The rules of engagement would certainly change if Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would regularly start meeting the press. Last week, he met five print editors for a session that was 100 minutes long and both on and off the record. So, what message did the prime minister really get across? And was the exercise worth it politically? If the attempt was to show Manmohan is indeed in charge and intends to stay the course, then yes, it succeeded.
This effort with the media certainly did not damage the prime minister the way the interaction with TV journalists, broadcast live on February 17 this year, had. The prime minister took a swipe at the media when he said its "role had in many cases become that of the accuser, prosecutor and judge". But this time round, in the old-fashioned journalistic format of talking mostly on the record but also giving insights off the record, Manmohan came off much better. After the prime minister's remarks became public, no great controversy was stirred, no attack was launched. But because they were not included, some broadcast journalists tried to dismiss the whole exercise as a non-event. A Congress leader commented, "The TV chaps have started to believe that if something is not on TV, it did not happen. But this format is far more suitable for a personality like Manmohan Singh, who does not come off well on live television."
|
All in all, the assessment in the Congress is that this whole exercise has worked to Manmohan's advantage at a time he was adrift. According to a veteran, his most significant reply is to the question of voices from the party suggesting that Rahul Gandhi take over. To quote Manmohan: "The Congress president has entrusted me with a job to do. I have not got any contrary view from the Congress high command. In fact, the high command has been most supportive, particularly Mrs Gandhi. Therefore, if you ask me about the general perception that younger people should take over, I think it is the right sentiment. Whenever the Congress party makes up its mind, I have no objection to stepping down. But so long as I am there, I have a job to do."
As a tactic in dealing with his own party, this kind of clarity can work well for Manmohan. For instance, party workers and leaders know that reports from the ground are discouraging. In big states critical to the Congress, such as Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, the party's stock is falling. The day the prime minister spoke, the Congress lost an assembly byelection in Madhya Pradesh to the BJP, a seat in a tribal area that was traditionally the Congress's. Sources in the party say this is hardly the sort of climate in which Rahul would take over. Till some event catalyses change, there is no choice for UPA-II but to continue with Manmohan. The talk of a leadership change creates an atmosphere that reinforces the importance of the dynasty. But it does not really provide a solution to the immediate problem at hand.
|
The practical problem really is that the press contingent in Delhi is huge and everyone wants to be included. Some who are not get quite offended. Besides, television has certainly changed the rules of the game. Suggestions have been made to the PMO, such as creating a pool of journalists who would all get a turn on rotation, and so on. But certainly the media must encourage any attempt by the prime minister to be open to scrutiny and be more forthcoming.
After all, in most western democracies, the head of state routinely interacts with the press and is open to their questions. For instance, US President Barack Obama regularly holds press conferences, meets select veterans on the White House beat for routine off-the-record briefings, and occasionally gets quizzed on TV shows. In India, as our democracy has grown older, it has not necessarily matured. Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi regularly met the press, held press conferences and did not shy away from questions. Says veteran journalist Inder Malhotra, "Indira Gandhi would have frequent background briefings and I must have had 30 one-on-one meetings with her."
Always In Sight Sonia and Rahul. (Photograph by Narendra Bisht)
Rajiv Gandhi held two formal press conferences and, since then, it's been downhill in the Congress as far as allowing media scrutiny is concerned. As far as prime ministers go, V.P. Singh was very open with the press. A.B. Vajpayee was not in his best physical condition while he was prime minister, so large press conferences were avoided. But he would certainly meet journalists individually or in small groups.
Today, the Congress is run by a leader who is never open to media scrutiny, and rarely speaks. Rahul Gandhi, who is seen as heir apparent, has never given an extensive interview, although he does take media queries, mostly when he travels out of Delhi. Very often, the party's media spokespersons have no clue about what decisions will be taken or what is happening because, like most people in the Congress, they are really not in the loop and at best can only indulge in intelligent guesswork. Till now, the prime minister too was inaccessible to most scribes. That he should now be toying with the idea of regularly taking questions from the media should be seen as a small mercy.
AUTHORS: SABA NAQVI
PEOPLE: MANMOHAN SINGH | SONIA GANDHI | RAHUL GANDHI
TAGS: PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA | CONGRESS | MEDIA | POLITICS
SECTION: NATIONAL
Translate
JUL 03, 2011 07:24 PM 23 | Anwaar, Let us examine the adjectives you used to describe our PM and see how these apply.
This has been his personal USP. Unfortunately with scam after scam being revealed and the PM looking the other way or ignoring red flags raised by his subordinates, this is wearing thin. Personal honesty is admirable in everybody. However, a leader is not only required to be honest himself, but to ensure that all those reporting to him (if they do, that is) maintain the same level of honesty. As far as his personal honesty is concerned, the first stain was his lying that he was a resident of Assam in order to get elected to the Rajya Sabha.
