Rahul Gandhi's historic interview with Arnab Goswami -- V. Sundaram IAS
2014 January 28
LIKE ALL OUR ANTI HINDU ENGLISH TV CHANNELS, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT EXAGGERATION IS THE SPICE OF LIFE.
Yesterday I was watching, hearing, absorbing and enjoying Rajiv Gandhi’s Historic Interview with Shri. Arnab Goswami on the Times Channel. It was a Soul Elevating, Soul Enchanting, Soul Emancipating, Soul Enfranchising, Heart Purifying, Heart Cleansing, Heart Thrilling, Mind Sharpening, Mind Boggling, and Mind Liberating Experience. Through the Unquenchable Fire of his Sheer Eloquence, Rahul Gandhi joined the Ranks of Immortal Orators like CICERO (106-43 BC), DEMOSTHENES (384-322BC), MARCUS ANTONIUS (Died 87 BC), WILLIAM PITT THE ELDER, Earl of Chatham (1708-1778), EDMUND BURKE (1729-1797), WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE (1809-1898), BENJAMIN DISRAELI (1804-1881), LORD CURZON (1859-1925), SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL (1874-1965), and RT.HONOURABLE V. S. SRINIVASA SASTRY (1869-1946).
Sri. Arnab Goswami, as a long standing Truly Secular (as opposed to Communal Saffron Hindu Terrorism!) found himself in a State of Raptures and Ecstasy when Rahul Gandhi told him,
“I have done a little media interaction, prior to this. I have done press conferences & 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”.
I am giving below a few more flashes from the Rhetoric – nay, Fireworks – from the Islam Embracing, Christianity Coveting, Hindu Baiting and Hindu Hating Congress Armoury of Psunami SONIANA and Raging and Roaring RAHULIANA:
“I like difficult to tough issues, I like dealing with them.” (Righteous Rahuliana 1)
“See, if you look at the speech I gave at AICC a few days back. The issue is basically 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. I said pretty clearly in my speech in AICC, that if the Congress party so chooses & Congress party wants me to do anything for them, I am happy to do that. It's respect for the process. In fact announcing your PM prior to an election, announcing your PM without asking the members of Parliament, is not actually written in the constitution.” (Self-Righteous Rahuliana 2)
“The system everyday-everyday hurts people and I have felt the pain that the system can cause. I felt the pain with my father, I saw him every single day of his life, so the question of whether I am afraid of losing an election or whether I am afraid of Mr. Modi is not actually the point. I am here basically for one thing, I see tremendous energy in this country, I see more energy in this country than any other country, I see billions of youngsters and I see this energy is trapped” (Self Sacrificing Rahuliana 3)
“The system everyday-everyday hurts people and I have felt the pain that the system can cause. I felt the pain with my father, I saw him every single day of his life, so the question of whether I am afraid of losing an election or whether I am afraid of Mr. Modi is not actually the point. I am here basically for one thing, I see tremendous energy in this country, I see more energy in this country than any other country, I see billions of youngsters and I see this energy is trapped” (Self Sacrificing Rahuliana 3)
To Shri. Arnab Goswami’s Question, “And what is your view of BJP's prime ministerial candidate?”,Rahul Gandhi gave the following Statesman-like answer: “The BJP has prime ministerial candidate, the BJP believes in concentration of power in the hands of one person, I fundamentally disagree with that, I believe in democracy, I believe in opening up the system. I believe in the RTI, I believe in giving power to our people. We have fundamentally different philosophies”.
Then Shri. Arnab Goswami put the following Question: “The fact remains that Narendra Modi has been given a clean chit, in the Gulbarg massacre case by the SIT and the court Mr. Gandhi. My question to you is "can the Congress party sustain it's attack on Mr. Narendra Modi on this issue when he has been given the clean chit by the courts in the Gujarat riots?”
Then Shri. Arnab Goswami put the following Question: “The fact remains that Narendra Modi has been given a clean chit, in the Gulbarg massacre case by the SIT and the court Mr. Gandhi. My question to you is "can the Congress party sustain it's attack on Mr. Narendra Modi on this issue when he has been given the clean chit by the courts in the Gujarat riots?”
To this Question, the Permanent Prime Minister of India Rahul Gandhi (Quite Like the Permanent President of the Congress Party Sonia Gandhi!) gave the following Inspiring Answer :”The congress party and the BJP have two completely different philosophies, our attack on the BJP is based on the idea that this country needs to move forward”.
