‘I don’t want to take selfies with Modi, but I’m very keen to question him all the time’

New Delhi: Congratulations. I understand from your tweets that your book is doing better than Sachin Tendulkar's autobiography.
I actually got that from The Asian Age. You all have listings of a book store, that's where I saw it.

So, in TV parlance, kaisa lag raha hai aapko?
Hahaha In TV parlance, surprisingly bada achcha lag raha hai. Achcha lag raha hai, let's put it that way.

You mentioned Sachin Tendulkar specifically.
Well, because, look, all my life I have been the biggest admirer of Tendulkar. I have grown old on the Tendulkar legend, and then to hear that the book is actually, in some book stores, selling more than Sachin Tendulkar… most of us journalists have aspired to be something else. I think many of us aspired to play cricket like Gavaskar or Tendulkar. If we can't play cricket like them, at least, maybe, a book.

Your book is racy and, towards the end, when you focus on the media blitz of the Modi campaign, it’s very interesting. But for anyone who read at least one newspaper and watched one news channel during the election, there wasn’t anything new in the book’s first 200 pages.
There are two ways to look at it. I just read the review of the book on The Hoot which called the first chapter on Modi "scintillating", that it gave a dimension to Modi that doesn't exist. I don't think people have seen that side of Modi at all. It's a very personalised view of Modi. And similarly with Rahul. Look, different people have different views. I’m just saying, I’ve read James Aston’s review. Everybody’s been impressed, actually, with the fact that someone’s being honest about both Modi and Rahul… I think it’s as honest a portrayal of what happened in the Indian... Naturally, I have more inside knowledge of the media than I do of each individual. So I go by the view that the strength of the book is that it’s pretty honest.
I’m not an insider in the world of politics. So I will obviously do it as an observer. As a media person I’m more of an insider. So I might have an inside view of what happened in the world of television and how the media game is played.
Somebody might think, oh, I’ve seen it on TV... But I don’t think anyone has seen that chapter on Modi in any form on TV — who Modi was in the 1990s and how he’s transformed. My Modi chapter is about the evolution of the man. The Rahul chapter, again, I think, people need to know who the real Rahul is. I don’t think that’s ever come out… you might find in a newspaper or a channel, but a TV programme can never really bring to life a person which I believe a book can. I’d like to believe I’ve tried that. Some will say I’ve succeeded, some will say I’ve failed. I have no issue with that.

So is that why you wrote the book? To present the real Rahul and the real Modi?
No, no. Not at all. I wrote the book because I think this was a historic election that needed to be documented for posterity. Primarily that was the main driving force. I think this was a fascinating election and also, in a sense, 26 years in journalism has given me a ringside view to see, to observe politics and elections. So I thought this was a good time to step back and write about it, rather than do it in a television programme which is here today gone tomorrow.

This election also changed your life quite a bit.
(pause) It didn’t. I mean change my life in a way that I’m, you know… to my mind it gave me... I don’t see… I don’t think it changed my life. It obviously will be seen like that perhaps by the outside world, but I don’t think election changed my life, other things changed my life. Election was just a part of it.

There’s just one line in the book where you hint about why you left the channel you started. What was the reason for not writing that story as well.
Because this book is not about me. It’s about the elections... If I wrote a book tomorrow about the media, then I would certainly write about this. In fact, I would love to write about the media some day. The problem is that if you write an honest book about the media you can’t then survive and be a professional in the media. So I guess that is my retirement book… But today’s story is the story of 2014.

Ok. According to various reports, it was your decision to cover Arvind Kejriwal which led to your exit from CNN-IBN...
hmmm
and to the exit of many others who had started the channel with you. So, in retrospect, do you regret that…
No, no. I certainly don’t regret doing a Google Hangout with Mr Kejriwal, covering the Aam Aadmi’s Party campaign during Delhi elections. Everyone did. He was the flavour of the season. Just look at the newspapers from December to January this year. He was all over the place. So I don’t regret that. I think journalists’ duty is ultimately to the viewer or the reader and so long as you are honest to that, no problem.
I do believe that in the Delhi elections he got disproportionate coverage. And we are all guilty in that sense for it because I guess he was based in Delhi, so close to the headquarters of news channels and newspapers. By the time the general elections came I don’t think that was the case. In the general election he was just one of several politicians.

