Rahul Gandhi and mystery of the strangeness quotient

“You might think I am strange,” says Rahul Gandhi at one point in his interview with Arnab Goswami of Times Now. He appeared strange indeed, in a positive way though. Take all the malice and hate that usually goes into analyzing him out of the way while judging him from the interview, there are chances that you might discover a person with strong beliefs and sense of commitment, someone who is deep into politics but not a politician at all and someone who could be a good philosopher-mentor to a party but never a general leading it to victory. For most part, the interviewer and the interviewee were at different tangents —  the latter impatient to fly off to familiar territory and the former trying break the flight by pulling him back to specific questions of controversial nature. As usual, Rahul was found at a loss when confronting the difficult questions. It is intriguing that despite understanding clearly that the same set of questions would be flung at him – the media have been doing so relentlessly for years —  he would be so completely disinclined to keep himself ready with answers. This, coming from someone in constant public focus, would qualify as strange. [caption id=“attachment_1363611” align=“alignleft” width=“385”]  AFP[/caption] He does not appear to be a normal political leader —  interpret it whichever way you want. That he does not enjoy being drawn into contentious political topics has been evident for sometime. He likes to be seen playing the outsider and the agent of change in Indian politics, not only in the Congress. He is more comfortable talking concepts like democracy, empowerment and rights than touching mundane matters such as governance. In an age so full of noise, aggression and showmanship, he is surprisingly non-combative and low-key – forget his periodical public outbursts now and then. He has to be strange. Which other political leader of his stature would entertain questions on his educational qualification? To be frank, most of the questions put to him by the media are asinine and don’t deserve to be dignified with answers. Why, for example, Rahul needs to answer the ‘dynasty’ question repeatedly when hardly any party – yes, this includes the BJP too — in India follows perfect democratic practices in conducting itself? Why must he be expected to commit himself on the prime minister question? The media have reduced the general elections to a glorified version of cock fights in tribal regions. They are disappointed that he is not joining a presidential style hand-to-hand combat with Modi. But it is not Rahul’s responsibility to keep the media entertained. Again, what response do you expect when you ask whether he is scared of Modi. How many times does he need to tell in public that the party is in a bad shape and in need of organizational revival? The questions are pointless because they invite subjective answers tied to perspective and context; more so when those putting them have decided the answers and are determined to reject or challenge them if they go the wrong way. But isn’t it odd that he would be completely unprepared for questions? He was hardly convincing when handling questions on his party’s electoral losses, comparing the riots of 2002 and 1984, on his stand on corruption and the Congress support to the Aam Aadmi Party. Surely the interviewer was throwing him in uncomfortable territory more often that he would have liked. But how long can he evade these? It is true he brings certain freshness and sincerity to politics with his approach, but it would indeed be strange if he refuses to acknowledge the need to engage the media better. From the Congress’ perspective, Rahul’s approach could only be bad news. They need a commander to lead them in the coming war, however the chosen one does not even feel there’s a war ahead. He is engrossed in long-term vision. Of course, he talks of the party’s victory in 2014, but there’s nothing in his demeanour to suggest that he is ready for the tough task ahead. With few other options left, they have to bear with the strangeness quotient.