The dynamics between Europe and Russia have gone so south that mending fences looks like an uphill task—even as the US swings between sanctions and olive branches.
Centre for Science and Environment in new report makes case for rationalising GST on waste material, saying most informal operators can’t afford high tax & it also hinders recycling.
Standing up to America is usually not a personal risk for a leader in India. Any suggestions of foreign pressure unites India behind who they see as leading them in that fight.
The paragraphs got jumbled towards end. The corrected version is below:
Those commenting in efforts to belittle media or praise it these days appear to have a short memory.
The currently much-denigrated Jawaharlal Nehru, first Prime Minister of India, when he was in delhi was always in parliament house in his office there, when parliament was in session, and would come into the lok sabha or rajya sabha, when there were heated discussions, to respond to debates.
He not only held monthly press conferences, but when coming out of his office (at Parliament House or his office at South bloc, punctually at lunch time, if he saw a bunch of newsmen waiting outside, would meet them, answer their queries; and, if he did not have an answer, ask them to meet him at same place at specified time when he came back from lunch, and provide answers. in the interregnum he would have contacted the minister or secy, found the answer to convey to newsmen.
at his monthly press conference (i covered for pti all of them between 1949 to 1962, he sat alone at the dais, ascertain from newsmen what subjects they wanted to raise, note them down, and proceed with issues in an orderly manner. he was often asked tough questions, and there were any number of followups, and no pressmen ever complained he was ignored or not given a chance. If he sometimes lost his temper, he would quickly apologise.
the major newspapers, reported the press conferences extensively.
While not holding press conferences as often as Nehru, both Lal Bahadur and Indira Gandhi were equally accessible to media.
Those commenting in efforts to belittle media or praise it these days appear to have a short memory.
The currently much-denigrated first Prime Minister of India, when he was in delhi was always in parliament house in his office there, when parliament was in session, and would come into the lok sabha or rajya sabha, when there were heated discussions, to respond to debates.
He not only held monthly press conferences, but when coming out of his office (at Parliament House or his office at South bloc, punctually at lunch time, if he saw a bunch of newsmen waiting outside, would meet them, answer their queries; and, if he did not have an answer, ask them to meet him at same place at specified time when he came back from lunch, and provide answers. in the interregnum he would have contacted the minister or secy, found the answer to convey to newsmen.
While not holding press conferences as often as Nehru, both Lal Bahadur and Indira Gandhi were equally accessible to media.
at his monthly press conference (i covered for pti all of them between 1949 to 1962, he sat alone at the dais, ascertain from newsmen what subjects they wanted to raise, note them down, and proceed with issues in an orderly manner. he was often asked tough questions, and there were any number of followups, and no pressmen ever complained he was ignored or not given a chance. If he sometimes lost his temper, he would quickly apologise.
the major newspapers, reported the press conferences extensively.
Recently I saw the interview PM Vajpayee gave to a very young, handsome Rajdeep Sardesai after the 2004 election had been declared. Calm, focused, no long pauses. Very charming personality. When asked about succession, and whether it would be L K Advani next, he flicked the ball away completely. RS persisted, Are you trying to evade the question, sir ? he asked. No, I am trying to answer it, he said with a smile.
The fact that Modi rarely interacts with media is perhaps linked to the treatment meted out to him post 2002. He presumably developed a dislike for the fourth estate given the demonisation that the media undertook. In fact, there is a distinct bias manifest in most mainstream media against the BJP, which can be partly attributed to the largesse showered on the fourth estate for decades by the Congress. The lure of the lucre forced media persons to develop a strong bond. Padma awards, foreign junkets, plush residences, lucrative deals were all bestowed upon this charmed cabal. Today it’s payback time and time to prove loyalties. In this scenario, Modi is an anachronism. So his outlook towards the media is indifferent and antagonistic.
This is not to justify his behaviour but an analysis only.
Yes, quite true. I distinctly remember that in the press conference held by Manmohan Singh regarding the 2 g scam, no follow up questions were allowed. In fact, when arnab Goswami wanted to ask a follow up question, he was forbidden to do so and was told that “you cannot interrogate the Prime Minister. “
Every answer begets a question — because the questioner did not know the answer. Many a time the questioner just says to himself, “pass”, and does not ask the question that has bubbled forth in his mind in response to the answer he has just heard. Because time is also a constraint. But if such one-way-traffic goes on over a prolonged period of interaction, it raises doubts if the whole show is stage-managed.
