rough and tough of politics
and instead sees politics as a means to a slow
discovery of himself (as a non-politician), quite
unlike his great-grandfather for whom politics
was about the discovery of India. The law of
diminishing returns has set into the dynasty.
The only thing Rahul Gandhi seems passionate
about is opening up his party and the politi-
cal system from its insular state. But again, he
doesnt recognise the contradiction of his de-
mocratisation drive if there is a monarch on
top and several princes around him then what
democracy is he talking about? Perhaps only at
the level of the Panchayat.
Rahul would be taken seriously if he offered to
abdicate his political inheritance and worked
instead as an evangelist for political reform (and
womens empowerment and youth affairs and
freedom of information) in India. He seems
like a nice guy with limited talent and a famous
name. He only needs to fnd the right profes-
sion.
Rahul Gandhi and mystery of
the strangeness quotient
From the Congress perspective, Rahuls approach
could only be bad news. They need a commander to
lead them in the coming war, however the chosen one
does not even feel theres a war ahead.
Akshaya Mishra Jan 28, 2014
Y
ou might think I am strange, says
Rahul Gandhi at one point in his
interview with Arnab Goswami of
Times Now. He appeared strange indeed, in a
positive way though. Take all the malice and
hate that usually goes into analyzing him out of
the way while judging him from the interview,
there are chances that you might discover a
person with strong beliefs and sense of commit-
ment, someone who is deep into politics but not
a politician at all and someone who could be a
good philosopher-mentor to a party but never a
general leading it to victory.
For most part, the interviewer and the inter-
viewee were at different tangents the latter
impatient to fy off to familiar territory and the
former trying break the fight by pulling him
back to specifc questions of controversial na-
ture. As usual, Rahul was found at a loss when
confronting the diffcult questions.
It is intriguing that despite understanding clear-
ly that the same set of questions would be fung
at him the media have been doing so relent-
lessly for years he would be so completely
disinclined to keep himself ready with answers.
This, coming from someone in constant public
focus, would qualify as strange.
He does not appear to be a normal political
leader interpret it whichever way you want.
That he does not enjoy being drawn into con-
tentious political topics has been evident for
sometime. He likes to be seen playing the out-
sider and the agent of change in Indian politics,
not only in the Congress. He is more comfort-
able talking concepts like democracy, empower-
ment and rights than touching mundane mat-
ters such as governance.
In an age so full of noise, aggression and show-
manship, he is surprisingly non-combative and
low-key forget his periodical public outbursts
now and then. He has to be strange. Which
other political leader of his stature would enter-
tain questions on his educational qualifcation?
To be frank, most of the questions put to him
by the media are asinine and dont deserve to
be dignifed with answers. Why, for example,
Rahul needs to answer the dynasty question
repeatedly when hardly any party yes, this
includes the BJP too in India follows perfect
democratic practices in conducting itself? Why
must he be expected to commit himself on the
prime minister question?
The media have reduced the general elections
to a glorifed version of cock fghts in tribal
regions. They are disappointed that he is not
joining a presidential style hand-to-hand com-
bat with Modi. But it is not Rahuls responsibil-
ity to keep the media entertained. Again, what
response do you expect when you ask whether
he is scared of Modi. How many times does he
need to tell in public that the party is in a bad
shape and in need of organizational revival? The
questions are pointless because they invite sub-
jective answers tied to perspective and context;
more so when those putting them have decided
the answers and are determined to reject or
challenge them if they go the wrong way.
But isnt it odd that he would be completely
unprepared for questions? He was hardly con-
vincing when handling questions on his partys
electoral losses, comparing the riots of 2002
and 1984, on his stand on corruption and the
Congress support to the Aam Aadmi Party.
Surely the interviewer was throwing him in un-
comfortable territory more often that he would
have liked. But how long can he evade these? It
is true he brings certain freshness and sincerity
to politics with his approach, but it would in-
deed be strange if he refuses to acknowledge the
need to engage the media better.
From the Congress perspective, Rahuls ap-
proach could only be bad news. They need a
commander to lead them in the coming war,
however the chosen one does not even feel
theres a war ahead. He is engrossed in long-
term vision. Of course, he talks of the partys
victory in 2014, but theres nothing in his de-
meanour to suggest that he is ready for the
tough task ahead. With few other options left,
they have to bear with the strangeness quotient.
Why Rahul may be happier
walking off into the sunset
Rahul Gandhi, as seen in his frst TV interview, comes
across as a dynast uncomfortable with his origins
and uncertain about the uses of power
R Jagannathan Jan 28, 2014
R
ahul Gandhis frst major television
interview tells us many things we may
have suspected about him but didnt
know for sure.
First, he is nervous and not comfortable under
the arclights. He couldnt hide his discomf-
ture in front of a TV camera as he fdgeted and
avoided eye contact repeatedly. Second, he
probably means well, but is unsure how to make
sense of two contradictory forces in his life: his
troubled inheritance and his underlying beliefs.
One suspects that he is not a dynast by inclina-
tion; dynastic expectations have been thrust on
him. Third, theres a sharp divergence between
what he said and what he may really believe
in as was apparent from his uncertain and
shifty body language. Fourth, for a politician,
he showed no will to power. When asked direct
questions, he pouted unconvincing philosophy.
It is obvious that Arnab Goswamis tough and
direct questions forced him to fb whether
it was on Narendra Modi, or the comparisons
between 2002 and 1984, or his unease with
corruption in the Congress and other peoples
corruption.
This leads me to conclude that the only resolu-
tion of the dilemma facing him lies outside his
party. And possibly outside politics too. He has
to forsake his inheritance to be really effective
as a person with some aims of making a differ-
ence to society. As a politician thrust into a posi-
tion of power, he will probably be a disastrous
ruler. You cant rule well if you do not believe
power is important to achieving something. You
can't do good if you feel guilty about the mere
exercise of power.
Lets look at his various statements and see why
the above conclusions are not far-fetched.
Rahul was distinctly uncomfortable with all the
questions the anchor posed to him about Modi,
or corruption or his own prime ministerial
ambitions. He always avoided these questions
by emphasising that these were not the ques-
tions that bothered him, but how to change the
system. The word system, as my colleague
points out, appeared over 70 times in the inter-
view even though Goswami asked him nothing
about the system. Rahul said: The thing that
I see is that the system in this country needs
to change, I don't see anything else and I am
blind to everything else. I am blind because I
saw people I love destroyed by the system. I am
blind because the system everyday is unfair to
our people.
There are shades of Arvind Kejriwal in this
which tells us that Rahul is actually an unlikely
Congress messiah. He does not see himself as
the answer to the partys drive for power even
if some Congress sycophants do. His main
criticism against Modi is also that he wants to
concentrate power in his hands.
He said: The BJP has a prime ministerial
candidate, the BJP believes in concentration of
power in the hands of one person. I fundamen-
tally disagree with that, I believe in democracy,
I believe in opening up the system.