So you don’t regret taking that…
No. I don’t regret it at all. I mean, our job as journalists is to interview everyone. We will interview the devil if it comes to that.

But there are compromises we all make. Every organisation has holy cows, every…
Of course, of course. I’m sure there are compromises you make.

Sometimes you step back, don’t push, don’t ask that one question. You know when to stop, when to…
Ya. Maybe I didn’t. Maybe I’m foolishly idealistic.

What’s your day like now?
My day now is that I go into office in the mornings. I prepare for my evening programme in the morning — I set the agenda. Then I take some time off. I try and take an afternoon nap which I haven’t done in a long time. I try and have lunch at home, which I haven’t done for a long time. And then I go to office around 5.30-6 for the programme. That’s five nights a week. And I try and keep up with some writing work because that gives me a lot of satisfaction.

What kind of writing? Another book? Fiction?
Nooo. I can’t write another book. I’ve really exhausted myself. If I write, I’ll write after a year or so, maybe even longer. You need a subject that really grabs you to write. No, I write my columns.

And you are on Twitter quite a bit.
Ya, I try and be on Twitter once in the morning for about half an hour, and once in the evening for half an hour.

Why?
It’s a good way to connect, you know. You’ve got 1.7 million followers. It’s a way of connecting, it’s a way of selling yourself. I’ve realised in the course of this book, a book is more difficult to sell than a movie in today’s world. But you should. I want more and more people to read it... I believe that books are something that last. They are not like a TV programme, here today, gone tomorrow. They will last the test of time. So I want to try and push the boundaries, get more and more people to read.

That’s why the “selfie with the book” that you are pushing on Twitter?
Ya. I mean, this was done by the great writer, foreign writer recently (thinking hard, trying to recall the name). But that’s not the reason I did it. I did it because it was one way of giving people a sense of involvement in the process.
(remembers suddenly, laughs loudly and says) hahahaha Paulo Coelho was putting his selfies out. So if he can do it, I can. Until then I thought, maybe it’s not such a nice thing to do. Then I said, you know, if he can do it, if he’s gonna push his book, why can’t I push my book?

You made a statement in interviews after your book was released that “I am not anti-Modi”, and that you don’t want to be in that “2002 cage”, so to speak. Could you please explain that.

I believe journalists cannot be anti and pro anyone. Journalists can have strong views on a particular event or a particular individual or a particular period of time. This book is about 2014. This book is not about 2002. This book has Narendra Modi as the central character, but he is not the only character in the book. And I have had a peculiar relationship with Mr Modi because I have, perhaps, interviewed him more than any other television journalist in the 1990s, till about 2002. In fact, even till 2005. So it’s not as if we haven’t had a relationship, a professional relationship. Why would I be anti him? I was questioning and critical of the handling of the riots by the Gujarat government of which he was the chief minister and, therefore, had to take responsibility… I’m not an activist who believes everything that Modi does is wrong... I believe there are aspects of Mr Modi which, as a journalist, you’ve got to accept, and you’ve got to respect and admire and there have got to be aspects that you have to question and challenge and criticise. (Pause) I don’t want to take selfies with Modi, but I’m very keen to question him all the time.

You were trending on Twitter after you made this statement — #LiarRajdeep.
That’s because people want to put you in that cage of 2002 and I said this the other day, that there are so many journalists who wrote such fine articles on 2002, did such fine stories. People don’t remember them. Why? Because of print... I reported as a print journalist ’92-’93, and reported it with great intensity, perhaps with even greater intensity than I did Gujarat, frankly, because it was Mumbai, I knew the city inside out. But people don’t remember that, they don’t have the same memory of that because of the camera. That’s my problem with all this.

