“Why does he sound like he is part of the Left Front?” a senior government official asked a colleague of mine.
It was 2008. Tensions were high between the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the Left Front over the India-U.S. nuclear deal. I was a television reporter then. I covered the Left parties while my colleague reported on foreign policy.
“He even pointed out that you refer to leaders of the Left as ‘comrades,’” she told me while conveying the official’s observation about me. His was less of an observation and more of a complaint. It questioned my neutrality as a reporter.
I don’t remember the explanation I gave then, but I promptly stopped using the word ‘comrade’ in my live reportage.
More than 16 years later, after Janata Dal (United) (JDU) president and Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s latest political switch, I have a clear answer to why political reporters may appear biased despite their efforts to stay neutral.
Leaders often use reporters to convey their thoughts and opinions to their colleagues, allies, or adversaries without making a public statement — at least, until a final decision is made. Reporters are used as an advanced warning system. The statements reported are meant to warn the other party about what is coming or even suggest a course correction. For instance, during the negotiations between the Left and the UPA over the nuclear deal, news breaks often formed the basis of further negotiations.
Even when a public statement is made, the stated reason could be different from the unstated one. When Mr. Kumar rejoined the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), he said that things were not going well in the ‘Mahagathbandhan’ or Grand Alliance with the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Congress in Bihar.
The signs of an impending divorce were there much before the formal announcement. Mr. Kumar became the president of the JD(U), replacing his close aide Rajiv Ranjan Singh alias Lalan Singh. He refused to accept the post of convener of the INDIA bloc and did not take on the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Amid strong denials from the JD(U), the RJD, and the Congress, most journalists started reporting about the imminent break-up. There were reports about Mr. Kumar’s growing unease with his partners. Quoting unnamed sources, journalists said that Mr. Kumar was upset with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for suggesting that the Bihar leader’s appointment as convener of the INDIA bloc would have to endorsed by leaders including West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. As he had brought the Opposition parties together to give shape to the Opposition alliance, Mr. Kumar is said to have been livid at this suggestion. The convener post could have placed him as the front runner in the prime ministerial race. But with Ms. Banerjee proposing Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge as the prime ministerial face, Mr. Kumar decided to ditch the alliance.
In public though, the Mahagathbandhan insisted that all was well in the alliance. Former Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Prasad chided the media for writing “baseless” stories. Mr. Kumar’s party went to the extent of saying that the JD(U) chief didn’t want anything for himself and only wanted to strengthen the Opposition. Mr. Kharge first said that he did not know about Mr. Kumar’s plans and later claimed to have kept the plan close to his chest for the “sake of the INDIA alliance”.
But reporters covering the JD(U) knew what was happening. Much like the Left had conveyed its displeasure with the Manmohan Singh government through reporters, the Nitish Kumar camp has kept us updated. It is true that reporting unnamed source-based information is fraught with risks. But every political reporter gets asked the question — ‘What’s the inside story?’ — for a reason.
sandeep.phuklan@thehindu.co.in