This, from someone born to power in a dynasty,
is a bit thick unless this view is an indirect
expression of his own fundamental ambiva-
lence towards the exercise of power. Some time
ago, he said that his mother considered power
as poison. The chances are these are his own
views too. He may thus be using Modis alleged
obsession with power to give vent to his own
feelings about power.
It is also likely that he is uncomfortable with his
own partys corruption though he said confus-
ing things at the interview. On the Adarsh probe
report, when Goswami asks him why nothing
was done, Rahul tells him he has done some-
thing: I have made it absolutely crystal clear
right in front of the press what I think about
this issue. When Goswami reminds him that
Ashok Chavan (former Maharashtra CM, who is
at the centre of it all) still faces no action, Rahul
retreats tamely and unconvincingly: What all
I'm saying is that anybody, regardless of who
he is, if there is any corruption by any Congress
person, we will take action.
The same ambivalence was evident on Lalu
Prasad as well. One may recall that it was Ra-
hul Gandhis nonsense remark that ended
the ordinance to allow convicted politicians
to continue in offce a decision that affected
Lalu Prasad most, as his conviction in the fod-
der scam followed soon afterwards. But right
now his party is in serious talks for an alliance
with Lalus party in Bihar the same party he
dumped in order to go it alone in 2009 and
2010.
Rahuls tame excuse was that it was not an al-
liance with Lalu, but his party. We are making
an alliance with a political party.
Clearly, his heart and his head are in confict
on this issue of corruption. He might be hap-
pier having a cleaner party and no power but
heading a party means compromising with evil.
Rahul probably dreads these compromises
but cant bring himself to say it like it is.
There is the same split evident on 2002 and
1984 too. To most observers, the two events are
similar with the BJP and the Congress in the
dock for failing to prevent attacks on a com-
munity after traumatic events (the Godhra train
fre and Indira Gandhis assassination). But
Rahul pretended not to see the similarity. It is
the kind of wishful blindness that only someone
deeply troubled by the comparison can enunci-
ate. He said: The difference between the 1984
riots and the riots in Gujarat was that in 1984
the government was trying to stop the riots. I
remember, I was a child then, I remember the
government was doing everything it could to
stop the riots. In Gujarat the opposite was the
case. The government in Gujarat was actually
abetting and pushing the riots further. So there
is a huge difference between the two things.
The inconsistencies in his views are obvious: if
he was just a child then, he could not have had
much of a frst-hand view or memories on how
the government was going everything to stop
the riots. Everyone knows that it was a com-
pletely one-sided Congress party-led attack on
Sikhs, unlike 2002, where Hindus were attack-
ing Muslims and the subsequent communal
rioting resulted in many deaths on both sides
but with Muslims losing thrice as many people
as Hindus. In 2002, the attacks were less one-
sided than in 1984.
And where did he get the idea that the Modi
government was behind the killings? He replies:
I mean, it's not me...it's the large number of
people who were there, large number of people
who saw actively the government of Gujarat be-
ing involved in the riots.
Nor was he entirely convincing in replying to
the question of an apology for the 1984 riots.
He made it plain that he had nothing to do with
1984: First of all I wasn't involved in the riots
at all. It wasn't that I was part of it.
But that should make an apology easier after
all Manmohan Singh did it easily in 2005 even
though he wasnt part of the rioting at all.
One possibility is that Rahul may not want to
be seen as disloyal to the memory of his father,
who was the principal political benefciary of
the 1984 riots. Rajiv Gandhi skillfully used the
riots to win 404 seats for the Congress party by
playing on Hindu fears of Sikh extremism. Rajiv
never apologised for 1984 and even made
insensitive remarks (when a big tree falls, the
earth shakes) about it.
The point: Both Rajiv and Modi used a traumat-
ic event to electoral advantage. But Rahul chose
to see the event differently. That he is willing
to believe that Modi is different from Rajiv can
only be attributed to flial loyalty little else.
Perhaps the truest thing Rahul spoke was on
the dynasty itself, and it is worth quoting him at
some length on this.
The real issue is that I didn't choose to be born
in this family, I didn't sign up and say that I
like to be born in this family. It happened, so
the choice in front of me is pretty simple: I can
either turn around and say okay I will just walk
away from this thing and leave it alone or I can
say I can try and improve something. Pretty
much every single thing I have done in my
political career has been to bring in youngsters,
has been to open up, has been to democratise.
He said: I am absolutely against the concept
of dynasty, anybody who knows me knows that
and understands that. But you are not going
to wish away dynasty in a closed system; you
have to open the system. Dynasty or children of
politicians becoming powerful happens in the
BJP, it happens in the DMK, it happens in the
SP, it happens in the Congress party, it happens
everywhere.
This elaborate protestation is a tell-tale indica-
tion that Rahul is caught between the dynastic
expectations of his family and party even while
he himself is not too convinced about it. Which
is why he even brings up the question of wheth-
er he can walk away from it all.
Rahuls statement that he did not choose to be
born in this family is probably straight from
the heart. He probably feels guilty about his
inheritance. The dilemma cannot be solved by
him staying in the Congress or playing a role he
does not believe in.
If he is true to himself, he should indeed walk
away from it all.
(Read the full transcript of the Times Now in-
terview here)
1984 reignited
Frankly lying:
Rahul Gandhi on 1984 and Gujarat
Why should we trust Rahul to address issues honestly
when he was so evidently willing to lie over
fundamental issues only to save his family
and his partys reputation?
Hartosh Singh Bal Jan 28, 2014
I
t would have been comic but for the fact
that the man who was such cause for na-
tional entertainment last night is, and will
continue to be in all but designation, the head of
Indias largest political party. It thus has to be
seen as a tragedy that we had to listen to such
a man speak at such length to say so little of
substance, all the while posturing hypocritically
and callously about the actual facts that led to
the mass murder of innocents.
When Arnab asked him: What is your view,
would like to expound your views, your PM ac-
cuses Narendra Modi in his press conference
of presiding over "the mass massacre of inno-
cent citizens on the streets of Ahmedabad." Mr.
Rahul Gandhi my question to you is this, do you
agree with your PM when he says that?
He answered: Well, I mean what the Prime
Minister is saying is a fact, Gujarat happened,
people died but the real issue as far I am con-
cerned...
Gujarat happened, people died, but of course
those are not the real issues as far as he is
concerned. In the course of another answer he
managed to tell us what he thought the real is-
sue was:
Look. All I'm saying, all I'm saying is that there
is a difference between the 1984 riots and the
Gujarat riots. The simple difference is that in
1984 the government was not involved in the
massacre of people. In Gujarat it was. The ques-
tion is why do these kind of things take place.
Why is it that the Gujarat riots took place? The
Gujarat riots took place frankly because of the
way our system is structured, because of the fact
that people do not have a voice in the system.