But the narrative you built on television over the years — Narendra Modi’s and your own, as a reporter and anchor — was always rooted in 2002. Even recently in New York, where you had that… (I want to say panga, but am distracted by Nemo, Sardesai’s cute beagle, who has pounced on the chair next to him and is staring outside the window. Nemo made a notorious appearance on Twitter in February when Sardesai tweeted, “While Namo travels the country, my Nemo needs to be taken for a walk in the park! Different folks, different priorities!” Modi’s followers obviously went ballistic.) …scuffle. In fact, that’s how you yourself became the story.
I’ve taken no stand on Modi. I’ve taken a stand, I took a stand... I didn’t take a stand… I reported aggressively on a particular event which, I believe, is one of… is a terrible thing that happened. I mean, thousand people lost their lives and my belief as a journalist is always to push for accountability in such cases. Unfortunately, people have seen me through that prism. I guess that’s the way people see it. What do I say to those people? The fact is that in 2002 December, when we were having our poll on Gujarat, when the elections were there, I remember telling Yogendra Yadav on TV, “Modi will win by two-thirds. Mark my words, he will win a big majority”. Many of the other panelists didn’t accept that. So it’s not as if I have…

But that’s not about being anti or pro Modi. That’s just that you are a good judge of...
But I am not anti-Modi. I have questioned the role of the Gujarat government in the riots. Is that being anti-Modi? No. As I keep maintaining, there are lots of aspects to Modi which are admirable. I mean, his ability to get the power situation in Gujarat under control, Jyoti Gram. But if I do a discussion on Jyoti Gram, people, the activists will say, ‘Oh, you are giving Modi people a platform’. You see, journalists are getting caught in... because people are want us to be in one camp or the other. That’s my worry. That either you are anti-Modi or pro-Modi. Or anti-Rahul or... Why can’t we be just people who absorb and say... In fact, more people have written to me after the book, saying that the book is far more critical of Rahul than it is of Modi and my answer to that is very simple: That Modi won the election, Rahul lost the election. The book is about who won and who lost. So.

In the book you’ve said that "at one level Modi has contempt for the media, but he knows how to use us also beautifully”. Would you agree that you are one of the reasons why Modi has contempt for English-language media.
NOOO! Because Modi, and that’s why I think the book is important in the first part, because if you see Modi in the 1990s, he actively courted that media… I’ve always believed that everything with Narendra Modi is strategic. It suits Narendra Modi today to be contemptuous of the media. It suited Narendra Modi in the 1990s to aggressively court the same media. Today the contempt is part of his attempt to show that media is the enemy.

Why?
Because Modi’s always been in search of someone who is seen as the enemy and he the victim. That’s been his politics. That’s the nature of Modi’s politics. By making the English-language media, in the sense, the enemy or by targeting the English-language media in the way he has, he’s able to project himself as the victim of a conspiracy against him. It’s very, very intelligent politics. He’s a brilliant politician. It’s brilliant politics. He’s done it because he’s a politician.
In the 1990s, he needed to court that same media because he needed to ensure that he had some identity in that space, and one of those identities was of a very good communicator. So he needed to be on TV at that time and have good relations with the media. Today he’s reached the stage where he doesn’t need the media at one level, so the contempt comes from there. But at another level it also gives him a chance to tell his supporters, ‘Look, I will set the narrative. Who are these media people?’

Do you think it would have been different if everybody, editors like you, had actually “moved on from 2002”?
Moved on? I mean this word “moved on” troubles me. Who is to move on? Let’s be clear. I think for a number of us the narrative has moved well beyond 2002. So to accuse us of being trapped in 2002 is wrong. Just look at the coverage over the last two years of Mr Modi. Where are the references? Barely any reference to 2002. Barely. The last two years certainly nobody can say that the media hasn’t moved on, I haven’t moved on. We are all gushing over him. So where is the question of moving on… we’ve all moved on. But, I don’t think you can say that moving on means that you forget. I mean, 1984. Every October 31st there are newspaper articles on ’84 because it’s important to remember. Why should we forget? What is this urge to forget? People may forget. Not journalists. Journalists are supposed to remind people it happened, so that it never happens again.

