Nidhi Razdan being ripped apart by British MP Barry Gardiner

[The Outsider]

Given that NDTV is an Indian channel, one would expect it to actually celebrate the invitation of an Indian CM to speak in the British parliament. Why question something which is clearly in India's interest? Especially if the British High commissioner has already given the explanation.

She was neither criticizing nor celebrating. She was asking for the rationale behind the change in stance. And that is pertinent because the invitation to speak there has been extended recently. Yes it has been given by the High Commissioner earlier, but this was certainly not the first instance of a journalist asking a question regarding something on which an official statement has been given and it will not be the last.

As far as the British MP, I don't care whether he is lying or is misinformed (confusing the SIT with the SC is probably an error of judgment by a foreign MP) as long as he is acting in India's interest.

He was clearly trying to take the moral high ground by downplaying the economic aspect. In the process he lied about Modi being leader of the opposition and the Supreme Court clearing him. He then proceeded to tell Razdan that she does not respect her own country's Supreme Court, when he is the one who was an ignorant fool or liar. How is it in India's interest if a foreign MP is accusing an Indian journalist of not respecting the Supreme Court, when he is the one who does not have the facts right?

[Clarke]

Could/should is all hypothetical. Gardiner tried to take the moral high ground himself by putting economic considerations on the backburner and in the process resorted to one lie after another.

Who cares about Gardiner's justifications ? Couldn't the journo move on unless she had an agenda, which is clearly the case ?

[adi B]

ICF is a true microcosm of metropolitan

[Number]

karan thapar now interviewing gardiner ' date=asking questions akin to razdan`s yesterday rather presenting/showcasing the "burqa,puppy" comments.. adam roberts is kinda right in presenting his views on modi,even i think he has been sometimes targeted unfairly and criticized harshly but he has to adopt a neoteric,lithe attitude to transcend his unacceptable figure amongst many in india

lol.. Hasn't Rajdeep interviewed him already on the same channel on the same topic already ?

[The Outsider]

Who cares about Gardiner's justifications ? Couldn't the journo move on unless she had an agenda' date=' which is clearly the case ?[/quote'] Move on where? Isn't is a journalist's job to correct the person who he is interviewing when he is making false statements? Not only did he make false statements, he got borderline personal with her as well by implying that she does not respect her country's Supreme Court. What would you expect the journalist to say in that situation? That Gardiner saaar you are right, the Supreme Court cleared Modi and I am an ignorant fool in this profession to not know about it, and many thanks for this new knowledge?

[diga]

He was clearly trying to take the moral high ground by downplaying the economic aspect. In the process he lied about Modi being leader of the opposition and the Supreme Court clearing him. He then proceeded to tell Razdan that she does not respect her own country's Supreme Court, when he is the one who was an ignorant fool or liar. How is it in India's interest if a foreign MP is accusing an Indian journalist of not respecting the Supreme Court, when he is the one who does not have the facts right?

Think he mentioned economic aspects in the interview with Nidhi.. as well with Rajdeep. Guess Nidhi did not dig deeper into it as she had a single agenda of Modi's role in the Gujarat violence

[adi B]

lol.. Hasn't Rajdeep interviewed him already on the same channel on the same topic already ?

but but but,another secularist (in this case thapar) should also get a chance to interrogate him no?

[The Outsider]

Think he mentioned economic aspects in the interview with Nidhi.. as well with Rajdeep. Guess Nidhi did not dig deeper into it as she had a single agenda of Modi's role in the Gujarat violence

I can't view the video right now, but if you can point out where he mentioned the economic aspects to Razdan, I'll certainly take a look at it in the evening. If he did mention it, he must have done so fleetingly because I can't recall the remarks.