When I heard Rahul Gandhi for nearly one hour, I was reminded of what Sir Winston Churchill had said about a Stupid and Silly Speaker in the House of Commons in the first Quarter of the 20thCentury: “The Honourable Speaker did not know what he was going to say before he got up to speak; He did not know what he was Saying when he was Talking and he did not know what he had Said when he sat down.”
There was tremendous clarity about Rahul’s Confusion. I have no doubt that the Great French Essayist Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had Outstanding Global Leaders like Rahul Gandhi in view when he wrote as follows: “No Man is Exempt from Talking Nonsense. The misfortune is to do it SOLEMNLY” (in the Vote Bank Politics of India Today, we have to add SECULARLY, NON COMMUNALLY, BLAA BLAA!!).
After Hearing the Historic Performance of Rahul Gandhi (the Greatest Prime Minister in the History of the World in the Making), the following THOUGHTS /QUOTATIONS on FOOLS or what Subramanian Swamy calls a BUDDHU came to my mind:
- “The Silliest Woman can manage a Clever Man; but it needs a Very Clever Woman to manage a Bloody Fool”- RUDYARD KIPLING, Plain Tales from the Hills (1888)
- THE FOOL HAS ONE GREAT ADVANTAGE OVER A MAN OF SENSE – HE IS ALWAYS SATISFIED WITH HIMSELF – NAPOLEAN IN HIS MAXIMS (1804-1815)
- A Prosperous Fool is a Grievous Burden” – AESCHYLUS, Fragments (525-456BC)
- “Fine Clothes may Disguise, but Foolish Word will always Disclose a FOOL” AESOP, ‘The Ass in the Lion’s Skin,’ Fables (6th Century B.C.)
- “Weep for the Dead, for he lacks the Light, and Weep for the Fool, for he lacks the Intelligence; Weep less bitterly for the Dead, for he has attained Rest; But the Life of the Fool is Worse than Death”. APOCRYPHA, Ecclesiasticus
- A Wise Man may be duped as well as a Fool; but the Fool publishes the Triumph of the Deceiver”- Charles Calab Coleton, Lacon(1825)
- “There is no need to Fasten a Bell to a Fool” DANISH PROVERB
- “A Fool’s Head never Whitens”-ENGLISH PROVERB
- “Talk Sense to a Fool
And he calls you Foolish”-EURIPIDES, The Bacchae (405BC)
- “If the Fools do not Control the World, it isn’t because they are Not in the Majority”- EDGAR WATSON HOE, Country Town Sayings (1911)
- “If Every Fool wore a Crown, we should all be KINGS” – WELSCH PROVERB
- “Let us be thankful for the Fools. But for them, the rest of us could not Succeed”, Following the Equator (1897)
CONCLUSION: Sonia Gandhi, a Global Stateswoman cast in the Grand Mould of Catherine the Great of Russia or Queen Elizabeth I, had described Narendra Modi as “MAUTH KA SAUDAGAR” in 2007 and the ‘Communal and Non-Secular’ People of Gujarat taught a Lesson to the Supremely Secular Sonia Gandhi. The ‘No-less Communal and Non Secular’Teeming Millions of India will teach a Proper Lesson to ‘BHARAT KA MAUTH KA SAUDAGAR’ Rahul Gandhi in May 2014.
Sir Winston Churchill said “I HAD THE UNIQUE GOOD FORTUNE OF BEING PRESENT AT SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DRESS REHEARSALS OF HISTORY IN THE 20TH CENTURY”. Likewise Arnab Goswami can also declare with truly Secular Gusto that “I have been very fortunate to be present at the most important Dress Rehearsal of Modern Indian History when I had the good fortune of interviewing Rahul Gandhi, one of the Greatest Men in the History of India, yesterday”. To very few TV Journalists, such a great opportunity has been given during the last 30 years! Arnab Goswami owes his Good Fortune to his Unmatched, Unsurpassed, Unswerving, Indomitable, and Irrespressible Commitment and Devotion to the Congress Party in General and the Nehru Gandhi Family in Particular!
RAHUL GANDHI ZINDABAD!!
POST SCRIPT:
POST SCRIPT:
I do not want to conceal my identity as a Devout and Practicing Hindu, as a Political Hindu, as a Social Hindu, as a Cultural Hindu, as a Religious Hindu and as a Spiritual Hindu! I am proud of the Hindu Heritage rooted in Sanatana Dharma of my Ancestors going back to the Dawn of History.
Ages ago, Bharat Varsha started on her unending quest and trackless centuries are filled with the glory and the grandeur of her innumerable successes and failures. This Eternal Bharat Varsha of our Dreams, of History and Geography, of our Minds and Hearts cannot change.