You’ve written, “in normal times we would have thought Modi is a polarising figure and dividing people. But Modi has become a unifier”. I didn’t quite understand this.
You see, what happened in 2014 is that Modi was there at the right place at the right time in the right context. People were looking for a strong, muscular figure. After what happened in the last few years of the UPA II government — a Prime Minister in silent mode, a government at sixes and sevens — the same person who in 2002 was seen as a Hindutva hero now became this muscular figure who is a symbol of bringing India back on track, of getting the Indian growth story back on track, of restoring an element of pride in India. So the polarising figure, in that sense, becomes a unifier. I think that’s a big transformation.
And Modi was, as I said, intelligent enough to recognise the change that was taking place, and transformed himself, his rhetoric. His rhetoric from 2013 for the main part is very different to what it was between 2002 and 2007.

So, 31 per cent vote…
Thirty-one percent is a large, large vote. Look at how much the BJP vote has grown – from 18 per cent to 31 per cent. That’s 13 per cent increase just in the BJP vote. The BJP always had a limited geographical catchment area, so the 31 per cent needs to be seen in that context. There were large parts of the country where the BJP didn’t exist. In every state, including Kerala, the BJP’s vote went up substantially. If I’m not mistaken, the BJP’s vote went up 10 or 12 per cent in Kerala. So across the country Modi ensured the BJP’s vote rose… Modi won 282 seats and in India that’s the first past the post system. The strike rate was remarkable across north and west India and he focused on that.

I wanted to know, what is this new, unified India of 31 per cent you write about?
Good question. What is this new, unified India of 31 per cent? Remember, it’s 31 per cent of those who voted… and if you add the NDA allies, it goes up to 43-44 per cent. The Congress also, at its peak, got around 40 to 45 per cent. That’s the vote you need to win an Indian election.
At the end of the day, when I say unified, it’s only in the context of leadership. People are looking for a strong leader. Modi fulfils that need. That doesn’t mean that those who haven’t voted for him don’t want a strong leader.

No, I want to understand — what is this India you talk of, this new, unified India?
I think this new India is a younger, more impatient, aspirational, restless society that is constantly looking for change, for change agents. In a way Arvind Kejriwal represents that desire for change. Narendra Modi represents that desire for change… I think the biggest driving force in this country is that everyone wants their children’s lives to be better than theirs. And this new India will break doors to do that. They will do anything. They will break walls to do that. Modi’s offering them that dream at the moment. Whether, therefore, India will change — I think I would have been more accurate to say (referring to the title of his book) “The election that has the potential to change India,” rather than “The election that changed India”. I don’t think India will change overnight. I think it has the potential to change because you now have, for the first time, a right of centre government, majority right of centre government.

So when you say they’ll break doors, the old idea of India is something they’ve broken, obviously, with…
I think they’ve broken a certain sense of elitism and entitlement that the old India had already. This elite privilege, it’s breaking in every field of life. It’s breaking in cricket. Who are the young cricketers who are coming? They don’t come from the big cities, or the big schools. They come from smaller towns. Who are the new businesses which are succeeding? A number of them are first-generation entrepreneurs. In politics also. I would call Modi a first-generation politician, very much so. So I think they have a hunger, they have an appetite to succeed and they are willing to change the rules of the game. One of the things in this election that stood out for me is that Modi changed the rules of the game.

Totally.
And in that sense Jairam Ramesh is right — (quoting from the book) “Modi played Bodyline” and changed the rules of the game and the Congress didn’t know how to handle this new kind of politics that was being played: use of media, use of technology, use of the personality in such a dramatic manner. It was quite astonishing at one level.

