)
The Indian Express said of him that he “is still million detached, speaking of faraway things.”
The Telegraph said “his thinking is shallow and unclear.”
The Times of India said he is “poorly groomed for a mega-contest in one of the world's toughest democracies.”
The Hindustan Times said “the interview was a let-down, widely lampooned.”
And the kinder papers simply refrained from commenting on what was, by all accounts, a very embarrassing debut on TV.
It is therefore necessary to ask what Rahul Gandhi has been doing since 2004, when he ‘joined’ politics. The answers are not encouraging.
If he has been doing a lot, as loyal Congress-persons claim he has, it reflects poorly on his intellect because he seems to have learnt so very little in 10 years. If, on the other hand, he spent the first eight years doing nothing much, and it was only in the last three years that his mother was able to persuade him that he had better pad up, one cannot help wondering at his attitude.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi's stunning debut debacle
Or is the third possibility that has been talked about quite real?
If the Congress is once again asked by the President to lead another coalition, will he ask someone else (Finance Minister P Chidambaram is the favourite) to be Prime Minister while he sets about changing the system, empowering women and ending corruption, communalism etc? How does he view himself and the Congress party? Does he think of it as a private limited company in which he is one of the two shareholders and which he can run by remote control through an agent?
Who are the people he is most comfortable with? Dilettantes in politics whose heart is in the right place but whose real interests lie in having a good time? What books, magazines, academic journals does he read? Or has he farmed this out also?
How does he think he can run the government when he has not even been a deputy minister, let alone a chief minister? How much time will he agree to devote to the job? His record in Parliament is not very comforting, neither in terms of participation not speeches.
I mean who is this guy who could find himself deciding the fate of 1.2 billion Indians if a quirky electoral outcome forces the President to invite the Congress to lead the next coalition?
We need to know much more about Rahul Gandhi and it would be nice if next set of interviewers focus on the man rather than ask worn out questions about riots, corruption, Modi, etc for the sake of TRPs.
Indeed, when you think about it, you will find that it was not only Rahul Gandhi who came off badly; the interviewer did a lousy job as well. So focused was he getting something controversial for his next day’s programme that he let a great opportunity slip.