Let me end this Splendid SAGA of RAHULIANA with a Bracing Quotation from LOURD FLINCH:
“Oh India, will you not help us? Be Patient with us India, Remember we are your children you are old and learned and wise before we existed, your Vedic Children are turning our gaze to our motherland together, we can become the great regenerating and moralising force of this world”.
Why Rahul may be happier walking off into the sunset
by Jan 28, 2014
Rahul Gandhi's first major television interview tells us many things we may have suspected about him but didn't know for sure.
First, he is nervous and not comfortable under the arclights. He couldn't hide his discomfiture in front of a TV camera as he fidgeted 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 inclination; dynastic expectations have been thrust on him. Third, there's 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 Goswami's tough and direct questions forced him to fib - whether it was on Narendra Modi, or the comparisons between 2002 and 1984, or his unease with corruption in the Congress and other people's corruption.
This leads me to conclude that the only resolution 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 difference to society. As a politician thrust into a position of power, he will probably be a disastrous ruler. You can't 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.
Let's 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 questions that bothered him, but how to change the “system”. The word system, as my colleague points out, appeared over 70 times in the interview 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…”.
First, he is nervous and not comfortable under the arclights. He couldn't hide his discomfiture in front of a TV camera as he fidgeted 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 inclination; dynastic expectations have been thrust on him. Third, there's 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 Goswami's tough and direct questions forced him to fib - whether it was on Narendra Modi, or the comparisons between 2002 and 1984, or his unease with corruption in the Congress and other people's corruption.
This leads me to conclude that the only resolution 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 difference to society. As a politician thrust into a position of power, he will probably be a disastrous ruler. You can't 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.
Let's 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 questions that bothered him, but how to change the “system”. The word system, as my colleague points out, appeared over 70 times in the interview 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…”.
]![Rahul Gandhi. AFP.]()
Rahul Gandhi. AFP.
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 party's 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.
Rahul Gandhi. AFP.He said: “The BJP has a prime ministerial candidate, the BJP believes in concentration of power in the hands of one person. I fundamentally 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 ambivalence 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 Modi's alleged obsession with power to give vent to his own feelings about power.
It is also likely that he is uncomfortable with his own party's corruption - though he said confusing things at the interview. On the Adarsh probe report, when Goswami asks him why nothing was done, Rahul tells him he has done something: “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 Rahul Gandhi's “nonsense” remark that ended the ordinance to allow convicted politicians to continue in office - a decision that affected Lalu Prasad most, as his conviction in the fodder scam followed soon afterwards. But right now his party is in serious talks for an alliance with Lalu's party in Bihar - the same party he dumped in order to go it alone in 2009 and 2010.
Rahul's tame excuse was that it was not an alliance with Lalu, but his party. “We are making an alliance with a political party.”
Clearly, his heart and his head are in conflict on this issue of corruption. He might be happier having a cleaner party and no power - but heading a party means compromising with evil. Rahul probably dreads these compromises - but can't 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 community after traumatic events (the Godhra train fire and Indira Gandhi's 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 enunciate. 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 first-hand view or memories on how the “government was going everything to stop the riots.” Everyone knows that it was a completely one-sided Congress party-led attack on Sikhs, unlike 2002, where Hindus were attacking 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 being 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 wasn't 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 beneficiary 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 traumatic 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 filial 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 indication 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 whether he can “walk away” from it all.
Rahul's 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 interview here)
Frankly lying: Rahul Gandhi on 1984 and Gujarat
by Jan 28, 2014
It would have been comic but for the fact that the man who was such cause for national entertainment last night is, and will continue to be in all but designation, the head of India's 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.
]![Did Rahul Gandhi fail to impress with his first public interview? PTI]()
Did Rahul Gandhi fail to impress with his first TV interview? PTI
When Arnab asked him: What is your view, would like to expound your views, your PM accuses Narendra Modi in his press conference of presiding over "the mass massacre of innocent 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?
Did Rahul Gandhi fail to impress with his first TV interview? PTIHe 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 concerned...
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 issue 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 question 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 Congress 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 riots. 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 father's legacy at every step what did he think of his father's statement about a great tree falling? Why was it that for him the legal process was a defence where the Congress was concerned, it wasn't where the BJP was concerned?
It betrays political stupidity to be unprepared for a question on why he thought Modi's government was complicit in the killings, but it says something worse about Rahul that he was willing 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 keeping with such prevarication. After squirming through an hour of further questioning, where he did nothing to improve the disaster the interview had already become within the first half an hour, he declared that Arnab had become mired in superficialities. 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 misunderstanding 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 party's reputation?