This new India — does it excite you or scare you?
Good question. I think it does a bit of both. I think it is exciting because, you know, it’s a huge opportunity. A younger, more assertive country impatient for change. Maybe, can force many of our status quo, decrepit institutions into changing… push for more accountability hopefully. So potential is there, which is exciting. The worry, of course, is that this new India can also become more intolerant of criticism, is so obsessed with the self that it doesn’t look at the wider community… (and) seems to be constantly outraged and therefore doesn’t do anything constructive…
I think there is a huge opportunity for this India to make India a better place to live in, and there is the worry that this India could be right for some kind of an authoritarian takeover. Both those possibilities exist, which is why, I as say in the end, that it’s pregnant with possibilities, good and bad. That’s left for the next book, probably five years from now, after Modi’s completed five years.

You’ve written that “I see very dark times ahead with a lot more control and muzzling of the mainstream media”. Why do you say that? On what basis?
I think we can already see the narrative around us. I don’t see enough of questioning, criticism… I just recall what happened at that Diwali Milan. I’m convinced that 15 years ago, journalists who were with Prime Minister, whether it was P.V. Narasimha Rao or Vajpayee, would have gotten up and said, ‘Sir, some questions, please”. Instead the journalists were more anxious to take selfies and shake hands with the leader. I think we are getting co-opted much too easily… Is the government consciously muzzling us or are we more than willing to get muzzled in return for access, or in return for whatever we want out of the government? I think there are worrying signs already.

So which one is it?
I think it’s too early to say which one is happening. You can see it all over at the moment. Barring few exceptions, by and large I don’t see questioning. You don’t have to be critics all the time. I’m not asking us to be critics at all. At least we should be skeptical. We seem to be losing our power of skepticism. We seem to be euphoric about everything.

But speaking from your own personal experience, is that good advise?
Yes, why not? Why not? My personal experience is that I am a professional journalist and I’ve always believed that as a professional journalist my first commitment has to be to my profession. As I said, maybe that’s being idealistic… You don’t have to be an activist, but you have to be a skeptic. You have to question a little bit. Otherwise journalism mein maza kya hai?

You’ve written about this Jodi No. 1 – Amit Shah and Narendra Modi. And you’ve hinted throughout the book that this jodi projects fear, that it operates on a sense of fear. And that this fear is grounded somewhere in their past. You’ve written that Shah believes in saam, daam, dand, bhed, and that Modi doesn't forget or forgive easily. I want you to comment on this a bit.
(Smiles, uneasy laugh) Well, they are the Jodi No. 1 in terms of politics. They have been incredibly successful. I mean, what they did in Maharashtra recently was incredible. In Haryana. So their political strategy seems to be working, which is Modi at the top, using the RSS cadres at the ground level, media power — carpet bombing of the Modi image. It’s been a successful strategy. Both are also seen as very strong, authoritarian figures. That’s who they are. That’s their personality.

Talk to me a little bit about this fear
Well, I think it’s a good question to ask journalists who have been in Gujarat for the last 12 years. I think there is the sense that both Mr Modi and Mr Shah are (now speaking slowly, deliberately) very, very strong individuals who you do not wish to rub the wrong way. Let me just leave it at that.
I think that’s the sense media persons who have tracked Gujarat over the years have got: that they are not easy people to deal with. And at the same time they are very good politicians. So as I said, everyone has a darker side, and everyone has a sunnier side.
At one level, Gujaratis are among my favourite people in the world. I was born in Ahmedabad, I have lots of Gujarati friends. They are very warm people. But at another level, maybe that same warm person can also be very cold and authoritarian. And you’ve got to, sort of, take both.

From two you are going to all Gujaratis?
No, no, no, no. No, no. Because one of the criticisms has been that I was for a long time not just anti-Modi, but was accused of being anti-Gujarat, which was terrible.

