"How can we as journalists normalise hate? How can we? I can understand some extremist voices doing it. We are supposed to provide guidance. We are supposed to be a moral compass. And yes, social media has worsened it. But television media also has much to answer for. I am not going to stand here and claim I am different. I am a part of that wider television mainstream media. We are also at fault," said senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, as he spoke about communal narratives being run by India's 'mainstream media'.
In his latest book - 'The Election that Surprised India' - the last chapter talks about the 'compromised 'state of Indian media, the accusations of biases, and the fear in India's media industry.
But Sardesai also explains why "it is not easy for an India Today to have him as a prime time news anchor."
At the same time, the book largely talks about the 2024 general elections, Sardesai's own experiences covering elections over the years, anecdotes from his encounters with political personalities, and the way forward for India as a nation.
On 'Badi Badi Baatein', Rajdeep Saresai spoke to scores of journalists from The Quint, along with Eshwar, about all this and more!
The election that surprised India, it obviously surprised India but over 36 years of your career, you have covered so many elections. Which election did you find the most interesting and why?
Each election is very special. As a bit of a nostalgia buff, the first election always matters.
I remember 1989, covering VP Singh as he was going on a road show through Mumbai. I was very excited. And, you know, that was the 'Battle of Bofors.'
That was also the first election, by the way, where the BJP emerged. And I think that was fascinating. In 1991, Rajiv Gandhi's assassination... bang in the middle of the elections.
That changed the complexion of that poll. In terms of surprises, I would say 2004 and this election in 2024, were the two surprises in terms of outcomes.
So, you'd have to measure these two. I don't think anyone expected Mr Vajpayee to not become Prime Minister in 2004. I think everyone expected the BJP to win big in 2024. And neither happened. I think Mr. Modi can claim that at least, unlike Mr. Vajpayee, he's not out of power. But just think about it, had Odish — it's one of the what-ifs — if Odisha had not voted the way they were, which was primarily because of the Pandyan factor, and had Nitish Kumar remained within the India Alliance, you could have had a very different election in 2024. So, I think these two surprised me. But every election, I find some joy or the other in every Indian election.
It's a great chance to go out, meet people and find out what the voter wants. Let's give Mr. Modi credit also, because this year, most incumbents across the world have lost. 65 elections were held across the world, across democracies.
And more than 50 of the incumbents have lost. So, Mr. Modi survived. And therefore, it's a very strange election. He survived. In a strange way, the Opposition also survived. So, we're not sure who won and who lost.
I like to say in the book that the voter won. I think the good news is, this is still the most diverse country in the world at the moment. So, what is true about one part of the country may not be true of the other.
I mean, in all the focus on Maharashtra, we've forgotten that the BJP lost Jharkhand. Right? And Hemant Soren scored a big victory. In all the focus on Haryana, we forgot the fact that in Jammu and Kashmir, the Opposition won.
Like you said, it's difficult to say who won and who lost the 2024 general election. And there was something very interesting that Mr. Chidambaram said at the launch of the book, that the electorate has largely moved right. But there is also a school of thought which thinks that the Opposition's performance was in fact a pushback to this fact that the electorate has moved right. Which one do you think it is?
Make no mistake, Eshwar, I think politics has moved to the right in this country. By and large, like it or not, the BJP is the dominant party of this country. Today, they are in power in more than a dozen states of this country on their own, and with their allies, a few more. And those are big numbers. You know, the fact is that the BJP consistently has scored big in some of the major states of the country. They have been in power in UP twice. They've been the number one party in Maharashtra three consecutive elections. They've been in power or power sharing in Bihar, barring small spells when Nitish does a somersault. And Mr Modi is a three-time Prime Minister, the first since Jawaharlal Nehru. So, the centre of gravity of Indian politics has shifted to the right. But I still think India is far too diverse to suggest that the BJP is a hegemonic party that can win elections in every corner of India unlike the Congress in the past. In the 60s in particular, Congress would triumph in every corner of India. The BJP still finds it difficult to truly penetrate the Deep South. It still has resistance in pockets of the East. But it is party number one and that's not changing for a while.
The BJP said they will go '400 paar', that obviously did not happen. But despite the mandate that they have, nothing has really changed. Everybody said they will be more mellow, etc. But nothing has really changed. They are as fierce as they used to be. In fact, they have started fighting elections more strongly and that is being cited as one of the reasons behind the Haryana and Maharashtra wins. Many people call it the victory of Hindutva. Do you think it is that?