And what I want to do. And I have said it and I
will say it again. What I want to do is question
the fundamentals over here. What I want to do
is ask a couple of questions. I want to ask why
candidates that are chosen in every single party
are chosen by a tiny number of people. I want to
ask why women have to be scared to go out on
the street. I want to ask these questions. These
are fundamental questions.
At this point, I began to wonder, as, no doubt,
so many others did, is this man for real?
He was lying about the facts. Policemen across
ranks were indicted for the killings in Gujarat,
as they were indicted for the killings in Delhi.
Ministers of the BJP Gujarat government were
named in 2002 as were ministers of the Con-
gress Union government in 1984. Several Sangh
politicians were rewarded for their role in the
killings as were several Congress politicians.
He was saying what, under the circumstances,
amounted to callous nonsense. The killings did
not take place because the people do not have a
voice in the system, they took place because the
system did not have the courage to take on the
voice of the mob, and in fact collaborated with
it.
Given that no member of the Gandhi family ever
had been so grilled in public it does verge on
the unfair to suggest Arnab should have pushed
further, but he should have.
When Rahul said The difference between the
84 riots and the riots in Gujarat was that in
1984 the Government was trying to stop the ri-
ots. I remember, I was a child then, I remember
the Government was doing everything it could
to stop the riots what exactly did he mean?
What did he think doing "everything" meant?
Given that he invokes his fathers legacy at every
step what did he think of his fathers statement
about a great tree falling? Why was it that for
him the legal process was a defence where the
Congress was concerned, it wasnt where the
BJP was concerned?
It betrays political stupidity to be unprepared
for a question on why he thought Modis gov-
ernment was complicit in the killings, but it says
something worse about Rahul that he was will-
ing to deny the reality of the 1984 killings.
It does not help his cause that his demeanor
through the rest of the interview was in keep-
ing with such prevarication. After squirming
through an hour of further questioning, where
he did nothing to improve the disaster the inter-
view had already become within the frst half an
hour, he declared that Arnab had become mired
in superfcialities. He then informed us that
"the real core issues in this election are, 1)Are
we going to head towards a democracy, towards
deepening our democracy and towards opening
up the system or are we going to head towards
concentration of power? 2) Are we going to
head towards empowerment of women? Are we
going to be a half strong nation? Be a half proud
nation? Or are we going to actually empower
women?
Some of these are worthy questions, some of
these are born out of an acute misunderstand-
ing of our democracy and our Constitution, but
really the core question goes well beyond these
Why should we trust Rahul to address any of
these issues honestly when he was so evidently
willing to lie over fundamental issues only to
save his family and his partys reputation?
Rahul and other 1984 apologists:
The big lie of Congs secularism
In his blundering fashion, Rahul has undone this
silence that surrounds the complicity of the highest
level of the party in the 1984 riots -- and exposed the
secular pretensions who support his party.
Hartosh Singh Bal Jan 30, 2014
T
he central character of Jaspreet Singhs
book Helium, recently released in India,
is the son of a senior policeman who
was an important functionary in Delhi at the
time of the 1984 massacres. The book, in some
measure, is a story of how he summons up the
courage to face up to this past with a degree of
honesty.
If only Rahul Gandhi could have summoned up
a similar honesty, we might be living in a differ-
ent country. But even so he has managed to pro-
vide one worthy service. Thanks to his fumbling
lies, the denial of justice for the 1984 victims
has reentered our political discourse.
Given that Narendra Modis presence in the
prime ministerial race has already ensured that
what happened in 2002 in Gujarat will remain
an important issue in the run up to the election,
this is as it should be. The problem, however,
is the competitive discourse between 1984 and
2002 that has become a part of the rhetoric,
not just among the Congress and the BJP but
among a host of sympathizers of either party
which includes several commentators.
The desire to make much of the ideological dif-
ferences between the Congress and the BJP only
serves to hide an ugly reality of this country.
Both 2002 and 1984 were examples of majori-
tarian communalism, which is why there was no
shortage of low level Congressmen who partici-
pated in the 2002 killings or for that matter of
RSS functionaries who were named in the 1984
killings.
This majoritarian communalism is not the
preserve of sections of the Hindu community.
In Kashmir, the Muslim majority is also largely
equally accountable as far as the events that led
to the exile of Kashmiri Pandits is concerned; or
for that matter the Sikh majority which stood by
in the late 1980s as terrorists selectively target-
ed Hindus in the rural areas of the Majha region
of Punjab, a story which is yet to be told in all its
details.
Both parties, the Congress and the BJP, have
seen political opportunities in exploiting ma-
joritarian feelings on various occasions in this
country. To claim that the BJP has an explicit
ideology that makes it more dangerous than
the Congress is not borne out by any evidence
of communal violence in this country. Evidence
that has held true over several decades cannot
be dismissed with some rhetoric about ideologi-
cal differences, even if it is a man like Amartya
Sen propounding it, or the CPI or CPI (M) en-
dorsing it.
This majoritarian tendency is one of the great
dangers we face, and where Narendra Modi and
his forebears are concerned, it is easy to recog-
nize the dangers. His blinded supporters may
not like it but that does not change the truth.
Where the Congress is concerned, we run into
a greater diffculty, as there are a huge number
of people who actively seek to intervene and
make excuses for its actions, considering them
aberrations -- ever though since Indira Gandhi
split the Indian National Congress and started a
party in her image there has been no ideological
moorings to what we now call the Congress.
Thankfully, Rahuls interview to Arnab Gos-
wami has changed the enforced silence around
the deliberate manipulation of the process of
justice in case of the 1984 massacres. While any
other comparison is contemptible, it is true that
the Congress has been far more successful at
sidetracking the judicial processes. It did so by
setting up numerous inquiry commissions that
were designed to suppress rather than reveal
the truth. When someone argues that 1984
massacres are politically irrelevant today, that
too much time has passed and, after all, unlike
Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi bears no direct
responsibility, they forget that this was exactly
the response the process of delay was designed
to elicit.
The people who make such arguments, who col-
laborate with the Congress in the suppression
of this uncomfortable truth are by and large
intelligent people, but they havent been able to
make the leap that the protagonist of Helium
made to his own culpability.
The comparison with Helium is deliberate.
Most of the people springing to the intellec-
tual defence of the Congress are also part of a
Delhi elite, an elite that extends from the Luty-
ens zone to the better colonies of the South of
the city. Many share a direct contact with the
Nehru-Gandhi family (some over generations).
Many move within the same social circle as Ra-
hul. Many are among those who havent faced
up to the uncomfortable truth of what their own
family members or friends in government were
doing in November 1984. It is, therefore, no
surprise that their responses in favour of Rahul
is to an interview conducted by Arnab Goswami,
seen by this same elite as an outsider to their
world.
Thankfully, in his blundering fashion, without
meaning to, Rahul has undone this silence that
surrounds the complicity of the highest level of
the party in the violence of 1984. The AAP has
rightly initiated the process of setting up an
SIT for 1984, and already people like Tarlochan
Singh have come forward with claims that need
to be looked into.