But that’s his narrative — anti-Modi means anti-Gujarat.
That’s his narrative. But it’s a terrible narrative in my view to have. It was part of the narrative of his supporters, that you are anti-Gujarat, which I certainly wasn’t. I have the happiest memories of the place.
So how do I see Amit Shah and Narendra Modi? At one level I can reach out to Amit Shah and Narendra Modi because I know Gujarati, it’s easy to build some kind of a bond. At another level, you know, you are a little fearful because they have this image of strong, authoritarian people.

You’ve written in the context of an interview you did with Narendra Modi that he had engineered it in such a way that you were sitting on the footboard of a van and that this was his “characteristically perverse way of reminding me of my station in life”. What other such perverse incidents do you recall?
(Deep inhalation) I don’t recall any other such perverse incident. He didn’t give me an interview, maybe, perhaps, that was part of the perversity. But no, that, perverse or not, is my presumption. He may have had his own reasons to do it.

But you write “characteristically perverse”.
aaaaaaa Modi has his own ways of sending out messages, that’s my impression. I write in the book, for example, about the whole incident with Sanjay Joshi and Narendra Modi and how he refused two years ago to campaign in UP because Sanjay Joshi was kept in charge. So it’s not just with me. I think he knows, you know, how to put people in their place. That’s Modi for you. That’s why he’s the Prime Minister.

In the context of his Sadbhavana Yatra, you’ve written that Modi needed to provide closure to Muslims in Gujarat through justice and some empathy. And that he didn’t provide either to the victims of the 2002 riots. Now that he’s got the mandate that he’s got, where the Muslim vote didn’t really count, does that mean it’s over, that…
No. I think Modi is clever enough to realise that if he has to be a lamba race ka ghoda, as they say, he needs to transform himself into a statesman and statesman Modi will have to reach out to all communities. I think he’s conscious of that.

You mean that whole “computer ek haath mein, aur Quran ke haath mein...”
As I said, Modi recognises that to win India he can’t practice the politics of pure Hindutva, in the sense of appealing to only one community. Okay, he won India without winning the Muslims’ trust. But I think he knows that if he wants to go down in history as a great Prime Minister, I have a sense that he has a sense of history, he’ll have to show, he’ll have to do something much more towards the minority community as well. I think he’s conscious of it. Whether he will do it, we don’t know… The problem is that like many of us he too is also a prisoner of his image and I think he too also realises that he will have to do much more to convince the Muslims, to win their trust. It’s not an easy process… I just hope he does it.

Moving on to Rahul Gandhi. The way you’ve told his story, talking about what you’ve called his “brief item numbers” — where he does this grand gesture, makes a grand appearance but then there’s no follow-up, there’s, in fact, disappearance from the scene itself — and in a conversation you’ve referred to Priyanka Gandhi’s “item numbers”. Is that how you see both of them? As item numbers in Indian politics?
About Priyanka Gandhi — I said that during a conversation at a book fest, which perhaps was the wrong choice of words. I should have used the word “cameo”. But I do believe that politics is 24x7. And I do see that both, certainly Rahul because he’s supposed to full-time politician, tend to flit in and out rather than stay the course. Unless you stay the course you don’t have a chance because you are faced with someone who breathes, lives and eats politics 5 am to midnight.

Do you think the verdict would have been different if Priyanka had entered the fray?
No. Nothing. I think this election was done and dusted…

In 2011?
In terms of the Congress losing, yes. In terms of the scale of the victory, 2013-14 — the way Modi ran this campaign... If Modi had not been there, I think the BJP would have got 200 seats. Modi got them 80 extra seats. There is some empirical evidence also to show – I think the CSDS poll — that 30 per cent of those who voted for the BJP in Bihar, or one in every three voters, or one in every four, said that they would not have voted for the BJP if Modi was not the leader. So Modi being the leader made a lot of fence sitters vote for the BJP.

