President's election: Open Letter to Karan Thapar and IBN.

Dear IBN,

Going through the news cycle last week, it was just incomprehensible to me as to why many media personalities were deriding the fact that P.A.Sangma has decided to fight the Presidential elections against Pranab Mukherjee. Last night, I was aghast after reading this interview transcript of Karan Thapar with Sangma. 

After dedicating a substantial first part of the interview to just word-play, Mr. Karan Thapar lands up with this: 

"...but they are laughing at the fact that you believe that you can win" 

And then: 

"Are you a little worried that by standing in the face of such odds and they are incredible odds, you might make yourself a laughing stock?"

Laughing Stock? When Captain Lakshmi Sehgal contested against Dr. Kalam in 2002, did she become a laughing stock? Can you point us to an article/interview/show where you felt the same thing about her? 

When B.S.Shekhawat contested against Pratibha Patil in 2007, did he become a laughing stock? Can you point us to an article/interview/show where you felt the same thing about him? 

If anything of this didn't happen, may we know as to why you have bestowed this honour on Mr. Sangma? 

When one is interviewing a candidate for elections, we expect that the questions will be based on the issues - issues that the candidate is for and against. I think that is pretty much a common sense expectation. How does Karan Thapar fare in that aspect? Let's take a look.

"You are standing on behalf of tribals, you are a practising Christian and yet you are seeking support from the BJP, whose position on the Khandhamal killings, Dang killings, the massacre of Graham Staines, is anything but supportive of tribals and Christians, how do you explain that contradiction?"

Please read the above question again and again, because that is a very very loaded questions filled with so many contradictions. Now, let me paste it again emphasizing some points.

"You are standing on behalf of tribals, you are a practising Christian and yet you are seeking support from the BJP, whose position on the Khandhamal killings, Dang killings, the massacre of Graham Staines, is anything but supportive of tribals and Christians, how do you explain that contradiction?"

Karan Thapar tells P.A.Sangma he is "standing on behalf of tribals".  What has Sangma done for tribals? How do the tribals feel about Sangma's track record? What, in Sangma's views are the problems faced by tribals? How will his becoming President benefit the tribals? - Do you see any of these questions? (An earlier interview by Rajdeep was on similar lines - concentrating more on the "opportunism" of Mr. Sangma. Only two questions on tribals. The central point of the whole interview though was why Sangma is even contesting). No. Instead, what do you get? 

Karan Thapar decides to get communal and reminds Sangma that he is a "practising Christian" and therefore it is not fathomable that he can support or take support from the BJP! In one stroke, the genius that is Karan Thapar, judged all those "practising Christians" who have voted for the BJP. And then he goes on to say that the BJP is anything "but supportive of tribals and christians". We are therefore to believe that Karan Thapar has no agenda. 

The agenda for the rest of the interview is now set - Karan Thapar goes on to deride BJP and then brings in Jayalalitha's anti-conversion bill into the picture. He provokes Sangma (quite distressingly) saying that that bill was against "your church". We are therefore to believe that Karan Thapar has no agenda. 

After some more distressful questioning, these take the cake. 

Karan Thapar: Let’s come to the next question. You have been speaker of the Lok Sabha. You have been Chief Minister of Meghalaya. You have been a very honourable Cabinet minister. Why are you throwing all of that away behind a pipedream?

PA Sangma: I am not. I am just asserting my right as a citizen of India, as a tribal, as a person coming from the North East.

Karan Thapar: But you could assert it in some other area. Asserting your right in an area where you are certain to lose, to me seems irrational. 

I don't understand why losing a race is such an "irrational" thing. The interviewer, who apparently has no agenda, thinks Mr. Sangma is being irrational by fighting this election because he is anyway going to lose. But Mr. Karan Thapar, what good is a democracy without debate and contest? 

And this tendency of deriding Sangma for "irrationality" is not from Karan Thapar alone. Almost the entire IBN clan of journos seem to be echoing the same disgust. 

Two tweets in quick succession by the constitutional expert, Bhupendra Chaube. 

1. Parties with sangma: bjp+bjd+jayalalithaa+akali dal. That's just 27%. Left parties and mamtaa could well abstain. Why the contest then?

2. Suspect nda strategy way off the mark this time. There is a wave against the congress across india, but u need to be able to encash it

I am really keen to learn and encash on Bhupendra Chaube's political acumen. If he believes there is a "wave against the congress across india", what exactly are the opposition parties expected to do? Not support the Congress candidate right? Isn't that what they are doing? If there is a "wave against the congress across india", how come all you journos are so vehemently supporting the chief Congress strategist and their main trouble-shooter, Pranab Mukherjee? Are you folks not going against "the wave" ? You folks have tirelessly told us what a genius Pranab Mukherjee is - then why is he not held accountable for the "wave against congress across india" ? 

No debate is complete without Sagarika Ghose pitching in. 

1. Will Sangma uphold hindutva? ‪#justasking‬

She will never ask : "Will Pranab uphold corruption"

The near total absence of scrutiny of Pranab's candidature is so undesirable. All we get are platitudes from these media folks. Apparently Pranab has an amazing memory:

Sagarika Ghose: Pranab Mukherjee has one of the most encyclopedic memories..from the minutiae of pre Independence politics to present day..amazing!

Pallavi Ghosh: Pranab knows the constitution, rule book by heart..tough for the cong to get anyone like him to be ldr of lok sabha

Lesson learnt: Sharp political memory is one of the main criteria for candidates for President. 

And finally, the editor-in-chief of IBN, Rajdeep Sardesai:

Sangma ensured of his 30 days of fame. good luck!

Fine, but why do we need a contest at all?

So far, not one media house even told us the pros and cons of Pranab Mukherjee (ok, I stand corrected, many pros were told!). He was a minister during the emergency - he not only saw the emergency, he helped in implementing all the draconian laws and measures then. What are his views about it? Does he regret them? Does he think the Emergency was a blot on India? What are his three best achievements as Minister of Finance? As Minister of Defence? As Minister of External Affairs? As the leader of 2 successive Lok Sabhas? Have you heard of these? Especially when he is a Congress minister and there is a "wave against the congress across india"? 

The people need to know the ideas that the candidates represent. The people need to know the views of candidates on multiple issues that might confront them. The people need to know the track records of the candidates. Only a contest can ensure that the people get to know about the candidates. So what if one of them is going to lose? Atleast, the people of this country will have had much more information at their disposal. Perhaps such contests will pave way for a more meaningful debate in the future. In 2007, when Arun Shourie exposed Pratibha Patil's murky bank and land deals, he was scoffed at. Look at where we are right now?  

Sangma will lose 2012, but he would have set up a stronger platform for a 2014 defeat of the Congress. Sangma would have probably laid a platform for future different Presidential elections and debates. And that's precisely why we need a contest. Nothing "irrational" about it. 

PS: The letter is only to IBN. I haven't watched any other news channel on this.