[diga]

I can't view the video right now' date=' but if you can point out where he mentioned the economic aspects to Razdan, I'll certainly take a look at it in the evening. If he did mention it, he must have done so fleetingly because I can't recall the remarks.[/quote'] Check his answer to 2nd question(some 2mins onwards) ...He mentions FDI as well as the growth of Gujarat.Nidhi interrupts him , and continues on the 2002 & court cases which clearly irks him

[Desi Cartman]

There are some people who hate modi and probably I'm one of them but what I hate even more is this Mai baap approach towards developed countries. We are dysfunctional, our netas are corrupt, courts can not be trusted and almost everybody is corrupt BUT these foreigners are supposed to know better, right ? Our courts couldn't convict Modi or Rajuv or Mulayam or any other neta but woh chalta hai par how can a developed country invite modi for a meeting. You can't do anything about him in your own country and are questioning foreigners, the same ones who drop bombs on random Muslim people ? Have some shame and self respect.

[Crookbond]

Arre bhai wo baahar ka banda hai ' date=' usko itni galti maaf Hai. Like I said, there has been development (SIT report, his elevation in bjp, his 3rd back to back win) on modi. One can't question UK on changing their stance in the wake of these developments. [b']He did rip her apart if you ignore his inaccuracies.

:WTF:

[seedhi]

She was neither criticizing nor celebrating. She was asking for the rationale behind the change in stance. And that is pertinent because the invitation to speak there has been extended recently. Yes it has been given by the High Commissioner earlier, but this was certainly not the first instance of a journalist asking a question regarding something on which an official statement has been given and it will not be the last.

You should watch the interview again. At around 2min mark the MP starts explaining the reason for the invitation (the audio is not very clear) - he mentions that Britain does more business with Gujarat than the rest of India combined. He says that Modi is a dominant figure in Indian politics. But NR interrupts him and brings in the 2002 riots and says that "some" people feel that the "blot of 2002" has not left Modi. Is this the way that a journalist is supposed to put down a three times elected CM of the country in front of a foreign MP who has invited the CM ? It is quite clear that Nidhi Razdan has an agenda of bringing in 2002 riots into a discussion where it does not belong, it being an internal matter of the country.

He was clearly trying to take the moral high ground by downplaying the economic aspect. In the process he lied about Modi being leader of the opposition and the Supreme Court clearing him. He then proceeded to tell Razdan that she does not respect her own country's Supreme Court, when he is the one who was an ignorant fool or liar.

He clearly mentioned the business links of Britain and Gujarat.

How is it in India's interest if a foreign MP is accusing an Indian journalist of not respecting the Supreme Court, when he is the one who does not have the facts right?

As I said, it is in India's interest if a CM is invited to speak in the British Parliament. It is not in India's interest to question this invitation.

[King Tendulkar]

NDTV is scum But Nidhi Razadan is one I will not criticise. The thinking mans crumpet

[Crookbond]

Opinion divided on invitation to Modi http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/opinion-divided-on-invitation-to-modi/article5019214.ece?homepage=true

The invitation extended by Barry Gardiner, Chairman of the Labour Friends of India Group and Labour Member of Parliament from Brent North, to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi to deliver a speech in the House of Commons has drawn mixed responses from within the Labour Party. Early responses to Mr. Gardiner’s initiative suggest that this will be yet another political issue on which the Labour will be divided. While Mr. Gardiner defended his action on Indian television with the argument that the Supreme Court had absolved Mr. Modi of any involvement in the 2002 riots in Gujarat, an important and influential Labour voice has sharply disagreed. John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington, told The Hindu that he was “deeply shocked that Mr. Modi has been invited to meet British Parliamentarians, given the continuing concerns in India and across the world at his record on human rights and the sectarian politics of his party.” He said the invitation “should certainly not be seen as an endorsement of Modi by the British Labour Party or the British Parliament. I do not believe Modi should be associated with by any true friend of democracy or India.” He added that he “along with others” would “boycott any meetings or events with Modi present.” Labour peer Meghnad Desai has taken the opposite view. Lord Desai told The Hindu that he saw “no problem” with Mr. Gardiner’s overture to Mr. Modi. “After all, British parties have to keep themselves informed as to what is happening in India, as they have many NRI constituents who want to keep in touch.” He added that Indians should be “relaxed about this. It does not indicate any political preference.” Mr. Modi had called off a visit to the U.K. in 2005 when memories of the 2002 riots were fresh, and the opposition to his visit in the U.K. was strident. Much has changed in the intervening years, and clearly, the mood has changed. Human rights groups have, however, stayed their course. The South Asia Solidarity Group issued a statement opposing any move to invite Mr. Modi. In a press release, the organisation said: “Last time Narendra Modi planned a visit to this country, a campaign by South Asians and other progressive people in the U.K. put a stop to it. This time, too, the same thing will happen. A campaign is building up! There is massive opposition in this country to Modi’s prime ministerial bid and the British government’s attempts to rehabilitate him for no reason other than allow British-based corporates to do business with Gujarat.”