Look, I don't think any one factor decides elections in India anymore. Firstly, let me say this — This is the most relentless, ruthless and remorseless election machinary in the history of post-independent India, and resource rich. You have everything. You know, like the 'Deewar' dialogue,"Mere paas maa hai!"
I sometimes wonder what the opposition does have. The BJP is like a Ferrari and the Congress is like a Fiat when you look at the two purely as machines, there is no comparison at the moment. So, you got to keep that in mind when you raise this question about the BJP and Hindutva. Hindutva is one element of it. A friend of mine had a nice word — 'Hind.' H for Hindutva, I for infrastructure, N for nationalism, and D for delivery. And somewhere in these four boxes, you find something which might make the BJP attractive today.
One of the tragedies of this country in the last 30 years and particularly since I have covered this, you know, this period in time has been how we have normalised this politics of Hindu majoritarianism. “The one who talks about Hindu interests will rule the country”, was what I heard when I joined journalism in ‘88-’89, in that '89 campaign. That time we thought it was a marginal force. Now, 35 years later, I hear even polite society saying, "It’s a Hindu party, it’s a Hindu party..." And nobody seems to object in the room. They seem to be okay with the fact that this is a Hindu country. That's the change that's taken place. And the BJP... the very forces that rose in ‘89 and beyond are the ones who are ruling us today. I mean, Narendra Modi and my are careers parallel in a way. He's, of course, gone up there. That's the only difference. I met him in 1990 for the first time at the Rath Yatra. And if you had asked me then that he'd be a three-time Prime Minister, I don't think I'd say yes. But, look, I think he has been able to capture this zeitgeist, if I may use that word, this mood for change, and this assertion of a Hindu identity much more than any other leader in this period has. And that's his success.
So, you mean the politics of the fringes that you saw at the beginning of your career has now become mainstream?
Absolutely! I think if Yogi Adityanath was doing politics in ‘89, we would have called him a fringe figure. He's now mainstream. I remember when Bal Thackeray would talk in this language, he had judicial verdicts being imposed against him. He was even banned by the courts. Contrast that with today, we have far more vile, direct, hateful speeches being made. And people get away with it time and again. And I think that normalisation has brought the fringe to the mainstream. That's worrying.
Talking about the Haryana and Maharashtra results, like you said, there is narrative, there is sympathy, there are lots of factors other than Hindutva. To an extent, for example, in a state like Maharashtra, these factors for the Opposition were very strong. The impact of which was seen in the Lok Sabha elections of Maharashtra. What do you think went so massively wrong in six months with the Opposition's narrative, the sympathy factor for Mr Pawar and Aditya Thackeray, the vote jihad narrative that Mr Fadnavis drove so strongly... Where did the Opposition fall short in Maharashtra and Haryana in six months' time?
Maharashtra is interesting because while you look at it, the Opposition won 30 Lok Sabha seats out of 48 and the BJP-led Alliance 17. In vote share, they were the same, right? So, there was no major change in vote share. And I think sometimes the biggest mistake, the biggest problem for the Opposition is that the moment they win, they think "Our time has come..." Forgetting that every election is different to the other. You have to work at it. The BJP worked and the courese was corrected. They brought in Ladki Bahin Yojana, they opened the treasuries of Maharashtra. All kinds of schemes were announced, many of which involved direct cash benefits, like with Ladki Bahin, Rs 1500 rupees a month, Rs 7500 by October, including Diwali bonus. I mean, every woman I met, no one had a bad word to say about Eknath Shinde. In April-May, I met a lot of people who said, ''Khoke ki sarkaar." Nobody talked about it this time. That's how you change the narrative. The stories of these 12,000 booths that they focused on, made every effort through Mahila Vistaraks, through holding small corner meetings, that level of micro planning, I don't think the opposition could match. Opposition through July-August-September spent all the time deciding who will become the chief minister, when they should have had a counter ready to Ladki Bahin, and gone harder perhaps at the flaws in the Shinde government, which are many. The very fact that you need to give Rs 1500 means that there is distress on the ground. So, you needed to push your own narrative equally strongly. I think the Opposition made the cardinal mistake that all parties made this year which was overconfidence. Narendra Modi ji and the BJP were slightly overconfident of 2024 Lok Sabha, paid a price. Bhoopinder Singh Hooda and the Congress were very confident, even deciding on portfolios already, lost out in Haryana. And the same thing happened in Maharashtra. There is no place for complacency in politics now. This is very competitive. It's aggressive plus money power boss. A lot of money has come in.
Because we’re talking about a level playing field. Every time an election concludes and the Opposition loses the narrative of EVMs, vote rigging, EVM tampering comes into play. Do you think EVMs can be tampered or manipulated or rigged or messed around with in this country?
Look, I am not a technical man, so I am not going to go into the technicalities of it. But two points — One, most importantly, the Election Commission in this country has lost credibility. So, people think the worst about them. People feel, something must be wrong with this election because we have lost all faith in institutions.
I liken it in the book to Pakistan's umpires. In the 1980s, even if the Pakistan umpire was a good umpire, we thought he is a cheat.
So, the part of the problem with the Election Commission is perceptional. The BJP will say that during Congress's time, the Election Commission wasn't any different, which may also be true. And Congress people will think the worst.
But I am thinking of middle ground. Democratically-minded citizens have a huge problem with EC. On EVMs specifically, there are experts who are talking about the symbol loading unit. And while the EVM is an independent unit and therefore they say cannot be hacked, it's not connected to some wider WiFi internet, the VVPAT and the symbol loading unit could be possibly used. Now, unless we have an independent, and I stress the word 'independent' group of experts monitoring this, and doing a proper audit after every election... Is there any shortage in this country of top people who can audit? You will get the EVMs audited often by the same people who have themselves made the EVMs. Get it done by neutral, independent experts. Separate the milk from the water.
Look, today the Opposition sometimes uses EVMs to cover up their own incompetence. "We lost the election, the EVM cheated us." And public doesn't believe the Opposition.
By and large, while many people don't trust the EVMs, they also don't want you to be seen crying every time you lose an election.
Speaking of the integrity of the Election Commission — we have perhaps given up on the hope that action will be taken on hate speeches under the MCC (Model Code of Conduct). But there are other things, like for example, what we saw in Kundarki recently in the UP by-polls, people being stopped from voting, people being threatened from voting. When issues like these are not addressed by the Election Commission head-on, the Opposition keeps raising those issues and nobody is there to listen, the judiciary is not really seen taking any cognisance, the appointment of the Election Commission of India has largely been watered down and diluted. What is the way out of this for the common voters?
Look, I think you've hit the nail on that. It's not EVMs. To my mind, the first thing has to start with voter lists. The name, the manner in which voters' names are added and deleted. This is a major issue.
It needs a proper audit again. You are absolutely right. All these questions we raise, but the institution that should act as checks and balances are not. The Supreme Court, frankly, just doesn't seem to want to get into any issue where they may have to challenge the government's view. So, the Supreme Court has by and large been supine or has absolutely abdicated what I think its responsibility should be.
Get an audit done. Because only when the Supreme Court says it will the ECI listen. Like it was with electoral bonds. It required the Supreme Court for them to wake up to electoral bonds and what could go wrong with them. Otherwise, we would have carried on as business as usual. So, Supreme Court needs to intervene. Someone needs to wake up the Supreme Court. We will have to shake them. Second, the media sometimes when I say this, people tell me, "What are you doing?" They are right. But you know, I am not the Election Commission of India. I can only point out what needs to be done. And I think the Opposition also is going to have to find a better way in which they can take their case. It is not easy being an Opposition leader in India, having said that. We criticise the Opposition a lot and ask them questions. But what can they do? I am not saying the ballot box is the way forward. I was there as a young journalist and I covered an election in the early 90s in Mumbai where ballot boxes were being stuffed in front of us. We took photographs. It was pre TV, so we took photographs. The election was countermanded. It’s not as if everything was fine during the time of ballot boxes. But at least we need to have some transparency.
You know, I am going to come back to the question on media. But before that I want to get to a very huge weapon that the current regime uses and this particular party uses — It's the othering of minorities and specifically Muslims. For the past 10 years we have seen narratives like Gau Raksha, cow vigilantism, love jihad...
Corona jihad! In this country, there was a Corona jihad. I have said it in my book. Can you imagine that you are holding some tablighis responsible to be corona carriers and vegetable vendors were not allowed in the houses as a result.
