Skip to main content

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 from this blog

Ayodhya: Kingdom of Sorrows

T he Sarayu carried more tears than water. Ayodhya was a sad kingdom. Dasaratha was a good king. He upheld dharma – justice and morality – as best as he could. The citizens were apparently happy. Then, one day, it all changed. One person is enough to change the destiny of a whole kingdom. Who was that one person? Some say it was Kaikeyi, one of the three official wives of Dasaratha. Some others say it was Manthara, Kaikeyi’s chief maid. Manthara was a hunchback. She was the caretaker of Kaikeyi right from the latter’s childhood; foster mother, so to say, because Kaikeyi had no mother. The absence of maternal influence can distort a girl child’s personality. With a foster mother like Manthara, the distortion can be really bad. Manthara was cunning, selfish, and morally ambiguous. A severe physical deformity can make one worse than all that. Manthara was as devious and manipulative as a woman could be in a men’s world. Add to that all the jealousy and ambition that insecure peo...

Abdullah’s Religion

O Abdulla Renowned Malayalam movie actor Mohanlal recently offered special prayers for Mammootty, another equally renowned actor of Kerala. The ritual was performed at Sabarimala temple, one of the supreme Hindu pilgrimage centres in Kerala. No one in Kerala found anything wrong in Mohanlal, a Hindu, praying for Mammootty, a Muslim, to a Hindu deity. Malayalis were concerned about Mammootty’s wellbeing and were relieved to know that the actor wasn’t suffering from anything as serious as it appeared. Except O Abdulla. Who is this Abdulla? I had never heard of him until he created an unsavoury controversy about a Hindu praying for a Muslim. This man’s Facebook profile describes him as: “Former Professor Islahiaya, Media Critic, Ex-Interpreter of Indian Ambassador, Founder Member MADHYAMAM.” He has 108K followers on FB. As I was reading Malayalam weekly this morning, I came to know that this Abdulla is a former member of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind Kerala , a fundamentalist organisation. ...

Lucifer and some reflections

Let me start with a disclaimer: this is not a review of the Malayalam movie, Lucifer . These are some thoughts that came to my mind as I watched the movie today. However, just to give an idea about the movie: it’s a good entertainer with an engaging plot, Bollywood style settings, superman type violence in which the hero decimates the villains with pomp and show, and a spicy dance that is neatly tucked into the terribly orgasmic climax of the plot. The theme is highly relevant and that is what engaged me more. The role of certain mafia gangs in political governance is a theme that deserves to be examined in a good movie. In the movie, the mafia-politician nexus is busted and, like in our great myths, virtue triumphs over vice. Such a triumph is an artistic requirement. Real life, however, follows the principle of entropy: chaos flourishes with vengeance. Lucifer is the real winner in real life. The title of the movie as well as a final dialogue from the eponymous hero sugg...

Empuraan and Ramayana

Maggie and I will be watching the Malayalam movie Empuraan tomorrow. The tickets are booked. The movie has created a lot of controversy in Kerala and the director has decided to impose no less than 17 censors on it himself. I want to watch it before the jingoistic scissors find its way to the movie. It is surprising that the people of Kerala took such exception to this movie when the same people had no problem with the utterly malicious and mendacious movie The Kerala Story (2023). [My post on that movie, which I didn’t watch, is here .] Empuraan is based partly on the Gujarat riots of 2002. The riots were real and the BJP’s role in it (Mr Modi’s, in fact) is well-known. So, Empuraan isn’t giving the audience any falsehood as The Kerala Story did. Moreover, The Kerala Story maligned the people of Kerala while Empuraan is about something that happened in the faraway Gujarat quite long ago. Why are the people of Kerala then upset with Empuraan ? Because it tells the truth, M...

Empuraan – Review

Revenge is an ancient theme in human narratives. Give a moral rationale for the revenge and make the antagonist look monstrously evil, then you have the material for a good work of art. Add to that some spices from contemporary politics and the recipe is quite right for a hit movie. This is what you get in the Malayalam movie, Empuraan , which is running full houses now despite the trenchant opposition to it from the emergent Hindutva forces in the state. First of all, I fail to understand why so much brouhaha was hollered by the Hindutvans [let me coin that word for sheer convenience] who managed to get some 3 minutes censored from the 3-hour movie. The movie doesn’t make any explicit mention of any of the existing Hindutva political parties or other organisations. On the other hand, Allahu Akbar is shouted menacingly by Islamic terrorists, albeit towards the end. True, the movie begins with an implicit reference to what happened in Gujarat in 2002 after the Godhra train burnin...