Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay 
Well past the halfway mark of the over three-hour-long video interview of Prime Minister Narendra Modi – but packaged as a podcast – with Lex Fridman, the word ‘research’ (sic) is repeatedly used by the interviewee, as well as the person on the other side of the table, in a section where they speak about criticism of the premier by media persons.
Fridman’s poser was about “people who criticise you, including from the media. And folks in the media have criticised you over this 2002 Gujarat riots. What’s your relationship like with criticism? How do you deal with critics?”
Without hesitation, Modi said that he welcomes it and because he has a “strong belief that criticism is the soul of democracy. If democracy truly runs in your veins, you must embrace it.”
I mentally paused as a question arose; if this was indeed his conviction, why was it that even the mildest of disagreements with any of his assertions, or decisions, are critics disparaged as enemies of the people or even of the nation? Why have several attempts been made to silence the media by selective use of investigative agencies?
Ahead, Modi elaborated that “what we see isn’t real criticism. Genuine criticism requires thorough study, in-depth research and careful analysis. It demands finding the truth from falsehoods. Today, people look for shortcuts, avoid proper research and skip deep analysis…” Not to be outdone, Fridman too comes out with one liner, that he does not see enough “high effort, deep dive research.”
And, that “in modern day, a lot of journalists seek clickbait headlines, make accusations, because they operate under incentive, because they want the headline, the cheap shot.”
Because I would not like to be similarly accused, the easily accessible transcript of ‘Narendra Modi: Prime Minister of India – Power, Democracy, War & Peace’ is locked in one of the tabs on my computer screen.
Also read: Fasting for Flattery: Lex Fridman’s Fawning Podcast with Narendra Modi
Other future celebrity interviewers of the premier may like to check this for its user-friendliness – I read the lines and any question or answer I wanted to check how it sounded in the original, there were ready hyperlinks, every few lines, for the precise sound bite.
Using this transcript, besides other reference files, including my book on Modi, and ‘researching’ a bit more, as various assertions were crosschecked with past declarations and even actual events, I assert that this article is ‘adequately’ researched.
It would not be wrong to hope this piece is not categorised as one which does not identify “genuine weaknesses” and “jump straight to accusations.”
In my book, first published in 2013, more than a year before Modi became the prime minister, I contended that “there were two clear chapters in his political career — pre-Godhra and post-Godhra.”
Yet, almost a dozen years later, even the sympathetic interviewer (someone who prepared for the interaction by fasting for 45 hours, consuming only water, “just to get in the right mindset”) could not but probe on Godhra, although, the query’s nature differed vastly.
But before putting a question, Fridman cleared the ground with non-contentious assertions: “through your career and through your life, you have seen a lot of difficult situations in the history of India. One of them, the 2002 Gujarat riots, they’re one of the most challenging periods of modern Indian history.” And then the question, “Looking back, what lessons do you draw from that time?”
Importantly, Modi answered this short question at length, although he raised (possibly) his right hand, in a way that partially resembled the traffic police person’s ‘stop’ gesture when I posed a similar question in the summer of 2012.
“All this is available – you would be able to get the complete record. The SIT in its report has documented all this minute-to-minute – everything is available on the net…,” he said, almost cutting my question short.
The reply to Fridman’s question was however five-pronged. One, he painted a fairly-detailed backdrop of events leading to the Godhra carnage. Starting with the hijack of IC-814 on Christmas eve, 1999, he mentioned the attack on Red Fort in November 2000, the 9/11 attacks, the attack on Jammu and Kashmir state Assembly in October 2001 and finally the attack on Indian parliament on December 13, 2001.
“In such a tense environment,” Modi explained, “even the smallest spark can ignite unrest. The situation had already become extremely volatile. In such times, suddenly, on October 7th, 2001, I was given the responsibility of becoming chief minister of Gujarat.”
In addition to these security challenges, Modi recalled in the podcast, Gujarat was still “recovering from a devastating earthquake…which left thousands dead.”
The inference drawn from this sequential depiction of challenges was clearly that Modi’s handling of the fallout of the Godhra carnage should be assessed while factoring these.
Two, Modi said that the state government’s response must be examined while keeping in mind that he was elected as MLA only on February 24, 2002 “it was only around (then) that I stepped into the Gujarat Assembly for the first time. On February 27th, 2002, we were seated in the Assembly for the budget session… when suddenly the horrific Godhra incident occurred,” he said.
Clearly, the prime minister created the ground to contend that the situation was unmanageable and given that in Gujarat’s past, “riots used to happen some way or the other every year,” another flare was not from the realm of the unexpected.
“You can imagine…” Modi started and listed the aforementioned episodes of terrorist violence, “and then to have so many people killed and burned alive… how tense and volatile the situation was…”
This assertion in the Fridman podcast, reminded me of a similar point of view articulated in an interview amid rioting in March 2002 to TV anchor Sudhir Chaudhary, then with Zee News. Asked about the prevailing situation, the then chief minister said, “Kriya pratikriya ki chain chal rahi hai. Hum chahate hain ki na kriya ho aur na pratikriya (A chain of action and reaction is being witnessed now. We would neither want any ‘action’ nor retribution)…”
The third prong of Modi’s response to Fridman’s query, focused on preoccupation with rehabilitation programmes to restore a modicum of normalcy in life of people uprooted by the Kutch earthquake.
“My first major task…was overseeing the rehabilitation of survivors. This was a crucial task, and from day one after my oath, I immersed myself in it…had absolutely no prior experience with government… never been part of any administration, never even served in government…” Modi told the interviewer.
On this issue too, his response was at variance to my question. I asked that prior to October 2001 when he became the chief minister, he “had never been in administration and never contested elections. How did (he) go about (his) job?”
