Devil’s Advocate


Book Review

The subtitle of Karan Thapar’s memoirs is The Untold Story. The tantalising nature of that notwithstanding, there is little that is particularly new in the book except certain personal details about the author in the first few chapters. The first 6 chapters are about the author’s childhood, youth and education. The remaining 11 are about the politicians he encountered along the way as a journalist and particularly about the interviews he had with them.

The book was not meant to be a serious work, Thapar acknowledges in the Epilogue. He had time on his hands and a book of this kind felt “like an easy, even interesting, way of occupying” himself. Readability was his key concern, he says. And the book is eminently readable. It reads like a personal conversation that the author has with the reader.

Thapar comes across as a thorough professional as an interviewer who is at the same time a friendly person provided one knows how to draw the line between professionalism and friendship. We come across in these pages certain personal aspects about the various personalities whom he interviewed. The personalities range from Benazir Bhutto who was Thapar’s friend during his student days in England to Narendra Modi who remains a threat to the author because of his petty-minded vindictiveness.

The book brings us face to face with quite a few eminent politicians, mostly Indians. More than any “untold story”, what really makes the book interesting is the personal, casual way Thapar narrates his stories. 

Thapar tells us that it is quite impossible “for an independent journalist to fit into the government system without damaging his or her integrity and credibility.” So he didn’t last long with Doordarshan which he joined with the blessings of Rajiv Gandhi. He had taken a break from his journalistic career in England to give it a try in India. He succeeded in India but not with Doordarshan.

The book throws glimpses into the characters of the politicians whom Thapar interviewed as part of his job. There is really not much that is new to readers who know these politicians. Yet the book is an interesting read because of its conversational and amiable style. Here’s an example of that style:

I’ve always believed that he’s [L K Advani] a liberal and secular man who uses religion for political or strategic purposes. Ironically, Jinnah was similar. Neither man was prejudiced against people of other faiths. Indeed, Jinnah wasn’t particularly religious and I’m not sure if Advani is either. No doubt he’s a believer, but the rituals and practices of Hinduism play little part in his behaviour and outlook. [p.125]

The only chapter which demanded particular attention to details, according to Thapar himself, is the last one which is about Narendra Modi. The outcome is easily visible too. The character of Narendra Modi becomes more and more vivid as the chapter progresses unlike in the other cases which offer us superficial glimpses only.

While Modi appears to be a great leader, there is another Modi who “is narrow-minded, sectarian, mean-spirited and a prisoner of his limitations,” says Thapar candidly. This mean character is vindictive too. He walked out of the only interview he granted to Thapar after just three minutes and eventually forbade the entire BJP from appearing in any Thapar show. Eventually Thapar learnt that Modi had vowed revenge against him. We know how vindictive Modi is from what has happened to the many persons who dared to challenge him in various capacities such as writer, blogger or police officer.

I wish Thapar had paid similar attention to details in the other chapters too so that all those leaders discussed in them also would have made more vivid encounters with the reader. Nevertheless, the book makes a unique appeal to the reader because of the unassuming way the narratives are presented.  



Comments

  1. I haven't read the book. But I read quite a long excerpt in The Wire, which dealt with Modi getting furious with Karan's questions. From what I read, one thing I didn't understand is why did Karan, in spite of being a very experienced journalist, ask that embarrassing and negative question (for the interviewee) early in the interview putting off the interviewee. One simple rule of thumb that journalists follow world over is to keep such a question (journalistic jargon for it is 'bomb question') right in the end of the interview.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too had the same question as I read the book. It is not only with Modi but also with many others like Jayalalithaa that Karan committed the same error. He did not seem to learn from experience. Maybe, he loved infuriating the interviewee right at the beginning so that the viewer is glued.

      Delete
  2. Agree with both of you. There were opportunities lost in getting to understand these personalities better by an otherwise wily interviewer.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts