There are three aspects of the jugalbandi between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Times Now anchor Arnab Goswami that provide us a glimpse into their psychologies.
One, the jugalbandi – or the interview – tells us that Modi is relatively far more concerned about the attacks questioning the patriotism of senior government officials than what he is of ordinary citizens.
Two, Goswami is just another TV bully who, despite his flaring nostrils and hectoring tone, is submissive to superior power – and contemptuous of those who can’t possibly harm his interests.
Three, India’s failure to gain entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group seems to have rattled the Prime Minister. His decision to speak to Times Now is an attempt to recover the ground he conceded over the last one week.
No doubt, the nation should feel gratified that Modi has chosen to emerge from the cocoon of silence to tick off the Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament Subramanian Swamy – even though his name was not taken – who had questioned RBI governor Raghuram Rajan’s patriotism.
Modi told Goswami:
“Therefore, it’s not like the nation won’t get Raghuram Rajan’s services, Raghuram Rajan is not that kind of a person. He is a person who loves the country. Those who speak such language are doing great injustice to him.”
Alas, as many would sigh and say, Modi has batted for Rajan only after he has presumably bought his return ticket to the United States. His remarks also seek to soothe non-resident Indians who have been avid supporters of Modi and whom his government has been wooing to assist in India’s rise.
Obviously, Modi seems far more worried about Swamy’s relentless questioning of the patriotism of Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian and Economic Secretary Affairs Secretary Shantikanta Das. Unlike Rajan, they were appointed by his government, and not the United Progressive Alliance. From this perspective, Swamy was also implicitly questioning the Modi government’s patriotic credentials.
In the context of Rajan, Goswami asks Modi:
“Later he (Swamy) made critical remarks against senior bureaucrats. My question is, do you think it is right? When we talk about “Sanyam” (restraint) and “Santulan” (balance), is it correct?”
Modi replied,
“Whether it is someone from my party or not, I believe that such things are inappropriate. The nation won’t benefit from such publicity stunts. One should be more responsible while conducting themselves (sic). Anyone who believes he is bigger than the system is wrong.”
In other words, Modi was deriding Swamy for indulging in publicity stunts, for his hubris in thinking he is bigger than the system.
Blaming the media
By contrast, Modi was not explicit in his denouncing the hotheads who, to use Goswami’s words, “make extreme comments. Is there a necessity to control them? So that there is no politics in the name of religion.”
Modi promptly absolved himself of the responsibility of controlling the hotheads. In fact, he shifted the responsibility to the media. How? Read the Prime Minister’s reply: “I would like to tell the media not to make heroes out of those people who make such comments.”
Might not the hotheads be making these comments because they feel certain that no action would be taken against them? Goswami does not ask this question, though he presses on, quite uncharacteristically, rather politely. Below is their exchange:
Goswami: But they keep making such comments.
Modi: Don’t make them heroes, they will stop.Goswami: We don’t make them heroes, we make them villains.
Modi: But why do you make them so big? I see such statements by people on TV, whose faces I haven’t even seen and they end up becoming spokesmen on TV.Goswami: Self styled spokesmen.
Modi: I don’t know why such people are encouraged.
Modi thinks that the only motivation of the hotheads is to garner publicity through the media. Is it not possible that they too, like Swamy, think they are bigger than the system, that they enjoy the right to hand over certificates of patriotism to sections of Indian citizens – the religious minorities, the Left and the Liberals?
Modi doesn’t even try to reassure those whose patriotism is questioned regularly. This is because they, unlike NRIs, are not diehard Modi supporters; they are unlikely to vote or benefit him in anyway. They also don’t have any option other than to remain in India, unlike NRIs, who can decide not to return to India to assist in its rise or even to pull back their investments.
The next time a Sangh Parivar luminary or a BJP goes off the rails and triggers communal animosity, do not be surprised to hear Modi blame the media for social tension. Modi is telling us journalists – blackout what is not good for the society. Obviously, it is for Modi to decide what is good and what is bad. He is India’s supra news editor.
Soft handling
The interview also tells us a lot about Goswami. We didn’t have him making snide remarks or smiling sarcastically at Modi. That is understandable as we journalists have been taught to show deference to those in august offices. Yet the irrepressible Goswami was merciless in his questioning of Manmohan Singh when, as Prime Minister, he had invited editors to quiz him – which was telecast live.
Nor did Goswami spare Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi in the interview Times Now telecast weeks before the 2014 Lok Sabha election. He hounded Gandhi on the anti-Sikh riots, demanded to know the role the Congress played in fanning it, and whether or not he was willing to apologise to the nation for the gruesome killings.
Gandhi was subjected to intense questioning even though he was a 14-year-old in 1984, wasn’t a member of the party or government, and Manmohan Singh had already apologised in Parliament for the 1984 riots, which was a veritable state pogrom, as was the 2002 Gujarat riots
Goswami, however, didn’t pillory Modi. Forget about asking Modi whether or not he felt apologetic about the Gujarat riots, there was no question on what he felt about love jihad, ghar wapsi (reconversions), the increasing incidence of people involved in the cattle trade being beaten and even lynched.
Nor was Modi asked why the BJP hasn’t taken action against Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on whose watch the Vyapam scandal flourished, nor how industrialist Vijay Mallya could flee the country, nor about the fears in many quarters that he has centralised authority and seeks to destabilise his rivals, particularly Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
The Congress will be right in feeling Goswami had been unfair to it, that he is ideologically closer to the BJP. But the Congress has to also take the blame for providing Goswami the opportunity to embarrass Gandhi before the national audience.
This is because the Congress failed in grasping Goswami’s psychology. He had no reason to show courtesies to Gandhi because it was almost certain at the time he was interviewed that the UPA was to be voted out of power. It meant Gandhi or his party could not harm the Times of India Group – who own Times Now – for instance, by denying it government advertisements.
However, that leverage the Modi government enjoys now. In addition, Goswami has won the shouting rights to have been the first to bag the interview of Modi as Prime Minister. It will enhance Goswami’s stature and boost the Television Rating Points or TRPs of his programmes.
Why now?
For over two years, Modi has granted interviews only to foreign TV channels and newspapers, choosing to ignore the domestic media. He did grant an interview to the Hindustan Times, but it was largely in the format of written answers to questions supplied to Modi beforehand. So why did the Prime Minister grant an interview a month after his government celebrated its two years in power?
It perhaps tells us that the Prime Minister is rattled by the criticism that he took a wrong call in trying to enter the NSG. He is rattled not because the NSG’s refusal spells doom for India, but because foreign policy experts have veered around to the view that he and his team don’t quite understand the dynamics of international relations. Other than the Modi government nobody had thought China would crumble under American pressure and allow India into the NSG.
This must have undoubtedly hurt Modi, who has been crisscrossing the world in his endeavour to promote India’s interests. For many, his foreign visits, quite erroneously, have become symbolical of a man who is making good of the privileges which have come late to him in his career. This impression is likely to get reinforced because of India’s failure to enter the NSG. Worse, it has happened even as Rajan declared he was leaving the RBI and Swamy continued attacking Subramanian and Das, belying, to a degree, Modi’s projection that he was the man who could usher in development.
Goswami has provided to Modi the platform to demonstrate to the nation his equanimity, that he is not rattled a bit. For psychologists, such conscious assertions often indicate hidden fears and anxieties.
(Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist in Delhi. His novel, The Hour Before Dawn, has as its backdrop the demolition of the Babri Masjid. It is available in bookstores.)