Listen to the pseudo-politician

I thought he was being overly pessimistic. That his reaction stemmed from a deep disappointment. “Surely not,” I said, encouragingly, “in a while the tide could turn.”

“No,” he repeated emphatically. “It’s not that. The issues have completely changed.”

Had this been said by someone of his background some months ago, the connotations would have been very different. Immediately after the elections, it would be recalled, the stock markets were in gloom and suits were making a beeline for TV studios to discuss doomsday scenarios sparked off by the triumph of the Left-Congress combine.

But this was clearly not what my friend meant. When I tried to probe further, asking him how business was, he said fine. India, he said was on the upswing like never before because the world was perceiving it differently. The economy, foreign investment, urbanisation — he was hopeful on all these counts. Rightly or wrongly for him at least,

India appeared to be shining. How did this indicate a “complete change of issues”?

The answer seems obvious. The BJP’s appeal was religious but the middle class is now more interested in the economy. Perhaps, but the BJP promised both so where was the contradiction? The contradiction, I sensed from this particular conversation, was not in the issues but in the mood. The BJP’s appeal, even when it was hard-selling the glories of Hindutva and ancient India, was essentially negative. Its strength lay in its ability to identify enemies — historical and contemporary, at home and outside — and whip up anger against them. Ditto the Shiv Sena with its anti-non Maharashtrian, anti-non-Hindu and anti-Pakistan rhetoric. From the looks of it though, a mood of optimism — which is precisely what the BJP was trying to sell in the last election — cannot co-exist with such ill will. Ironically then it seems that the “feel bad” factor is what the party that tried to sell “feel good” not so long ago should be praying for.

And yet, regardless of how one perceives the BJP’s future, the party in its few years at the helm has certainly left its mark. Soap queen Smriti Irani’s recent outburst and turnaround has attracted much adverse comment. It has even raised questions about the desirability of entertainers entering politics. This debate though has come a bit late, not just because of the droves of TV stars and film stars that have already entered the political arena but because the BJP’s rhetoric of nationalism has become a part of public consciousness. Watch the regular man off the street being interviewed on television these days and you find him mouthing phrases like “Hindustan ki Janata”, and so on, with panache. Everybody is a pseudo-politician these days.

Everyone is also a chat show host. Filmmaker Karan Johar is the latest to join the bandwagon. Bollywood blue blood, who established his independent reputation with glossy hits such as Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Ghum, Johar would make an unlikely interviewer one would think, What makes him qualified to take on the role? Access seems to be the primary factor. The film celebrities are all his friends. He can make an actor’s career by offering the right part. He can break a career by denying one. His success gives him a certain authority while talking to established filmmakers while his youth puts him at ease even with newcomers.

And the director turned host seems to be enjoying himself. Much of the talk centres around his own movies; actors even ask him for roles. At the same time, Johar uses his chumminess and clout to ask blatantly awkward questions and insist on answers which one suspects his guests would never give to anyone else. It makes for entertaining television, certainly more provocative film journalism than one has been used to in a while. But it does raise some tricky ethical questions.

One of the biggest debates about media ethics in the last decade centred around cheque book journalism: should journalists pay for interviews? Today one could similarly debate the role of personal relationships. Is it okay for interviewers (whether they be professional journalists or professional hosts) to have other dealings, including personal, with their subjects? Should they be disclosing them? And who gets to ask?