Of course, many will, as they already have, talk
about Singh's affliation to the BJP, and they
will be right. He was vice-chairman of the mi-
nority commission when the violence in Gujarat
took place, and he was party to the same kind
of cover up that he is now attempting to expose.
But he has provided information about the then
President of the country, Zail Singh, repeat-
edly trying to call the Indian Prime Minister,
Home Minister and the Delhi Commissioner
of Police, only to have his calls ignored. Surely,
this is verifable information. Just as IPS offcer
Sanjiv Bhatt must be listened to even if his wife
obtained a Congress ticket in Gujarat, so must
Tarlochan Singh.
We must not our personal affliations temper
the anger that we feel at the choice we are faced
with, a choice so aptly refected in Vishal Dad-
lanis somewhat crudely phrased tweet about
murderers and morons.
Has AAP outdone BJP by ordering
SIT probe into 1984 anti-Sikh riots?
Following through on the poll promise to set up a SIT
to probe the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Kejriwal has
announced that Delhi government will approach the
Lieutenant Governor on setting up the SIT on the 1984
riots once the Cabinet approves the decision when it
meets early next week.
Pallavi Polanki Jan 31, 2014
A
fter having made signifcant electoral
inroads in the Delhi Assembly elections
into a community that has been a tra-
ditional stronghold of the BJP, the Aam Admi
Party (AAP) government is aggressively cham-
pioning the cause of the 1984 riot victims, much
to the unease of the Opposition party.
Following through on the poll promise to set
up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe
the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Chief Minister Arvind
Kejriwal has announced that Delhi government
will approach the Lieutenant Governor on set-
ting up the SIT on the 1984 riots once the Cabi-
net approves the decision when it meets early
next week.
The 1984 riots, in which 3000 Sikhs were killed
in Delhi, occurred in the aftermath of the assas-
sination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
by her Sikh bodyguards. The announcement by
the AAP government comes days after Congress
vice-president Rahul Gandhi in a TV interview
on Monday, in response to a question on the
involvement Congress men in the riots said,
some Congress men were probably involved.
Gandhis comment, being read as an open
admission of Congress partys involvement in
the riots has led to angry reactions by members
of the Sikh community. On Thursday morning,
members of the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), ally
of the BJP in the state, protested outside the
Congress headquarters demanding that Gan-
dhi be asked to reveal names of those who are
guilty.
But while the Opposition kicks and shouts,
Kejriwal's call for an SIT has stolen the BJPs
thunder on the 1984 riots, a cause that the party
has always sought to champion. And the one-
month-old Chief Minister didnt hesitate to rub
it in, when he addressed the press Thursday.
"The Sikh community has been demanding that
a comprehensive SIT be set up that will gather
all the evidence and conduct an investigation
on the 1984 riots. Obviously one of the politi-
cal parties was involved and therefore it cannot
be expected from that party that it will order
such a probe. The other party, which was in
government in Delhi fve years and at the Centre
for six, only made demands but did nothing. I
spoke to the LG (about setting up an SIT) and
he has given a positive response. On Monday
or Tuesday, we will discuss it and if the cabinet
passes we will to the LG," he said.
By accusing the BJP of only making demands
and not doing anything, Kejriwal was not only
consolidating the support he and his party have
received from the Sikh community but scoring
political points over the BJP.
The BJP, though taken aback perhaps by the
governments headline-grabbing decision, is no
mood to concede ground to the upstart party.
Reacting to Kejriwals remarks, BJP leader
Harsh Vardhan said, He is wrong on that.
He should to check his facts frst. What the
NDA government did he can fnd out from the
records... There is nothing new that he is doing.
He is taking up these issues now. We have been
taking up these issues for the last thirty years.
On the governments move to set up the SIT,
Harsh Vardhan said, We dont mind if an-
other inquiry is set up. We have been asking
for these inquiries and commissions... so many
things have been happening since 1984. But it
is time for the Congress to take action against
those who are guilty because now Rahul Gandhi
has also accepted it. As far any new inquiry is
concerned, we are all for what the government
proposes. But let them frst concentrate on giv-
ing punishment to those who are guilty in the
earlier commissions.
The growing support in the Sikh community
for AAP is something that must worry the BJP.
The announcement last month by an infuential
voice in the Sikh community, HS Phoolka, an
advocate who has been fghting a tireless bat-
tle for the victims of the 1984-riots, that he was
joining forces with Kejriwal is indicative of a
real sense of disillusionment with the BJP.
Speaking to Firstpost during an earlier inter-
view on the reasons why Sikhs were choosing
AAP over BJP, Phoolka had said,...During
Madan Lal Khuranas (former Delhi CM and
BJP leader) regime, he always took Sikhs with
him. So the Sikhs felt part of the BJP. But after
that, over the years, no serious effort was made
to carry the Sikhs along and give them a feeling
of being part of the party. Of course, the BJP
has been supporting the struggle of 1984 and
that is the reason I have been working closely
with them. But as far as ordinary Sikhs were
concerned, they were not very happy. (Read
more here.)
Did Rahul make a big mistake?
Rahuls TV interview:
Congress in damage control mode?
Across the nation, Congress workers believe the
interview was poorly planned and Rahul came out
looking inexperienced, unsure, not speaking
a leaders language.
FP Politics Jan 30, 2014
T
he morning after "THE interview" --
Omar Adullah's tweeted description,
not ours -- was telecast, the Bharatiya
Janata Party predictably went for ridicule.
Equally predictably, Congress spokespersons
began to insist that their party vice-president
had presented himself as a candid and sincere
politician. Neither trajectory has answered the
post-interview questions we have: Was there
a post-mortem? What were its fndings? Had
he been coached? By who? Were the questions
vetted beforehand? Will there be more TV in-
terviews? Will his answers change? And, most
critically, will he actually answer questions?
When you know it as a party of sycophants, cu-
riosity on how Congress insiders reacted to the
frst television interview of the Gandhi parivar
scion are naturally high, especially in an elec-
tion year that is still being pegged as a presiden-
tial style election between Rahul Gandhi and
Narendra Modi.
Notwithstanding the widespread criticism that
he botched it, and given today's protests over
his comments on the 1984 riots in Delhi, one
does expect the party's offcial post-mortem of
the interview to be a studied one, setting the
stage for future televised media interactions, if
any.
Newspaper reports now suggest that the debut
television interview by Rahul Gandhi has indeed
sparked off a debate within the party. On one
side are lined up the yes-men, who believe he
successfully exploited the opportunity to show-
case the UPA's achievements. But the whispers
from those on the other side are getting increas-
ingly audible, and they believe the interview
could have critically damaged the party's pros-
pects, especially in urban India where the 9 pm
news and debates around it are taken incredibly
seriously.