Not asking tough questions is not the point, not questioning the answers, is.
The paragraphs got jumbled towards end. The corrected version is below:
Those commenting in efforts to belittle media or praise it these days appear to have a short memory.
The currently much-denigrated Jawaharlal Nehru, first Prime Minister of India, when he was in delhi was always in parliament house in his office there, when parliament was in session, and would come into the lok sabha or rajya sabha, when there were heated discussions, to respond to debates.
He not only held monthly press conferences, but when coming out of his office (at Parliament House or his office at South bloc, punctually at lunch time, if he saw a bunch of newsmen waiting outside, would meet them, answer their queries; and, if he did not have an answer, ask them to meet him at same place at specified time when he came back from lunch, and provide answers. in the interregnum he would have contacted the minister or secy, found the answer to convey to newsmen.
at his monthly press conference (i covered for pti all of them between 1949 to 1962, he sat alone at the dais, ascertain from newsmen what subjects they wanted to raise, note them down, and proceed with issues in an orderly manner. he was often asked tough questions, and there were any number of followups, and no pressmen ever complained he was ignored or not given a chance. If he sometimes lost his temper, he would quickly apologise.
the major newspapers, reported the press conferences extensively.
While not holding press conferences as often as Nehru, both Lal Bahadur and Indira Gandhi were equally accessible to media.
Those commenting in efforts to belittle media or praise it these days appear to have a short memory.
The currently much-denigrated first Prime Minister of India, when he was in delhi was always in parliament house in his office there, when parliament was in session, and would come into the lok sabha or rajya sabha, when there were heated discussions, to respond to debates.
He not only held monthly press conferences, but when coming out of his office (at Parliament House or his office at South bloc, punctually at lunch time, if he saw a bunch of newsmen waiting outside, would meet them, answer their queries; and, if he did not have an answer, ask them to meet him at same place at specified time when he came back from lunch, and provide answers. in the interregnum he would have contacted the minister or secy, found the answer to convey to newsmen.
While not holding press conferences as often as Nehru, both Lal Bahadur and Indira Gandhi were equally accessible to media.
at his monthly press conference (i covered for pti all of them between 1949 to 1962, he sat alone at the dais, ascertain from newsmen what subjects they wanted to raise, note them down, and proceed with issues in an orderly manner. he was often asked tough questions, and there were any number of followups, and no pressmen ever complained he was ignored or not given a chance. If he sometimes lost his temper, he would quickly apologise.
the major newspapers, reported the press conferences extensively.
Recently I saw the interview PM Vajpayee gave to a very young, handsome Rajdeep Sardesai after the 2004 election had been declared. Calm, focused, no long pauses. Very charming personality. When asked about succession, and whether it would be L K Advani next, he flicked the ball away completely. RS persisted, Are you trying to evade the question, sir ? he asked. No, I am trying to answer it, he said with a smile.
The fact that Modi rarely interacts with media is perhaps linked to the treatment meted out to him post 2002. He presumably developed a dislike for the fourth estate given the demonisation that the media undertook. In fact, there is a distinct bias manifest in most mainstream media against the BJP, which can be partly attributed to the largesse showered on the fourth estate for decades by the Congress. The lure of the lucre forced media persons to develop a strong bond. Padma awards, foreign junkets, plush residences, lucrative deals were all bestowed upon this charmed cabal. Today it’s payback time and time to prove loyalties. In this scenario, Modi is an anachronism. So his outlook towards the media is indifferent and antagonistic.
This is not to justify his behaviour but an analysis only.
Yes, quite true. I distinctly remember that in the press conference held by Manmohan Singh regarding the 2 g scam, no follow up questions were allowed. In fact, when arnab Goswami wanted to ask a follow up question, he was forbidden to do so and was told that “you cannot interrogate the Prime Minister. “
Every answer begets a question — because the questioner did not know the answer. Many a time the questioner just says to himself, “pass”, and does not ask the question that has bubbled forth in his mind in response to the answer he has just heard. Because time is also a constraint. But if such one-way-traffic goes on over a prolonged period of interaction, it raises doubts if the whole show is stage-managed.
Not asking tough questions is not the point, not questioning the answers, is.