TV journalism. The sense I’m getting is that you are looking at it from a distance now. You are more analytical, maybe a little more critical of TV journalism today.
Possibly, possibly. I think after having spent 20 years in TV, it’s nice to step back from the treadmill and look at what was happening around me. And this book gave me a great opportunity to do that… TV newsroom is a crazy place. You don’t get enough time to think. But I think that the last few months have given me that time to think… we in the media need to look at ourselves more critically.

But you are doing that now, now that you are off the treadmill.
No, I used to do it even then. Look, I am only one person, and this is an industry. Unless we as a collective recapture our moral compass, we are going to find ourselves down a slippery slope. I’m not saying I’m above, I’m out of it. I’m very much in it... It’s tough sometimes, to get off and… tough sometimes to challenge the dominant narrative.

But why is prime time news television particularly bad?
Because prime time TV has become increasingly lazy. You see, to do news, and to focus on ground reports requires investment of people, resources and ideas. So much easier to have four people in the studio fighting with each other.

But during the day, in the morning, on Sunday afternoons, your channel, other news channels, they do investigative stories, in-depth reports. But prime time…
Ya. But first of all, even that is not enough… but prime time, I guess, it’s like a Hindi film — we’ve fallen into a formula trap. Someone will have to break it and say, “F*** it, I’m not interested in these 20-25 same guys coming again and again. Let’s do it a different way.”

You didn’t have this thought while you were…
Of course I did and every now and then I would step outside... But it’s what I call the tyranny of TRPs. Everybody is looking over their shoulder to see what will give ratings. So if masala is getting rating, masala karo... there was a time when bhoot-pret was getting ratings on Hindi channels, woh hua prime time mein. Then there were five people fighting. Now actually viewership is declining, even at prime time, because people are tiring of it. So now, hopefully, you’ll have to reinvent and find something new. In fact, I’m doing a programme on Headlines Today where the advertisement says “News is back”. I mean, imagine if a news channel has to say “news is back”. What does that say?

Apart from the shouty one hour of news television, apart from that, even in CNN-IBN news reports have background scores.
Sssssss yeah (cringingly) ya, that’s a very good point.

Arrows and circles around images and the same image playing again and again, in a loop, with background music.
Because somewhere there’s been a belief that people’s attention span is only five seconds… of nano seconds. (Says, while clicking his fingers) So how do I catch it? Music lagao, drama karo. That’s the problem… Everybody is trying to grab those eyeballs.

It’s almost as if you are competing with Ekta (Kapoor) and not Arnab (Goswami).
No, no, we are also competing with English movie channels today. We think prime time everybody is watching us… (but) many of them are just snacking on news. They are watching the headlines and moving on… to watch their serials… So we are not just competing with news channels, we are also competing with this.
Look, personally I would like to believe that within this larger framework one has managed to maintain some level of sanity. But if I were to be asked, are you very different from the others? Not really.

Do you think that Arnab Goswami, the loudest and with his “India needs to know” etc, changed the game and others had to follow.
I think what happened was that he was able to, for a particular period of time, create a particular niche for himself. And because that was successful, others thought this was the way to do it… But as people are finding out, everyone has an identity. I always believe that if there are 10 people are out there, if five watch the noise, two may watch the sanity, one may watch something in the middle. I think each one of us has to have the confidence to be in our own zone of comfort. Not everyone of us can do these shouting matches. Not everyone of us can pull it off with such élan. Some of us have to do it the way we do it.

What are you good at?
I don’t know. Really I don’t… I hope I’m good at writing, which is why the book.

You are not good at shouting?
I’m not good at anything. I’m just a journalist. What excites me is news. Achchistory mil gayi, mujhe achcha lagta hai.

Studio or spot?
For many years it was spot and in my heart of hearts the spot. Unfortunately, with age, you don’t have the energy to do spot, so the studio is a nice, comfortable retirement home.