And when the kumbh mela takes place I have given the full description of that in the book.The Kumbh Mela happens just before the COVID wave. With the chief minister and all nobody observing social distancing. Did anyone call them 'corona carriers'? The Prime minister and other leaders are addressing rallies. All parties — Prime Minister, Mamata Banerjee addressing rallies in Bengal. Did anyone call them corona carriers?
Right. And at the same time when this is something which is being propagated politically, we also see the social repercussions of it. We have seen so many instances in the recent past where Muslims are being denied housing. It's not that it had not been happening but to make it happen so blatantly! The BJP has not fielded any single Lok Sabha candidate, the Congress in Lok Sabha of Maharashtra did not field a single Muslim candidate. So, do you think the secular parties failed to stand up for Muslims?
You know there are two perspectives. Let's look at it from both perspectives. One is the secular perspective. Clearly, secular parties, as you rightly said, have perhaps failed to offer a consistent challenge to the march of Hindutva. And they have run with the secular hare and hunted with the communal hound. I mean it again goes back to that first election 1989. Rajiv Gandhi started his campaign from Ayodhya in 1989. And over the years, every attempt was made in a way to placate extremist views on all sides. And we have paid a price today. A lot of the problems of today go back to 1989 since the time I started journalism, in a way.
I have seen the manner in which secular parties have exposed themselves. Over the last 30-35 years. But that is a story well known. They have exposed themselves. They did play vote bank politics. The Shah Bano judgement was a good example of playing vote bank politics, or a bad example rather of playing vote bank politics which was exploited by the BJP to emerge out of two seats in 1984. So, there is a dark history of playing communal politics of instigating one group against the other in a way. But I also think that let's not use that as an excuse or alibi for what communal politics has done. Yes, secular politics has failed, agreed! Does that justify the rise or the normalisation of communal politics or the toxic politics that we are seeing at times play out in this country? Does it justify as you rightly said the manner in which Muslims can feel victimised and demonised consistently? Does it justify that? There has been a concerted attempt to normalise the worst form of communal politics. In which political parties have played a role, civil society has played a role, social media, the media has played a role. And it's very tragic. Courts have allowed it to pass. Institutions have completely abdicated their responsibilities.
So, there are no checks and balances. Someone can call for an economic boycott of a community today in a particular part of the country and no one is going to say a word against that person. And therefore, I think that secular politics' failure is a given... Let's say it's a given. As you've given examples. But something more than that has happened. The rise of assertive Hindutva is not an answer to let's say minority extremism. Reject both forms of extremism I am saying.
Let's be honest. Even after 1947 these forces have existed. It was Nehru and Patel. We often forget that. Even Vallabhbhai today is appropriated. But Vallabhbhai was very clear. He is Gandhi's disciple, Vallabhbhai is not Godse's disciple. Pushed to the test, Vallabhbhai would never allow someone to be killed on the basis of their religion.
Today, you have allowed that to happen in this country. In the name of Love Jihad, in the name of Gau Raksha, even Corona Jihad was used to discriminate... Land Jihad, love jihad... no more kinds of jihad are left now.
But at the same time hasn't the media also played a huge part in propagating these narratives. For example, I do not see any mainstream media anchor or senior journalist in this country, who are largely with the TV media right now, standing up for people like Mohammad Zubair or Sidheeq Kappan. If a Shraddha Walkar case happens, the religion of the perpetrator makes it a sensitive story but when an equally gruesome crime happens somewhere else, it is not talked about. So, do you not think the so called mainstream media today is also feeding off of the hate that is clearly selling?
Two things. First of all, you are now asking a question which is deeply, which is pushing me into an ethical mind field (laughs).