His reply had been at complete odds with the response to Fridman – initially he struggled given the aforesaid backdrop and also picking up the ropes of administration.
Also read: Kandahar, Parliament, 9/11: Modi Lists Terror Attacks, Claims 2002 Riots Weren’t Biggest in Gujarat
Back in 2012, when I was working on my book, he claimed to have smoothly settled in his new job almost effortlessly. “I had learnt from the Sangh the basic skill of running an organisation. Look at it this way – what do you have to do to run an organisation? One major component is human resource management and in the Sangh we are taught this from the beginning – how to use manpower resources to the hilt, use to the optimum levels. Now in government this is very easy. Identifying a team, building it, get the team to do the work.”
In the run-up to 2014 Lok Sabha elections, all efforts were directed towards building the image of an administrative and political ‘superman’, now layers of complexities surrounding handling post-Godhra events were introduced as this episode dogs him like a shadow.
Only one of his recollections of how he navigated the months after taking charge, right up to the attack on the Sabarmati Express, can be true. It is anyone’s guess which one is: the claim made now, or the one made earlier.
The fourth prong of Modi’s argument to Fridman was similar to declarations made by other leaders who failed to control targeted communal violence – that, worse riots happened previously: “That these were the biggest riots ever is actually misinformation… Gujarat faced frequent riots. Curfews were constantly imposed somewhere. Communal violence erupted over trivial issues…,” the prime minister said on the podcast.
And finally, the last prong was that even though the statewide violence was sparked by “one tragic incident”, the opposition failed to make the allegations stick. “Despite their relentless efforts, the judiciary analysed the situation meticulously twice and ultimately found us completely innocent.”
Yet, it remains undeniable, Gujarat may have avoided slipping into an orgy of violence had the state administration disallowed bodies of the deceased to be taken to their native places in Vishwa Hindu Parishad-organised (VHP-organised) processions. Consequently, already enraged people took to the streets and vent fury on Muslims and their localities.
Besides Modi’s detailed response on the post-Godhra incidents under his watch, other observations merit attention.
Most significant is his sharp criticism of the UN and other “international organisations that were once powerful have become almost irrelevant. No real reforms are happening. Institutions, like the UN, are failing to fulfill their roles.”
He further charged that violators of laws remain unrestrained and free. Modi’s assertions came in the backdrop of criticism of UN bodies, including by US President Donald Trump and has deeper implications.
Significantly, Fridman builds up Modi as an apostle of global peace with clarity that unless Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky agree to sit together and discuss terms for peace, there is no way out of the war in Ukraine.
In the Fridman interview, the prime minister let slip several opportunities for the opposition, for instance on India’s ties with China, especially since 2020. There are major contradictions between what Modi said in June 2020, in official meetings as well as while addressing the public.
Likewise, several points which Modi touched upon and various claims he made would endorse what various analysts pointed out on various occasions. For instance, how he leverages his mandate when interacting on the global stage as representative of “1.4 billion Indians” shaking “hands with the world leaders,” and how back home, he constantly mentions the way he has ‘enhanced respect’ for Indians and the Indian passport.
Various contradictions emerge from several of his assertions. An example of this is his contention that “whenever we speak of peace, the world listens to us, because India is the land of Gautama Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi, and Indians aren’t hardwired to espouse strife and conflict. We espouse harmony instead.”
Sadly, however, India has become a land of disharmony, as witnessed recently when Holi, one of the rare festival that has a greater element of fun and frolic than religiosity, was converted by the Hindutva forces into yet another occasion to impose majoritarian will on minorities, especially Muslims.
Modi’s genuineness will always come under scrutiny whenever he claims that “we stand for peace, and wherever we can act as peacemakers, we have gladly embraced that responsibility,” are juxtaposed with the ground reality within India.
From Modi’s Google Plus Hangout with film-actor Ajay Devgn in tow in August 2012, to full-fledged interview with Akshay Kumar (in which among others Modi was asked about how he ate mangoes), the podcast with Nikhil Kamath earlier this year and now the latest Fridman show, Modi displayed his penchant for taking over the space with non-journalists who are committed to boost their show’s following and not dedicated to dissemination of news and unearthing the unknown, like journalists are.
In recent years, we witnessed the dumbing down of news television industry, not just in India, but globally too. In this arena, the podcast is a new form wherein, some podcasters are known for in-depth probing conversations with subject experts, while others like Fridman are aimed at the hoi polloi and which keep an arms distance from all contentious matters.
These shows essentially provide platforms to interviewees to make sweeping statements without being contested or challenged. For instance, amid questions being posed about neutrality of Indian’s poll body, Modi providing a picture postcard segment on India’s electoral process and the Election Commission of India.
But then, he was merely responding to queries that are known by anyone engaged even remotely with India: electoral logistics, remote polling stations, task of carrying EVMs (which have become contentious but that is not raked by Fridman). No tough questions on doubts over electoral rolls and partiality while enforcing the model code of conduct.
One can continue listing banalities in this podcast or previous chats done with non-journalist celebrities, but the primary point remains the same. Modi’s podcast with Fridman may be good listening or even reading, for admirers and even the not-so-committed lot.
But, for ‘researchers,’ this provided little insight into Modi’s mind, how he went about navigating some of the biggest challenges since 2014.
The show also does not provide more information, or even Modi’s version, on how his ties with his parent organisation, the RSS, have evolved and what remain the rough edges currently.
We of course have more precise information of instances when in Modi’s perception he felt of being little but a deliverer of divine interventions for betterment of people’s lives and conditions.
Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is a journalist and writer. His last book was The Demolition, The Verdict, And The Temple: The Definite Book on the Ram Mandir Project. He also wrote Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times.