Our Blackberry-toting Communi-haters

When Barack Obama became US president, a lot was written about his addiction to the Blackberry. On Wednesday evening, I found out that Congress general secretary and future party president, Rahul Gandhi, may also be suffering from the same addiction.

To find out this somewhat inane fact, I, along with journalists representing all major news organisations, had to pass through an obstacle course that included arriving more than an hour before the event, being separated from all our own communication devices, and then sitting through long, academic lectures. Yes, us foolish hacks did all this to hear the elusive Gandhi express his views on some of the urgent issues facing the nation, but all we got was a balcony view of Gandhi toying with his phone and sneaking glances at it while others were speaking.

Obama and Gandhi’s Blackberry pin may arguably be the most coveted in the world, but it’s safe to bet their usage styles couldn’t be further apart. While Obama holds town hall meetings, takes questions from strangers on Twitter, goes on talk shows and even shows us his groovy dancing skills, Gandhi is happy staying within his closed user group. When Obama went to St Xavier’s College, Mumbai, to talk to students, he and Michelle turned it into a lively, televised event in which he sent a strong message to Pakistan. Gandhi meets students all the time, but the meetings are always closed door.

Maybe all this doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter that Gandhi makes his disdain apparent for communicators like us, that even the biggest name droppers and top editors don’t claim to have a direct line with him.

The argument that his supporters and Congressmen make is that it is real India that matters and its voters are the ones that the UPA government needs to engage with. So does that mean the people who came from Ralegan Siddhi weren’t from the real India? Is that why the villagers, who announced their intention to meet Gandhi days before, were humiliated till the last minute? Gandhi’s office simply said that no appointment had been granted to them so there was no question of an audience. But don’t they get the ridiculousness of asking villagers to get an appointment?

It’s perhaps unfair to single out Gandhi in an establishment full of communi-haters. Remember what happened when the prime minister was badgered about his government not talking enough? In June this year, his office decided to call a random selection of five editors that excluded any mainstream paper. Forget the fact that it was the closest we were going to get to a press conference and it was behind closed doors, forget the fact that most of us had to depend on second-hand information. At that time, the prime minister’s office said that it was just the first of many such meetings and they were going to have such interactions every month. It’s been four months, and we are yet to see this promise being fulfilled.

Law Minister Salman Khurshid was quite candid in admitting that a fuddy duddy sarkar couldn’t cope with the social-media savvy ways of civil society activists. The 74-year-old Anna Hazare may not share the aspiration of learning English like a majority of the young in our country, but he certainly understands the power of the hip video-sharing site, YouTube, which is why he keeps sending messages through that. Anna Hazare was on an oath of silence when my channel decided to present him with an award in Ralegan Siddhi, and he could have let his representatives speak for him. But he understood the power of communication enough to overcome the oath of silence, to eat up precious seconds of live TV, and to write out his clever messages to millions of our viewers.

The counter to what Khurshid said is that no one in India expects the prime minister to have regular conferences attended by journalists across the country through webcast, although it would solve so much of their concerns about security. No one expects him to tweet or accept Facebook requests. But, people do expect their questions and their doubts to be answered on some kind of platform, especially at a time when there is so much chaos.

Gandhi may be right in presuming that his real audience lies among those who are not on Twitter or attending town halls, and those who do not own computers. But doesn’t he or other politicians understand that you can’t always dictate where you choose to speak? That even those who don’t have a TV or an internet connection understand the importance of transparency and accountability.