A senior journalist in Delhi told Firstpost that
according to his well-placed sources, Rahul
Gandhi's coterie is busy assuring him that he
did a stellar job. "Perhaps the only person in his
trusted circle who can give him negative feed-
back is Priyanka," he says, noting that she was
sitting in the studio -- allegedly right behind
Arnab Goswami -- during the interview. "But
even she likely doesn't want to say too much
and demoralise her brother."
A report in the Hindustan Times suggests that
though Rahul's close advisors have mostly
maintained within the party that the interview
was well-accepted, feedback from the big cit-
ies has been negative, leading to the inevitable
blame game.
One Congress minister is quoted in the report as
saying the interview was a failure of the media
department's planning. "Nowhere does a leader
give an 80-minute interview. The standard
format is 22 minutes," the unnamed minister is
quoted as saying. A crisper interview slot would
have left the inexperienced interviewee appear-
ing less vulnerable, is the common refrain.
But the sentiment that he botched up may notbe
restricted to Congressmen in the big cities. A
report from Bhopal in The New Indian Express
says Congress leaders in Madhya Pradesh and
Chhattisgarh are equally disappointed. It quot-
ed a senior functionary who reportedly told TV
channels that the effort was laudable because
Rahul showed pluck as admitting in private that
the interview had damaged their chances fur-
ther. "It was like the interviewer was asking him
about Delhi and he was talking about Paris," the
report quotes the functionary as saying. Both
MGNREGA and RTI, the words the party vice-
president appeared to repeat at every fumble,
are both achievements of UPA-1, he pointed out.
Another party leader was quoted as calling for
the sacking of Rahul's media manager.
Then again, it is hardly likely that a media cell
or a media manager plans Rahul's media ex-
posure; the blame for that decision has to rest
on his inner team. So a vote of no-confdence
in his media-planning team is, in effect, also
an erosion of faith in the leadership of party
seniors and key fgures strategizing for the Lok
Sabha elections, a sentiment that can do no
favours for the cadres' drooping morale.
And there is indication that lower rung party
functionaries too share a despondence about
the much-anticipated interview. According to
this report in The Telegraph, junior Congress-
men believe the interview was a dud for the
party. The long-winding expostulations about
structural change and systemic change will not
bring any electoral dividends, they believe.
And to top it, there was no clear message to the
biggest support base for the party -- the minor-
ity communities. Instead, the vague admission
of "some" Congress leaders' culpability in the
1984 riots and the equally indeterminate mes-
sage to the Muslims while referring to the 2002
Gujarat violence were a huge betrayal of his
political inexperience even after 10 years as a
Parliamentarian.
One leader is quoted as saying Rahul must frst
learn what democracy is before venturing to
deepen it. Citing YSR Reddy's mass outreach
programmes and, more recently, Arvind Kejri-
wal's conversion of a street movement against
corruption into electoral success as examples of
connecting with the masses. "He should have
been toiling in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya
Pradesh instead of doing drawing room plan-
ning," the report quoted one leader as saying. It
also made a reference to Rahul's apparent reluc-
tance to contest the contention that Narendra
Modi had been given a clean chit by the courts
in the 2002 riots cases.
Even without alleging that Modi is criminally
indicted, Rahul could have rejected any at-
tempt to compare the BJP's prime ministerial
candidate with Rajiv Gandhi, instead of offer-
ing weakly that the interviewer's colleagues in
the media had told him of the Gujarat admin-
istration's involvement. "That is not a leader's
language," the report quoted a Congressman as
saying. The mawkishness over the loss of loved
ones to acts of violence was not a statesman's
language either.
Obviously, Rahul is still to learn that language,
so with elections still a few months away, will
there be more interviews?
There will be. Retreat is not an option. Possibly,
the next interview will be to a Hindi news chan-
nel. In fact, some reports suggest Gandhis core
team has drawn up a schedule of interviews, one
possibly every seven to ten days.
"The end result is that they're going to keep do-
ing this," says the senior Delhi journalist. "The
rumours are that Aaj Tak is next. But that raises
the issue of what that interview is going to look
like. No channel can afford to go soft on Rahul
after his grilling on Times Now, but how many
times can you ask the same questions?"
How he turned the tables:
The Rahul Gandhi interview
Three members of the crew, including the director,
cameraman and associate director, had visited the
mall barely an hour before the attacks.
Farzana Versey, Jan 29, 2014
I
f 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-tout-
ed frst-ever interview in 10 years (he clarifed
on camera that this was not the frst, but the
frst formal one!) he did exactly what he set out
to do. Say his piece. What seemed like repeti-
tion, 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 fght. 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 spe-
cifc queries later, then isnt 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 fgure out what the nation as fltered 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 and 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 inter-
view; it was conducted at Jawahar Bhavan; it
lasted for a little under 90 minutes. According
to The Telegraph:
But sources said the Congress leadership want-
ed to ensure that Rahuls 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 pa-
koras 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 frm. So, let us not create heroes only be-
cause we need to look down on certain people.
Let us talk about some problem areas.
Why was RG not being specifc?
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 Partys election campaign? Is
there a quid pro quo? No.
Arnab did his business of mentioning names
as the tagline of his show states and Ra-
hul 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 effective-
ly 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 brown-
ie 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 edu-
cational qualifcations. 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
dont 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. Call-
ing 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:
On Modi
In my life I have seen my grandmother die, I
have seen my father die, I have seen my grand-
mother go to jail and I have actually been
through a tremendous amount of pain as a child
when these things happen to you, what I had
to be scared of I lost, there is absolutely noth-
ing I am scared of. I have an aim, I have a clear
aim in my mind and the aim is that I do not like
what I see in Indian politics, it is something that
is inside my heart. It is like in our mythology
when they talk about Arjun, he only sees one
thing, he does not see anything else, you asked
me about Mr. Modi you ask me about anything
and the thing that I see is that the system in this
country needs to change, I don't see anything
else and I am blind to everything else. I am
blind because I saw people I love destroyed by
the system.
Ergo: He does not care about Modi.
On right to information
I am the frst person who has been saying over
the last fve years, talking about transparency
in the party. I have made the Youth Congress
and the NSUI fully elected bodies. I have spo-
ken about the six bills in parliament. I have
spoken about the Lokpal Bill and I have pushed
the Lokpal Bill. I was involved in the RTI. We
worked together to bring the RTI. So as far as
transparency in the political party is concerned
I am absolutely for transparency. There are
questions about the RTI that need to be dis-
cussed and thought through. The real question
is that our system is based on different pillars.
And the question is which ones of these pillars
should have RTIAm I for opening up? Am I
for bringing RTI into as many places possible?
Absolutely. Am I for creating an imbalance
and weakening the legislative structures of this
country. No I am not.
RTI enthusiasts should note that it could be
misused. (This is what I had written in an ear-
lier piece.)
On his silence regarding the scams
My position was that I report to the Prime
Minister. Whatever I felt I had conversations
with the Prime Minister. Whatever I felt about
the issues I made it abundantly clear to the
Prime Minister. I was involved in the legisla-
tion, RTI legislation. And now I have helped
pass the Lokpal Bill. I bring you back. The real
issue here is participation of people in politics.