[Clarke]

Move on where? Isn't is a journalist's job to correct the person who he is interviewing when he is making false statements? Not only did he make false statements, he got borderline personal with her as well by implying that she does not respect her country's Supreme Court.

An hours interview allows new questions based on the response, but not this one. Case in point, Thapar's interview of Modi. You move on to the next question provided you have one, if its an interview for a few minutes. If its an interrogation, you go around creating new questions based on the current response and nothing else, which is precisely what happened.

What would you expect the journalist to say in that situation? That Gardiner saaar you are right, the Supreme Court cleared Modi and I am an ignorant fool in this profession to not know about it, and many thanks for this new knowledge?

BTW she is an ignorant fool, her claim is we question the SC's judgment since we are a democracy and you've made up your mind to defend her despite that.

[Yoda-esque]

An hours interview allows new questions based on the response' date=' but not this one. Case in point, Thapar's interview of Modi. [b']You move on to the next question provided you have one, if its an interview for a few minutes. If its an interrogation, you go around creating new questions based on the current response and nothing else, which is precisely what happened. BTW she is an ignorant fool, her claim is we question the SC's judgment since we are a democracy and you've made up your mind to defend her despite that.

Great point, but what to do?We are Indians. One upmanship and playing the smartass is ingrained in our DNA.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

OUTY Modi was under investigation by the SIT(Monitored by SC) when UK boycotted him. Modi has now been given a clean chit by SIT.So he is neither a convict nor under investigation. The petition has been allowed,to let the petitioner put forward her objections,whether they hold any significance is yet to be seen.Until then Modi is a clean man.

[Crookbond]

The SC giving a "clean chit" to Modi is a bigger myth than Danish Kaneria's teesra. Supreme Court has NEVER given a clean chit to Modi. Mr. Gardiner is way out of line to even suggest something like that and I would request him to verify facts before commenting on any topic.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

The SC giving a "clean chit" to Modi is a bigger myth than Danish Kaneria's teesra. Supreme Court has NEVER given a clean chit to Modi. Mr. Gardiner is way out of line to even suggest something like that and I would request him to verify facts before commenting on any topic.

Mr. Modi is not even part of the trial in SC.He was not named in the chargesheet by SIT,which was monitored by the SC.

[seedhi]

The SC giving a "clean chit" to Modi is a bigger myth than Danish Kaneria's teesra. Supreme Court has NEVER given a clean chit to Modi. Mr. Gardiner is way out of line to even suggest something like that and I would request him to verify facts before commenting on any topic.

Point is why even bring up the riots or the investigations with a foreign MP? It is an internal matter of India and has got nothing to do with the British MP. Can you imagine a US or UK news channel discussing their internal matters with an Indian MP ? Look at the interview, at 1.30min onwards the MP says clearly that Modi has been elected by the people of Gujarat and it is not appropriate for him (the MP) to interfere in the democratic process of India. He further says that the invitation is because of the deep economic and trade interests. It is then that this airhead, agenda driven joke of journalist brings up the "blot" of riots in front of a foreign MP. An absolute disgrace.