This election saw me perform a new task for my party’s campaign. In addition to running L.K. Advani’s communication office, I started representing the BJP in television debates. I quickly realised how unprepared I am for this medium of communication, which makes two demands, especially during election time, which I find hard to fulfill. Firstly, unlike the written word, television gives little scope for reflection, reference, detailed analysis and amplification. Secondly, even before I could learn the ropes of TV debate, I was confronted with another demand, this one coming from my own party supporters. “You are not aggressive on television,” many of them said. “You are not attacking the opponents strongly enough.” Aggressiveness in speech or action is alien to my nature, I was quite at sea trying to satisfy my party supporters.

But I have often wondered, with an unrelenting sense of unease, if political debate is all about attack and counter-attack. The sound and fury of political opponents often puts off the general TV-viewing public, which does not like too much of tu-tu-main-main. The people expect debates to illuminate issues, clarify facts, offer diverse perspectives, and present them with clearly articulated arguments and counter-arguments, so that they are better informed and can make independent judgements. They also want to see if representatives of various political parties agree on any issue and are willing to explore common ground in the interest of the nation. After all, the basic principle of democracy, in a nation of immense diversities such as India, is cooperation despite differences, and not non-cooperation because of differences.

... contd.