Reading the book the sense I got was that you were the only CNN-IBN reporter who was out there, reporting every story…
No, that’s not true. Many of the stories I have taken from my colleagues. I did, I had to spend time in the studio. I went out also. During this particular election I went out a bit more because I wanted to see what was happening. Not with a book in mind, but just to do my reporting. I think any journalist, if you ask them, they’ll say where the action is. Very few journalists will say they want to be in the studio. I was very fortunate that I got to spend so much time outside. It gave me a sense of what a reporter goes through. Even now when I’m in the studio, I can understand what a reporter goes through. You know, you’ve kept the poor fellow in the boiling sun for two hours and then come to him for two minutes. I can empathise with them.

Are you planning a second inning, a bigger second inning in television?
You know, frankly, I don’t know. I have just stepped back a bit. The book has been great because it’s been part of the process of stepping back and seeing what else I’d like to do. And as I said, I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the kind of feedback, that by and large everyone, you can’t please everyone, that a journalist’s book is given half-decent reviews is good enough for me. Generally, fellow journalists tend to be even more critical of journalists. But I don’t know, I think I will remain a journalist always. But today I don’t think a journalist has to confine himself necessarily to just doing television, or just doing print. The world of digital is opening up new opportunities. I think we are in the content business.

Are you talking about the new Raghav Bahl venture?
No, Raghav’s doing digital. I’m saying, as journalists we can do television, we can do print, we can do digital. We are providing content. I think our expertise has to be in communication. We should be platform agnostic. We should be multi-platform, multi-content. You know, I’ve started a blog site, I’m on Twitter, I do a TV programme, I write a column. I hope more and more journalists write. I believe Indian journalists should write about India. We should write our stories. Why should we have a foreigner come and write on our elections. While researching this book I was stunned. Very few books have been written on Indian elections in all these years. Why? We should be writing. We know more than the others, that the white man does, ya.

So what are you saying? You are not starting another channel?
No, I’m not starting another channel. I don’t have the energy to start another channel. I don’t have the energy at least as of today to start another channel. It requires a lot of energy. I do hope though to contribute by just continuing to write, observe, do programmes, ask questions.

Last question. Without giving much detail, you tantalizingly suggest in the book that you’ve been in very regular, almost weekly, touch with Narendra Modi. You write about your Sunday phone conversations. Yeh silsila kab se chal raha hai?
This was actually during the elections period… when he came to Delhi during that Shri Ram College speech of his — February 2013. That one year, if not every week, then fortnightly. Initially fortnight, later on as the elections came closer, then weekly. I kept that equation maybe in the hope that he would give me this big, grand interview, which he didn’t. But more than that just to understand what was happening. And as I said, he’s a very intelligent politician. So he probably wanted also to get feedback from people who are not part of Modi’s core group. So it was great. But I haven’t spoken to him since he’s won the elections. Since the 16th of May I haven’t met him. So I will now go and try and give him a copy of my book.

So 16th of May you couldn’t speak with him?
No… I spoke to him last on the day we did the exit poll, which was 12th or 13th of May. In fact, that’s how I end my book, that I keep trying his number on the 16th, and I’m told, “saab so gaye”.

And since then you’ve not spoken with him?
No, since then I’ve not spoken with him.

So no more Sunday phone calls?
Now toh I don’t know how to get through… I have to find out. Four months I was completely involved in my book… Now I’ve just got back, now I’ll look at maybe making that phone call again because I want to present him with a copy of the book.

Ok. If today, he was to give you an interview and give you any five questions you want to ask Narendra Modi, what would those questions be?
I can’t even think of them at the moment.

Are you serious?
Ya, I am serious (mumbles) a bit like Robert Vadra.
No, I don’t know. (Pause) I would like to ask him, when is he inviting me again for the kadhi-chawal that we used to have in the 1990s.

That’s question one.
Then I would ask him about... I don’t know. I haven’t thought of five questions.

Ok, the one question you’d…
The one question I want to ask him? If there was one question that I was to ask Narendra Modi (long, long pause. I hear birds chirping)… How do you see Rajdeep Sardesai — as a friend, activist, journalist? How do you see, after all these years, how do you see our relationship over 25 years?