It is bringing youngsters into the political sys-
tem, it's opening out the political system. That's
where nobody wants to talk. Everybody is per-
fectly happy with 500 people running the entire
system in India. Nobody, none of you want to
raise that issue. The fundamental issue. How do
we choose candidates?
By reporting to the PM he obviously meant he
discussed it with the PM, instead of with Arnab
Goswami.
On alliances
Our alliance in Bihar is with a political party
with an idea not an individual, we are making
alliance, and it is not certain that we are going
to make an alliance, we are in process of talking
to people and our alliance is with an idea, with a
party, not an individual.
What is wrong about this? When was the last
time we heard a politician talk about ideas? We
have to lump coalition politics; he is telling us
beforehand what will swing it.
On possible defeat of the Congress
If we don't win, I am the VP of the party of
course I will take responsibility for it.
On name-dropping
I don't actually keep invoking my family name,
I have mentioned my family name once or twice
and then people report that. The real issue is
that I didn't choose to be born in this family, I
didn't sign up and say that I like to be born in
this family. It happened, so the choice in front
of me is pretty simple I can either turn around
and say okay I will just walk away from this
thing and leave it alone or I can say I can try
and improve something. Pretty much every sin-
gle thing I have done in my political career has
been to bring in youngsters , has been to open
up, has been to democratise. I am absolutely
against the concept of Dynasty, anybody who
knows me knows that and understands that.
But you are not going to wish away Dynasty in
a closed system, you have to open the system.
Dynasty or children of politicians becoming
powerful happens in the BJP, it happens in the
DMK, it happens in the SP, it happens in the
Congress party, it happens everywhere.
Nothing to add.
On being attacked
I respond by understanding why I'm being
attacked. I'm being attacked because I'm doing
things that are dangerous to the system. I'm be-
ing attacked because I'm asking questions that
are dangerous to the system. And I'm not asking
superfcial questions. I'm not asking questions
over here (pointing at the ceiling). I'm asking
questions over there (pointing to the ground).
And everybody understands that this fellow
here is not just a superfcial chap who talks.
This fellow over here is thinking deeply and is
thinking long term. That's why I'm attacked. I
understand that. And frankly, attack me all you
want. Beat me to death. It's not going to stop
me. I'm going to keep doing it. And I'm going to
ask the questions that are relevant.
This is exactly what he did. For, how many peo-
ple are going to vote or not vote based on 2G,
Adarsh, Coalgate? Is not Modi ruling despite
the riots of 2002? Did not the Congress return
to power after the Emergency and 1984, and the
BJP after Babri? Having said this, RG will have
to push the system to expedite the judicial proc-
ess and respect it.
On being a reluctant prince
If you look at my spirit, regardless of what I
do, if I'd been born in India, regardless of what
I do, I don't like unfairness. It just makes my
blood boil. I don't like it. And in whatever I did,
if I saw unfairness, I would stand up against it.
That's the heart of my politics.
Rahul Gandhi may not win the elections for
the Congress Party; he may not become prime
minister now or ever. But, if he continues to
fght unfairness, then that should goad many to
do so.
The fact that many in the opposition, and even
those who have suddenly discovered balance,
are behaving like a cat on a hot tin roof, even
though they call it rolling on the foor laughing,
is proof that he has touched a nerve.
(Farzana Versey is a Mumbai-based writer.
This article frst appeared on her blog.)
1984 riots, angry allies:
Why Rahuls interview has backfred
Firstly, the ghost of 1984 has come back to haunt the
Congress party, that too at a time the party was
making an all out attempt to target Modi over
the post Godhra 2002 riots.
Sanjay Singh Jan 30, 2014
I
t took Rahul Gandhi 10 years to appear for
an interview but in less than 36 hours it
became sadly apparent that his frst open
media exposure had proved to be counter pro-
ductive. All it has seemingly served to do so far,
is reopen the debate around the 1984 anti-Sikh
riots, and goad two of its remaining three allies
Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and National
Conference (NC) into raising voices of dissent
against the Congress.
The twin developments have no doubt caused
some serious concerns within the party. Firstly,
the ghost of 1984 has come back to haunt it,
that too at a time the party was making an all
out attempt to target Modi over the post Godhra
2002 riots.
While the BJP jumped on the issue right after
the Rahul Gandhi interview with Arnab Gos-
wami was aired on Times Now, AAP leader and
Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal went a step
further, meeting Lieutenant Governor Najeeb
with the intention of reopening the 1984 riot
cases and constituting a SIT (Special Investi-
gative Team) to probe them. In Punjab mean-
while, the Akali Dal has gone ballistic over the
issue.
This is frstly a direct result of Gandhi's admis-
sion during that interview that some Congress
men were probably involved and secondly be-
cause of his claim that unlike the Modi govern-
ment in Gujarat in 2002, the union government
headed by his father in 1984 had tried to stop
the riots.
The difference between the 84 riots and the
riots in Gujarat was that in 1984 the Govern-
ment was trying to stop the riots. I remember,
I was a child then, I remember the Government
was doing everything it could to stop the riots.
In Gujarat the opposite was the case. The Gov-
ernment in Gujarat was actually abetting and
pushing the riots further. So there is a huge
difference between the two things, saying that
innocent people dying is absolutely wrong.
While Rahul is getting fak from both within and
outside his party for reigniting the 1984 riot de-
bate, the fact remains that it was Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh who led the charge against
Modi on 2002, which left other leaders includ-
ing Rahul wide open for questioning around the
1984 riots.
The Congress' damage control idea, which was
to magnify Rahuls image as the protector of
youth and minorities, unfortunately boomer-
anged as well.
Just as party workers were trying to fnd some
comfort in the Congress national ad campaign,
Kattar soch nahi, yuva josh, which was tar-
geted at Modis alleged Hindu communalist
approach, a young Muslim man, identifed as
M Faheem Baig posed a vociferous challenge
to Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh at the
launch of the National Waqf Development Cor-
poration Limited (NAWADCO) in New Delhis
Vigyan Bhavan. Baig was countering Man-
mohan Singhs claims about minority welfare
schemes before being gagged and escorted out
of the conference hall by security personnel.
The party will now have to think of new ways
to make Rahul appeal to the minorities. An ad
campaign is simply not the answer to the trust
defcit that has been generated among the mi-
nority communities over the years.
The bigger trouble for the Congress however, is
coming from its own alliance partners. Two of
its three remaining allies, NCP and NC strongly
indicated that they could desert it in coming
elections. Although the National Conference
has since reportedly patched things up with
Congress, the NCP is still saying that an alliance
with the Congress is "very diffcult in a demo-
cratic process".
