Having watched Shekar Gupta's earlier interviews, I tend to agree with JC that Gupta interrupt too often. At one moment, Manohar Parrikar told me, "let me complete". At least twice, Gupta completed the sentence for Parrikar, which is odd. Gupta may not sound as a " professional bully" but he fell short of class. I disagree with Barad that Parrikar wasn't "articulate well" in English. Parrikar semed to have conveyed his message well. Gupta's unnecessary intejections shouldn't be interpreted as his attempt to "put words in Parrikar's mouth." I didn't find the interview "soft" but rather "moderate". The format of the show doesn't allow for the interview to be made "hard". It's different in a sit-down interview, as Karan Thapar showed with Narendra Modi on his show. Modi could feel the heat and was ill-at-ease and he showed his temparament and, maybe, even arrogance by walking off the set. However, uncomfortable the subject is answering questions he or she can always find the escapist route by saying, "no comment" or, at least, dodging it. In contrast, Parrikar played along well. Gupta allowed him enough elbow room to express his way of governance. He may have spoken from his heart when he said the Modi's action in not dealing forthright with the 2002 riots was an "administrative failure" and shouldn't be taken as a "bold" statement. Parrikar obviously found it hard to defend Modi on this issue and if he had done so he could come out as a 'non-secular' person. In the interview Parrikar, though admitting he's a true Hindu, remarked that his politics is based on secularism.
I may invite harsh reactions whether dressing habits matter or if one should look at his or her political ability when I say that he would have made Parrikar look "better" if he had tucked the shirt it. As best I could see, Parrikar was wearing had a curved bottom cut. To the best of my understanding, such a shirt is normally tucked in unlike a bottom square cut shirt which is worn out but can be tucked in too. In this context, let me give an example of a recent uproar in the Australian media regarding the dress habit of PM Julia Gillard. On a panel discussion on "political sexism" on radio, one of the panellists, Grace Gillier, also a columnist and industrial consultant, remarked that it's "inappropriate" for the PM to be "showing her cleavage in parliament." This sparked a media storm, some attacking Gillier as a "rightist", since the PM belongs to the Labour party, and some said that it doesn't what how the PM dresses as long as she does her job well. I think Gillier made a point. In the same context, the Premier of Ontario Kathleenn Wynne's "fashion sense" and wardrobe has also come into focus. As someone who was seen often in pantsuits, Wynne is said to have turn from "geek-to-cheek." The columnist, Christina Blizzard, of the Toronto Sun, said Wynne "slowly emerging from a pantsuit chrysalis." Bliazzard, said, "Now, as premier, keen-eyed observers have noted she’s shown up in short skirts, sleeveless tops and softer colours." The issue of Wynne's dressing came up because of a memo sent out to Wynne's staffers. The dress code, among other things, says, -- Casual dresses and skirts with appropriate hemlines are acceptable. --Dresses that are sleeveless but do not leave the shoulders bare are acceptable. ---Miniskirts/dresses and dresses with spaghetti straps are not permitted. I have mention both Gillard and Wynne to illustrate my point regarding what I said about Parrikar who, I have said on other forums, dresses casually, with his regular chappals, even for formal functions. Eugene Correia