And who is to say who is mainstream? But you know I write in this book openly. I'll be honest, when I wrote that last chapter on the media, I was wondering if should I write it while I am in the media! Because how honest can you be? I have tried to be honest. Siddiqui Kappan you mentioned, I have a full thing about him in the book. Umar Khalid, Zubair,and others... You are absolutely right! A terrible rape takes place at RG KAR, God forbid if the rapist was a Muslim, God forbid! Look at what would have happened. Terrible gang rapes take place in different parts of the country. Are we going to define the scale of the crime based on the religion of the perpetrator? I mean there can be nothing more awful than that. And yes, you are absolutely right, the mainstream media has fed into this narrative. And that is where my anger and disillusionment with the media comes. How can we as journalists normalise hate? How can we? I can understand some extremist voices doing it. We are supposed to provide guidance. We are supposed to be a moral compass. And yes, social media has worsened it. But television media also has much to answer for. I am not going to stand here and claim I am different. I am a part of that wider television mainstream media. We are also at fault. Maybe I have failed. I accept it. And in my darker moments I have wondered what the hell am I doing because this is where you draw the line. You do what you want to do, bash Pakistan, whatever you want to do, go ahead. But where you draw the line is against your own people. And you pit people one against the other based on these completely flawed notions of religious identity. I mean, you used the right example of crime. Basic crime is committed. How can the perpetrator's religious identity put the entire community in the dock? How can I blame a community for something that happened 300-400 years ago, when a temple was destroyed and a mosque was built? Am I responsible for what happened 400 years ago when you say 'descendants of Babur'? What is this? And again, in ‘89 when I heard this 'Descendants of Babur' phrase, I thought these were all fringe elements. Maybe something went wrong with my education. These days, they say, you went to a very liberal education. Even being a liberal today is seen as a curse. "You are anti-national, you are supporting Umar Khalid...' But look at it, Eshwar. An Umar Khalid for four and a half years, nobody stands up for him, right? In the case, which is a very weak case. I mean, I have gone through it in the book. And it's a weak case. Now, contrast it with my friend Arnab Goswami. Courts opened up for him on a Saturday to get bail. He should also get bail, it definitely should be given. Bail not jail should be the norm whether you are Arnab Goswami, whether you are Mohammad Zubair, whether you are Disha Ravi. Please think about it.
I was very disturbed when I got sedition charges put against me in 2021. Then I met Disha Ravi. And I looked at this small girl and I said, how can they call her an anti-national? That the great Delhi police which supposed to be the best police in the country at one time goes all the way to Bangalore to pick her up. Saying, she is part of our tool kit. What is this? They’ve made a joke of the country! There was someone else who had FIRs filed against him for exposing a midday meal scheme in Uttar Pradesh. Look at the Kashmiri journalists. They are in jail, many of them under Public Safety Act, where you don't even get out for a year or two. It's terrible! Nobody talks about them. Nobody talks what Siddiqui Kappan and his family went through, which I have documented in the book. These are the stories that make you angry. You know, as I said, we should always be angry. I think journalists get angry over the wrong things. We get angry when a leader doesn’t give an interview. Oh, let the leader go to hell! If he doesn’t give an interview, then don’t give it. The real anger should be directed from the real issues.
Talking about media bias, you are probably one of the senior most journalists that we know, who has seen the boom of TV news, the rise of TV news, the fall, the plateau, everything. At times, there are anchors, journalists also from your network who are accused of bias. On a scale of one to being almost a PR body, where do you see TV journalism as a whole today in this country?
Firstly, 'biased' is a problematic term. If I call someone else biased, they will also turn it around and point the finger at me, saying, 'You're biased.' I don't even like using terms like 'godi media' or 'darbari media' because these words only divide us further. We need to ask ourselves, are we doing enough to question those in power? Are we being driven by fear?
For example, look at Dainik Bhaskar. They did an excellent story exposing how bodies were floating in the Ganga during the COVID crisis. The very strong image they shared. Within a week or two, they were raided. The ED and IT came after them. Who defended them? I also talk about Prannoy Roy. We owe so much to people like him for their foresight and entrepreneurship. He’s a big name. Imagine, he was stopped at the airport, like a criminal with a lookout notice. In this country, the real criminals are never touched, but Prannoy Roy was targeted. Later, the immigration officer who stopped him met me on a flight and said the orders came from the top. After ED and CBI raids, he was repeatedly summoned. And in 2022, the company was taken over by Adani. One of India’s original TV companies was taken over! Today, who is protesting this? In any other country, there would have been pushback. There must be a pushback. If this can happen to Prannoy Roy, imagine what happens to smaller people. Look at Newsclick. They even confiscated young interns' mobile phones and laptops. Where is the protest? Even after the killing of Gauri Lankesh, there wasn’t a stronger stand taken by people. If we don’t stand up, the leaders will crush us. The public knows all this. Why are YouTube channels becoming so popular? Because people are tired of the mainstream. They want something new, something different. There must be truth told to power. For example, between 2009 and 2014, we exposed the Manmohan Singh government. But today, what’s happening?