But what is worse for the Congress, is that these
allies are now softening their positioning to-
wards Modi. The third partner Ajit Singh from
the RLD has remained silent on the issue but
post the Muzaffarnagar riots his political weight
has become inconsequential. Singh is now faced
with an existential crisis, with members from
his own Jat community switching over to the
BJP and the supportive Muslim community
becoming deeply suspicious of him.
Though the Congress has been trying hard
to sew up a new alliance along the same pat-
terns of its winning 2004 formula, apart from
a weakened Lalu Prasad Yadavs RJD in Bihar,
no other political party is interested in tying
up with it. The Congress led UPA2 has so far
been deserted by the Trinamool Congress Party
(TMC), Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK),
Paattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), Telangana
Rashtra Samithi (TRS), Indian Union Muslim
League (IUML) and some other smaller outfts.
The biggest of its present allies, the nine-mem-
ber NCP came out in the open to counter Rahul
Gandhis charges against Modi. Senior NCP
leader and union minister Praful Patel's state-
ment was most revealing, "If the judicial system
has given any pronouncement I think we ought
to respect it and we need not question it fur-
ther... There's no point to comment because it
is for each one to give his or her version but the
fact remains that perception today is important
and if the judicial system has given a certain
fnality to any controversy, I think we should let
it rest there."
His remarks are signifcant in the backdrop
of NCP chief and agriculture minister Sharad
Pawars earlier expression of doubt in Rahuls
ability to lead the country. The NCP has been
at the loggerheads with the Congress on several
issues but has so far not broken off ties.
Another long term Congress ally, National Con-
ference indicated that their ties had reached at a
breaking point. Omar Abdullah came out rather
strongly against going into an alliance with the
Congress in the coming elections, "Both Con-
gress and the National Conference have a pres-
ence in the three regions of the state. If we start
giving seats to them, we start to lose our iden-
tity in those seats, and what is the guarantee
that votes will be transferred from the Congress
to the NC and vice versaThere are reservations
in our party. Sections in the Congress too would
like to do it alone."
Since then however, a report in the Hindu sug-
gests that The Congress and the National Con-
ference are close to resolving their troubles after
the former made it clear on Wednesday that it
was not opposed to creation of new administra-
tive units in Jammu and Kashmir.
The BSP and DMK have refused to have tie-ups
with the Congress. The question is when eve-
rything else is failing, can an idea called Lalu
Prasad Yadav and a Rs 500 crore ad campaign
convince people in Rahuls ability to lead the
country. There are many who say he had a bet-
ter chance if he had not done that interview.
How Rahul Gandhi
ended up tying himself in knots
It was indeed a big bold move by Rahul Gandhi and
his core strategists to give an open interview of this
kind, but this PR big exercise went completely awry.
Sanjay Singh Jan 28, 2014
R
ahul Gandhi made a few revelations not
many in the political circles were aware
of: Lalu Prasad's Rashtriya Janata Dal
was an 'idea'; Shibu Sorens Jharkhand Mukti
Morcha was a 'view'; the Congress was simply
trying to 'assist' the Aam Admi Party to give it
a 'chance to prove themselves'; the solution to
price rise was women empowerment; and RTI
as a solution to corruption was his baby.
The Congress vice-president might have si-
lenced some of his critics by interacting with the
media and taking some straight questions from
Times Now's Arnab Goswami, but the party
now has the tough job of defending his naivety,
incoherence, an overt lack of confdence while
taking questions and repetitive pre-meditated
answers even when questions are specifc. The
hour-plus interview, the frst ever since he
joined active politics, is unlikely to win admirers
for Rahul Gandhi and make people queue up in
large numbers at the polling stations to vote for
the Congress in the coming elections.
The Congress coming alliance with convicted
Lalu Prasad in Bihar was not a compromise;
it was driven by some ideological principle, he
said. He claimed that "alliance with a political
party with an idea not an individual". It looks
as though Lalu Prasad, his wife Rabri Devi and
two of their nine children Teshwi and Tej Pratap
stand for some mesmerising idea that the Con-
gress vice-president fnds appealing. This, de-
spite the RJD leaders' track record of promoting
corruption, nepotism, mal-governance goonda
raj, et al.
While the political circles have been abuzz
with the speculation that the Congresss alli-
ance Shibu Sorens Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
(JMM) and support to AAP are aimed at the
singular purpose of containing Narendra Modis
numbers in the coming Lok Sabha elections,
Rahul thinks the partnerships are a principled.
"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
percent happy with but the long term idea
for me is to transform the system, to bring in
youngsters and make sure they are empow-
ered," he said.
He is entitled to see himself as a mythologi-
cal Arjun of the Mahabharat, but there are not
many who would start seeing him as Arjuna
re-born. Rahul comes out as an innocent, well-
intentioned person. However, he is not there to
be remembered as a good guy but to be the ruler
of India. He is seeking votes for himself and his
party to rule for another fve years.
He is playing up a mix of family emotions and
credit for all the great work he has supposedly
done. These include his contribution to the RTI
and Lokpal, democratising Youth Congress and
NSUI, telling the prime minister and party chief
ministers to bring down the prices of food grain
and vegetables and winning elections in Karna-
taka, Himachal and Uttrakhand. For some rea-
son, he didnt mention the most obvious, Land
Acquisition Bill.
Rahul is right when he says: "I look like an
anomaly in the environment that I'm in." His
notion that he was being targeted because he
was asking disturbing questions about the
system is equally misplaced, after all it was his
family which either built or sustained that same
system since Indias Independence.
He is trying to evoke an emotive appeal. "I'm
asking questions over there. And everybody
understands that this fellow here is not just a
superfcial chap who talks. This fellow over here
is thinking deeply and is thinking long term.
That's why I'm attacked. I understand that.
And frankly, attack me all you want. Beat me
to death. It's not going to stop me. I'm going to
keep doing it."
Those who have witnessed the 1984 anti-Sikh
riots in Delhi know that state had turned a
blind eye to give a free run to the rioters and big
Congress leaders actively aided and abetted the
heinous crime committed on the streets of Delhi
and outside. It is Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh who by making some tough uncharitable
remarks against Modi made opposition BJP
reopen 1984 riot debate. To be fair to Rahul, he
was forced to defend a situation he never want-
ed to get engaged in.
It was indeed a big bold move by Rahul Gan-
dhi and his core strategists to give an open
interview of this kind, but this PR big exercise
went completely awry. The lesser mortals in the
Congress didnt like to see their leader so out of
depth and being bulldozed by an interviewer on
specifcs.
Rahul Gandhi interview:
Why the Youth Congress is cheering
For the youth Congress cadre, which Gandhi has spent
the better half of his decade-long political career
re-structuring, his ascension comes attached with a
lot of hope and expectation of being given a chance to
contest assembly and parliamentary elections.
Pallavi Polanki Jan 30, 2014
G
oing by the number of times Congress
leader Rahul Gandhi spoke of opening
up the system and bringing in young-
sters in his frst one-on-one TV interview on
Monday night, it seems as if an imminent crack-
down awaits the party ahead of the Lok Sabha
election.
