A Conversation With: Times Now Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami
by BETWA SHARMA, mobile.nytimes.com
January 29th 2014
Arnab Goswami, editor in chief of the Times Now television news channel in Mumbai, landed one of the biggest interviews in Indian journalism in recent years when he spoke with Rahul Gandhi, the Congress Party vice president.
Since he entered politics a decade ago, Mr. Gandhi, who is widely presumed to be his party’s choice for prime minister if Congress wins the national elections, had never given a TV interview. That Mr. Gandhi, 43, chose to sit down with Mr. Goswami, 40, one of the most aggressive interviewers in India, elevated the event to must-see TV on Monday night.
True to form, Mr. Goswami grilled Mr. Gandhi about his thoughts on Narendra Modi, the prime ministerial candidate of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, which Congress Party leaders have been accused of inciting, and the violence against Muslims in Mr. Modi’s state of Gujarat in 2002.
During the interview and afterward, Twitter exploded with comments, ranging from serious to sarcastic, about Mr. Gandhi’s answers.
On Wednesday, Mr. Goswami spoke to India Ink by phone about how it felt to bag the elusive interview and the reasons behind his tough questions.
Q.
How does it feel landing the political interview that a lot of journalists wanted for a decade?
A.
Frankly, and I am not trying to be blasé about it, but for me all interviews are absolutely the same. When I’m in the room with the person, I am not overly awed by the occasion, the situation or the subject. And I think that comes across in the work that I do, whether it is the prime minister of India to whom I asked a question at a press conference in 2011, or it is Pervez Musharraf [former military ruler of Pakistan] or it is Rahul Gandhi.
So frankly, I’m amazed at the kind of feedback this particular interview has got, and people seemed to be surprised that I was myself in front of Rahul Gandhi.
Q.
Why did your channel, Times Now, get the interview?
A.
One needs to recognize that across the world, channels and newspapers with the highest reach and circulation has access to the top interviews. The reason we have been given the interview is because of our maximum viewership and wide lead over any other English news channel. My team has worked very hard for eight years to bring us to this pre-eminent position. While I’m the face of it, it is the young journalists and producers with me who are responsible for bringing in this interview.
Q.
So why is this interview important?
A.
This interview is very important because it’s a two-way conversation for the first time for 75 to 80 minutes.
So far, you heard Rahul Gandhi’s speeches in rallies, and you heard him speak on subjects that he wants to speak about. But these are subjects that he has not gone into details about or not answered from the perspective of the questions posed to him. After this the second, third, or 100th interview are going to happen, but this is the first time you get to hear him speak in detail.
Q.
You say “two-way conversation,” but what people saw were you asking some very specific questions on problems of corruption and religious violence, and Mr. Gandhi responding with more vague answers on topics like women empowerment and employment. Did you feel a disconnect while doing the interview?
A.
I don’t think there was a disconnect. He is a relatively younger-generation political leader, and I’m not yet a dinosaur in journalism, so I think we would both like to represent the newer aspirations of both politicians as well as the younger, more aggressive, straightforward and direct-talking media in the country. There was a healthy tug of war between him wanting to talk about the big picture, and my drawing it into specifics.
Q.
You opened by asking Mr. Gandhi about his views on Narendra Modi – why was this important?
A.
It’s very important to get to hear what the Congress vice president has to say on the B.J.P. prime ministerial candidate. And because I had not heard his views on Modi before, I think we need to get that answer and that’s why I put it up first.
Q.
Did you get it?
A.
Well, he made a few comments on Modi. He said that he did not believe in overcentralization of power, and he supported what the prime minister said about Modi, and then he went on to say that the Modi government pushed the riots.
So he did reply, but he could have replied in more detail the first time I asked him. I had to ask the question four or five times before I got the reply. But I guess he did not want it to become into a Rahul Gandhi/Modi-focused interview.
Q.
And then you drilled him on the religious violence against Sikhs in 1984 and Muslims in 2002.
A.
Both of these incidents are two black spots on the contemporary history of India, and as an editor representing the new media in the country, I needed to understand from Rahul Gandhi why he feels these two are different.
Q.
When Mr. Gandhi made the distinction that the Congress government in 1984 had helped the Sikhs during the violence and the Modi government had aided the violence in 2002, what was going through your head?
A.
I was thinking of the cases pending against Congress leaders, and the fact that he had in an earlier part of the interview said that some Congress men were probably involved. I did find a slight incongruence between the two, and I pushed him more on that.
Q.
Do you think that Mr. Gandhi’s refusal to apologize for his party is what people are going to remember the most about this interview?
A.
I think there was already a stage set for Rahul Gandhi to say more than what he did, especially as his mother has expressed deep anguish and the prime minister has apologized.
In fact, that’s why I think this has become controversial, because I did ask him the question three or four times. I would not be surprised if he would go into detail in terms of expressing anguish or even apologizing later considering the nature of the debate that has now taken place following the interview.
Q.
Do you feel that perhaps Mr. Gandhi had not prepared enough for questions on Mr. Modi and the religious violence?
A.
If you ask me, I don’t think that Rahul Gandhi did not or could not have answered my question on Modi or ’84 for the first time in great detail. I think he was strategically going back to the subjects that he wanted the focus to be on, and that was from the very second or third minute of the interview. While I respect his view, it was my challenge to get him to speak about what he hadn’t already in a speech.
Q.
So Mr. Gandhi criticized your line of questioning as superficial. Do you think there is merit to his preference of wanting the interview to be more about the big picture and his vision, and not about the B.J.P. versus Congress?
A.
I represent a younger generation of Indian journalists who believe in going straight to the point. I think those days of obfuscation are over both for politicians and journalists, and I think the kind of journalism we do today is about coming to the key issues.
If we as journalists allow others to decide what should or should not be asked, then I don’t think we can ever do good interviews. I think there is a recognition of that increasingly from politicians as well, that it’s not unusual for journalists to ask what they want to ask.
Q.
Why did you ask Mr. Gandhi about why he keeps invoking his family name? Wasn’t that a bit personal?
A.
Well, because he has been mentioning his family quite a bit in speeches, family and interactions. The follow-up question to that is he might be seen as dynast, which is not necessarily a good thing in India today. So it was asked in the context of a dynasty and not in a personal one.
Q.
What impact will this interview have on the country’s political discourse ahead of the elections?
A.
You know the views of the vice president of the Congress Party and the unofficial prime ministerial candidate of the Congress Party.
With 12 weeks to go for the general elections, I think this interview has really warmed up the national debate, and we will now see senior leaders from all political parties participate in these debates more passionately and more often.
Q.
Can you describe your interview in one word?
A.
Detailed.