Even we were onw of the firms raided in 2018.
Yes, what happened to Raghav Bahl is extremely unfortunate. I worked very closely with Raghav. I owe him a huge debt from Network 18 days. He too suddenly found himself being targeted in that manner that. And what happened in Prannoy Roy's case, and probably will happen in Raghav's case - the CBI says, now we have no evidence. We have nothing. So, you stopped the person from going abroad, raided his house, called him in, took over his company. And now you say, 'We have nothing'!
Networks as big as yours have the resources to be able to go against those in power. But media houses as small as ours may not have as many resources to push back. Do you think now it is upon teh subscribers to go towards a paid news subscription model?
You mentioned India Today earlier as well... The very fact that India Today has had me for 10 years on a prime time show means there has been pushback. It can't be easy to have a Rajdeep Sardesai...
Would you want to elaborate on that?
No no (laughs)! They have given me more space than I could have imagined. And therefore, I am very grateful to India Today in that sense. And I think that's the advantage of having owners whose primary business is journalism. They can push back and do more. But at the same time, when I see some of India's biggest media houses, many of them will not even cover or touch this book because they will be fearful of what will happen. Ironically, a senior BJP leader called me up, I won’t name him. He said, 'What an incredible book you have written.' I told him, 'Sir, will you say that publicly?' He said. 'We will talk about this later'. But I was very happy to hear that. Because I know that he is someone who genuinely reads books. He did not say this just for show. He has nothing to gain from me, nor do I from him. But, you know, bigger media houses, you are right, have to show the light. If they don't, paid news and subscriptions the way forward? Indians don’t want to pay for news. They want everything for free. You know, the world is built on hope. Now, think about it, what kind of country is this? A 26-year-old Sanjana Jatav. You did our story on The Quint too. But there is also space here for new voices, a new voice of change. Something is in the air in this country. I still live in hope. I hope I see that new dawn soon, where I see many more voices, especially in the media. But I am very impressed with all of you young people. I feel you all have more energy than my generation. We were still conformists compared to you.
You know, since you found more young people to work for you, the salary was Rs. 800, but at that time, working with you was the real price
Yes, the HR manager had said that. I asked him, 'Won't you give a little more?' And he replied, 'Come on, you're working for Times of India.'"
But that doesn't work for younger generations. The pay parity and work environment are the biggest issues for young students seeking to come to the industry.
Look, I think younger journalists will face that challenge. You see, television changed it for us. When we went into print, it wasn’t like there was a lot of money. We went into print because of our passion. I could have been a lawyer, and I probably should have been one. I would have probably earned as much as Dr. Abhishek Manu Singh before. For adjournments, he charges a few lakhs. Forget that. But journalism was never a high-paying profession. TV changed it. Now, the next generation has to build it through digital. You've got technology, and it's both a double-edged sword. The challenge is, how do you build a revenue model around digital, not just in India but globally? But I think solutions will come. I think there is no substitute for good content. Bad content, I think, will increasingly find no takers anymore. You know, nobody is going to just switch on to see six people shouting at each other. That format has gone, in my view. It’s something they still do, out of necessity. But I think even that is going to change
Who has the most interesting political interview off-camera?
Bal Thackeray was interesting. Because I was a young journalist growing up in Mumbai, he was this larger-than-life figure. And the first time I met him, he said, 'Forget the interview, first have a warm beer with me.' I said, here I am, ready for the interview, prepared with 10-12 questions. And he says, 'Have a warm beer with me.' I remember when I first interviewed Lalu Prasad, he said, 'No, this interview won’t happen here.' We had set up in the Chief Minister's bungalow. He took us to the cow shelter, saying, 'This interview will happen here.' I think, long before Narendra Modi, Lalu also understood the power of the television image.
Both of them are like that. They understand the power of the image. The one who really impressed me as a human was Nelson Mandela. I mean, there is something about Nelson Mandela that struck me. I never saw Gandhi. But if there is one person I thought, this person must have had something similar to Mahatma Gandhi, it was him. Over the years, I’ve been privileged to meet many. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, even in his pauses, there was something. LK Advani was extremely combative. There have been many politicians over the years in different forms. Narendra Modi was good interviewee. We had one or two good interviews. If he gives me an interview, we'll break the internet!
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)