The interview comes less than a fortnight after
the AICC meet at which Gandhi was given the
formidable task of leading the partys election
campaign for the upcoming general election.
The Congress party is an extremely powerful
system and all the Congress party needs to do
is bring in younger fresher faces in the election
which is what we are going to do and we are go-
ing to win the election, said the Congress vice-
president during the 80-minute long interview
to Times Now. Not exactly heartening news
for many sitting Congress MPs, who have been
essentially put on notice by Gandhi and told to
make way of younger fresher faces.
However, for the youth Congress cadre, which
Gandhi has spent the better half of his decade-
long political career re-structuring, his ascen-
sion comes attached with a lot of hope and
expectation of being given a chance to contest
assembly and parliamentary elections.
Responding to Gandhis frst big TV interview
and what his repeated emphasis on bringing
the youngsters meant in practical terms, Rajeev
Satav, president of the Indian Youth Congress
(IYC) said, It means India is a young country
and it should be represented by youth lead-
ers. In that context, in the coming elections we
(youth Congress cadre) will get the maximum
representation. And the way he (Gandhi) is
focusing on youth and women, there will be a
systematic plan to develop the next leadership.
Elaborating on the growing representation of
youth within the party and in the elections,
Satav said, In the last four years, almost 70-80
boys from Youth Congress have become MLAs.
This would not have been possible if Rahulji
was not there. In Rajasthan, for instance, the
maximum votes were secured by the youth Con-
gress president.
He got a lead of 18,000 votes. In every state
youth representation will be there. In Parlia-
ment too we are hoping that there will be good
youth representation.
Satav says Gandhis infuence has meant that
more youth have been represented on screening
committees and given roles of infuence within
the party.
Asked what qualities Gandhi will be looking for
in selecting youth candidates to fght elections,
Satav says, Those with grass-root level con-
nect will be given power and recognition. Just
hanging around 24 Akbar Road (Congress party
headquarters), 12 Tughlak Lane (Rahul Gan-
dhis residence) or 10 Janpath (Sonia Gandhi's
residence) will not do the trick anymore. We
are focusing on candidates who are working on
the ground. He wants to empower the common
worker of the party, says the IYC president.
That Gandhi remains focused on the long-term
mission of empowering the youth, says Satav,
was the most important take-away of the inter-
view for him as youth congress president.
To what extent Gandhis honesty of purpose
and commitment to change the system (to
quote party spokesperson Abhishek Manu Sing-
hvis description of how Gandhi came through
during the interview) will succeed in changing
the system that is the Congress party will be
evident from how many new faces the party will
feld in the next election.
Et tu Modi?
The artful dodgers: Now that Rahul
has spoken, will Modi follow?
Will the BJPs prime ministerial candidate also
overcome his opposition to the media after
Rahul Gandhi?
FP Politics Jan 28, 2014
C
ongress Vice President Rahul Gandhi
passed his frst national televised inter-
view in close to a decade with not so fy-
ing colours and it has now raised the question of
whether his biggest rival, BJP's Narendra Modi
will follow suit.
While Rahul's interview was a prime time tel-
evised interview, Modi's last interview was with
a Gujrati newspaper that was pulled off after it
invited controversy over a quote on Jawahar-
lal Nehru avoiding Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's
funeral. Modi, was last on the interview circuit
in 2012 while campaigning for the Gujarat
elections, and gave a rather hostile interview to
CNN-IBN editor Rajdeep Sardesai.
When asked about how he perceived attacks on
him from opponents over the 2002 riots, the
Chief Minister, whose star was on the rise in
national politics at the time, responded,"I give
my best wishes to the Rajdeep Sardesai, that he
has been harping on this issue for the past 10
years, that he gets his daily bread by harping on
this issue."
"I even heard that those who abuse and slander
against Modi are rewarded with Rajya Sabha
seats, Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan. So I give
my best wishes to Rajdeep Sardesai that you
continue this campaign of yours against me.
And may you too enter the Rajya Sabha one day
through such "friends". May you too receive the
Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan one day. I give my
best wishes to you," Modi said.
He also spoke on Gujarat, development and not
aspiring for a national post but the hostility was
barely concealed throughout the interview.
Modi's track record with English channels
hasn't been very good since the 2002 riots,
with what was once just scepticism, develop-
ing into almost complete hostility towards the
Delhi-based English press over their perceived
bias against him, notes a piece in the Hindustan
Times.
Sardesai, a recepient of this hostility, noted in a
column that the once affable BJP spokesperson
in the 1990s changed after the criticism over the
2002 riots:
Modi, though, took the criticism personally,
believing it was part of an orchestrated cam-
paign by an English-speaking, 'pseudo-secular'
media. By raising the war cry of Gujarati asmita
(self-respect), he transformed the riot report-
ing into a virtual confrontation between him as
'protector' of Gujarati 'pride' on one side and
the 'villainous' anglicised media on the other.
The result was a long period of combative be-
haviour, marked by walkouts from interviews,
scorn and ridicule of journalists, and, in some
instances, even the threat of intimidation by his
groupies. Gone it seemed was the Mr Nice Guy
of the 1990s to be replaced by a leader intoler-
ant of any form of hard questioning.
The high point in the Gujarat Chief Minister's
hostility was perhaps the 2007 interview with
Karan Thapar, which Modi walked out of. With
Sardesai, the fact that he was on a moving bus
may have prevented him from walking out, but
he chose to ignore questions on the subject of
apologising for the 2002 riots completely, pre-
ferring to wave to people instead.
The BJP, expectedly, sees nothing wrong with
its Prime Ministerial candidate staying away
from the English media and says he had suc-
cessfully reached out to people through non-
mainstream media and international media
outlets like Reuters.
"Since he did not trust the mainstream media,
Modi avoided intermediaries completely, and
reached out to the people directly with the most
innovative political campaign," an unnamed
BJP leader was quoted as saying in the Hindus-
tan Times.
The tweets, hangouts and Facebook posts may
have been used better than any other Indian
neta but the Chief Minister is yet to have his
'Rahul' moment on Indian television since being
anointed Prime Ministerial candidate. The BJP
may believe that the media wants Modi than he
wants them. However, the fact remains that its
prime ministerial candidate may not have been
able to use conventional media to his advantage
yet and hasn't chosen to take any hard ques-
tions on his achievements from sceptics on the
national stage.
Past interviews, despite their controversies ,
haven't hurt the rise of Modi's popularity and
after Rahul's handling of a televised interview,
the BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate may just
be losing out on a good opportunity to show up
his favourite target.
Copyright 2011-12 Firstpost All rights reserved
Copyright Network18. All rights reserved.
iPhone iPad Android
Scan or click to download our Android, iPad/ iPhone apps

Inside Rahul's System: Decoding His First Big Interview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inside Rahul's System: Decoding His First Big Interview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inside Rahuls system

Decoding his frst big interview

You might also like