Knowledge in itself is of little value unless harnessed to action. MMS may know a lot about esoteric matters but he seems to have little knowledge about what is going on around him. He has the entire resources of the govt at his disposal yet says "I did not know", chooses not to listen to them or take corrective action based on their inputs. his own sports minister wrote letter after letter to him warning him about all sorts of financial irregularities in the CWG and he not only ignored him, but has the gall to state that he received no such letters and that differences between Aiyar and Kalmadi were "ideological". How does this statement square with the first attribute of honesty.
Humility is not all it is made out to be. A leader need not be arrogant, but he must be assertive. Leaders do not ask their subordinates to follow orders with folded hands, they listen and then tell them to get on with it. A PM who allows his ministers to ignore his directives is no leader.
I disagree. This emphasis on the limitations of government is an exercise in passing the buck. It is not the limitations of the government which are at issue, but the limitations of the PM. |
JUL 03, 2011 07:20 PM 22 | This PM is senile like Advani propagating that Jinnah was secular. Sometime ago he made an admission in the international stage that India was meddling in Balochistan in a joint statement with Gilani somewhere in the middle east which led to an uproar ! And now he follows the BJP line on Bangladesh as reported in TOI:
This is just playing into the hands of Beijing and Islamabad. The political analyst Rajeev Sharma has written an excellent column on Indo-Bangladesh relation in South Asia Organisation in this context. Bangladesh is after all a sovereign country and it is none of India's business to poke her nose in their internal affairs in official channels. International politics is never played that way. This is stupidity in the extreme. And what did this PM say to Pakistan just following 26/11? I do not remember any strong condemnation on that occassion although India was fully entitled then to make noise internationally. No Bangladeshi muslim was involved in that terror attack. In fact, as subsequent investigations revealed there were local (i.e. Indian) agents had assisted then ISI in planning 26/11. Is this PM going to take action against them instead of trying to whip Bangladeshi muslims ? |
JUL 03, 2011 05:08 PM 21 | An ineffective PM trying to indulge in lame PR exercise.He is trying to belittle the CAG , twists facts that Mani Shankar Aiyar was opposed to CWG due to issues of principles and not corruption whereas documents shown by media clearly reveal that MSA was repeatedly writing to PM on the financial bunglings in CWG. High time MMS quits |
JUL 03, 2011 02:47 PM 20 | If anyone sane says that the CLOWN MMS held press meet had any credibility ,he should be sent to Yervadi in TN.Why do you all react to those who have no clarity.MMS just did not want to be seen on camera making a joke of already a joker in him.These Sycophants who met him did not ask him the real hard Questions on all the inaction and connivance of his dam PMO which is in public domain.Nothing about his role and culpability in 2G,CWG and Matrix and whole number of scams.If after this kind of Governance or MisGovernance of the UPA anybody can support the dirty TRIO which has pushed the people to revolt,then there is a ulterior motive and that is to destroy the Nation.This is can be the only agenda.Enriching oneself is long over and done.Why lose blood over what these donkeys have to say.We are condemned to our fate.All this while we had a Italian and now we have a Nepali who controls 1245 crores.Shows we have none among ourselves to rule us and thsoe who claim eligibility have blood on there hands and even go about destroying evidence of Human abuse to escape law.Both ways we are doomed.Just await our fate.No point getting worked up.My fellow Countrymen. |
JUL 03, 2011 02:23 PM 19 | PM's press conference is definitely a non-event because it did not involve a talk on TV and/or TV journalists. No one can deny this. It was probably because his advisors thought that most of India's districts and village population have not been affected by the so called "propaganda" of terrible corruption among his Cabinet colleagues and his inability to arrest it. So , his adivsors thought that avoiding a TV show means much less propaganda !! and the issues would be buried in the sands of time. Simply I can say they are wrong. Probably they are burying their heads in sand like an ostrich. The problem area should have been dealt with all the clarity and position of Prime Minister's Office right infront of TV , rather than avoiding it just because he had a perceived notion that it had brought some trouble in the past. This is utter nonsense. How anyone can rule a country as complex as India ? If not by reaching out to people ? In modern times, it is TV's small screen that can bring a country's PM right in to the homes of people. There are many problems here. First of all , PM did not want to become a star , a popular PM from the very begining and he had always appeared to have afriad of consequences of becoming a popular PM , afraid of going in to masses to appeal, to project and to connect to them. That would , he probably thought , alert Mrs.Sonia ji and would put him in trouble. In any case his second term in office was also ensured only because he did not endear himself with masses and he did not acquire any personal cherisma or an aura around him , which could be bigger than Congress party. He thinks his gratitude to Mrs.Sonia ji can never be questioned and he has indeed prepared the throne ,PM's chair , to Mr.Rahul Gandhi. In this perspective, indeeed he succeeded. But actually the whole of middle class of India is fed up with corruption and inability of his Government. This worsening situation would worsen more, if Man mohan singh remains as PM for any longer time. |
PERMALINK
LIKE (1)
DISLIKE (0)
REPORT ABUSE
Posts
