Rajdeep Sardesai Says “I’ve Made Lesser Compromises Than My Peers”

Rajdeep Sardesai, veteran journalist, has been propped as PM Modi’s biggest nemesis. His coverage of the 2002 Gujarat riots, the cash-for-votes controversy, and a ‘soft’ Sonia Gandhi interview has given enough ammunition to the supporters of PM Modi and the BJP to brand him as a Modi-hater. His new book Newsman, a collection of his columns written over a period of almost five years, explores his relationship with the ruling party and the Prime Minister.

In this candid interview with The Quint, Sardesai responds to the oft-repeated allegations of being biased.

What do you have to say about media’s current credibility crisis and your own role in it?

I’m afraid that we face a serious credibility crisis. I have no doubt in my mind that we have, to some extent, compromised on the integrity of our profession. When I say we, I’m not excluding myself here. Journalists have made serious compromises with their profession. Some less than others.

Beat reporters just follow the story. I think what has happened is that as you go up the ladder in this profession, you become cautious. As I said, cockroach becomes the butterfly. You end up making certain compromises, sadly. I’d like to believe I’ve made much less than most. But then, that’s my view. I leave that to others to judge.

What about cash for votes?

‘Cash for votes’ which took place in 2008 during the nuclear trust vote, we carried the sting operation. We didn’t carry it when the BJP, which in a sense was a co-participant in the sting wanted us to. We carried it in public domain. But there were legal checks we had to do. As a result we could not carry it within....nobody carries a sting within one hour of it being done.

There was a trust vote to be won or lost so the BJP wanted us to put the tapes in public domain instantly. But we took legal advice and we were told that we could not do so. We carried the story when we had to. And in hindsight, you could argue, maybe I shouldn’t have listened to lawyers. But I’ve learnt over the years to listen to lawyers.

What do you have to say about the phrase ‘Lutyens’ Media’? Are you a part of it?

I’m not a Lutyen’s reporter, since this term is used in a pejorative sense. I moved to Delhi in 1994, I’m a Mumbaikar. I grew up in Colaba, I’m a Colaba kid. You could call me if you want a South Mumbai cosmopolitan, no problem. But you cannot call me Lutyens. I observe Lutyen’s Delhi as an outsider. I’m not an insider in that sense. I’m a Mumbaikar in exile in Delhi. The right to dissent does not make me anti-national. The right to dissent does not make me a presstitute. Similarly, today if I were to applaud a government scheme. That doesn’t make me godi media or paid media. Why should journalists be either activists or why should they be embedded? They should just be journalists.

Are you really anti-Modi?

UPA 2 got the worst press in the history of independent India and justifiably so, I believe. Particularly in the later years. The government just lost the plot. Contrast that with Mr Modi. I don’t think anyone has had the kind of soft landing that this government has had. Look at demonetisation! Where’s the serious interrogation of what were the benefits and losses of demonetisation? We’ve given him a very soft landing, and this to a prime minister who has taken no press conferences, who’s taken no question.

I do believe that it is important for a journalist to show the mirror to the politicians to be able to say like it is. That’s what I’ve tried to do. And, I think, if that leaves me vulnerable to the charge of being anti or pro Modi. It’s unfortunate but I’m willing to live with it now. I have no problems with it, my conscience is clean. And we have to be anti-establishment at one level.

How can you afford to be anti-establishment when journalism is now synonymous to access?

That’s a very good question. I think, unfortunately, access journalism has come to matter more and more with the result that being anti-establishment is more and more difficult. How do I get an interview with an individual if that individual has decided ‘I will only give access to those who praise me. I will not grant access to those who are excessively critical of me’?

Unfortunately, the relationship between the politicians and the media has changed and this cuts across all parties, all individuals. We keep singling out Mr Modi but how different is he from Mamata Banerjee or late Jayalalithaa or Naveen Patnaik or Nitish Kumar or, indeed, the Gandhi family? All of whom live in this access journalism bubble and sadly, many of my fellow colleagues see huge benefits in simply lining up and saying ‘ji huzoor!’

How will you justify your last Sonia Gandhi interview where you went very easy on questions?

I’ve been very open and transparent about it. I was asked the night before as I was flying into Lucknow to drive to Allahabad that the questions I had sent, I had to change them.

That I should only ask questions on Indira Gandhi. At that stage I had two options: say ‘forget the interview, I won’t do it’ or say “okay, chalo I’ll go to do the interview and slip in all the questions I can.” Unfortunately, every time, if you see the interview, every time I tried to slip a question, she’d say ‘Not now, I will not answer political questions.’ I had no choice once I was doing the interview but to ask questions on Indira Gandhi, which is very different from going to do a political interview, let’s say, of Mr Modi and then asking him questions which are soft. I mean, give me half a chance of doing a political interview with Sonia Gandhi and I promise you I will ask all the questions that I want to ask.

On hindsight, you could argue, I could have said, “Sorry, please find someone else! I’ll not do the interview.” But that’s where competition comes in. Do you want to give another channel access to do an interview with Sonia Gandhi? You don’t. She speaks so rarely that we are ready to take every morsel. See, this is where access journalism comes in! Because we are denied access to Sonia Gandhi, when I get the interview then even though she said she would not take political questions, I say okay so be it. I’ll do it.

Have you also been soft on Laloo Yadav? Did you not exoticise him?

No, I’ve resisted that temptation over the years to exoticise. I show Laloo for his strengths and his weaknesses. He sparked off a remarkable political revolution in Bihar but he also was responsible for a certain complete corruption of institutions, a caste-ridden polity in that same state. Not that caste didn’t exist before Laloo in Bihar, but I think Laloo allowed a certain corruption of the system as well as the rise of the family raj in Bihar. I showed both. Is that exoticization of Laoo? Not really?

You could argue that a journalist sometimes likes to see the underdog win. And when I first met Laloo, he was the underdog. And I guess that’s when he was very attractive to me. Later on, he became the top-dog. When someone becomes the top dog he’s less attractive. For me Bal Thackeray is just as interesting as would be a Jyoti Basu. Left and Right. But I’ve had a beer with with Bal Thackeray and I’ve had beer with Jyoti Basu.

Are you too involved in elections?

I am an obsessive election junkie. My two great passions are cricket and elections. I love elections. And I take it seriously. I take psephology seriously. The best thing on a counting day is to watch someone who says ‘I’m gonna win with a huge majority’ actually lose. From 89, when I did my first election to now 2019 will be 30 years. That was the election of VP singh. We’ll see who is the winner. Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikandar

What do you predict for 2019?

The Congress is a bit like a family firm. The Modi-Shah juggernaut are a new India enterprise. They are hungry. The chemistry is with Mr Modi. I think the strategic local level alliances are with the Opposition. But I would say at this stage, I think it’s still advantage Mr Modi. The key is Uttar Pradesh. To my mind India’s most populous state will decide whether Mr Modi will be India’s next Prime Minister or not. If Mr Modi, like he showed in 2017, is able to work his chemistry against the arithmetic of alliances. Then I still believe Mr Modi will be India’s next Prime Minister.