Amal Clooney & Obama: Celebrities with clay feet
Both Obama and Clooney have a side that contradicts the freedom of speech they espouse, and it diminishes them, writes Karan Thapar in his new book Devil's Advocate
O ba ma and Cl ooney have aside that contradicts the freedom of speech they espouse, writes KARAN THAPAR inhisnew book‘ Devil' s Advocate’
Have you noticed how the people you are eager to meet often prove to be disappointing? Perhaps anticipation builds up huge expectations but rather than their perceived star qualities, it’s their faults and flaws you notice. …
In the last couple of years, I have experienced this on at least two prominent occasions. Each proved to be a huge disappointment. Though at the time the need for discretion kept my lips sealed, now I feel I can be more open. …
In March 2016 I was invited to moderate the gala finale of the India Today conclave with Amal Clooney. The combination of a high-flying internationally acclaimed lawyer and the wife of one of Hollywood’s leading stars was irresistible. I accepted with alacrity.
Now let me not mislead you. There’s no doubt that Mrs Clooney is striking. Though painfully thin, she has presence….
Mrs Clooney’s formal speech to the conclave was about freedom of speech. She spoke about her famous clients, former president Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives; Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, Al Jazeera’s former chief of bureau in Egypt who had been imprisoned for months; and Khadija Ismayilova, an Azerbaijani journalist who was then languishing in jail. Though she didn’t say so, Amal Clooney emerged as the protector of their liberty and, perhaps, their best hope for justice. As she spoke, the audience warmed to this selfpresentation.
Alas, how different was the reality hidden under the surface, which the audience was unaware of. Amal Clooney, though speaking to a conclave organised by a television channel, had forbidden the live broadcast of her speech as well as the questionand-answer session that followed. She also insisted that nothing could be broadcast afterwards without her clearance, which meant that she wanted the right to edit whatever she was asked or said. In the end, nothing of her speech was broadcast and only approximately six minutes of her thirty-minute Q&A were permitted to be shown. …
Of course, she had a contract that permitted this. So it was her prerogative to exercise these rights and the channel, no doubt, had been shortsighted in agreeing to such terms. But the incongruity of a human rights lawyer who champions freedom of speech insisting on rigidly restricting the broadcast of what she said was, for me, more damaging than anything else. …I guess you could say that Amal Clooney preaches freedom of speech but, at least, in her own case, practises something closer to censorship.
If anything, the second time something similar happened was even more disillusioning. That’s because it involved one of the world’s brightest political stars. … And if you haven’t guessed whom I’m referring to, the answer is Barack Obama.
Former President Obama was the key and most sought-after guest at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in December 2017. News that he was to attend became known a few months earlier and with every passing day the frisson of excitement grew more palpable. …
Some four weeks before D-day, I suddenly got a call from the chairperson and editorial director of the Hindustan Times, Shobhana Bhartia, my former boss who has remained a good friend.
‘Karan,’ Shobhana began, ‘Can I come and see you?’
‘Of course,’ I said, somewhat surprised. Shobhana had never asked to see me before and I couldn’t understand why she felt the need to do so now. ‘But what’s the problem? What’s happened?’ ‘I want to ask you for a favour.’ ‘But you don’t have to come to my office to do that!’ I replied, somewhat flabbergasted. ‘You can ask over the phone and I would be happy to help in any way I can.’
Only Shobhana knew where our conversation was heading. I was clearly flummoxed which, perhaps, is why she suddenly started giggling. When she does, she sounds like an innocent schoolgirl. You would never believe she’s actually sixty years old. ‘You know I’ve got Barack Obama coming for the leadership summit this year. I wondered if you would moderate the session with him?’
‘Do you call that asking for a favour?’ I responded. …To use a colloquialism, I was gob smacked …. Every journalist in India would have jumped at this chance. For me, by then boycotted by Narendra Modi and his government, this was a heaven-sent opportunity to reestablish my credentials and cock a snook at the miserable heartedness of the BJP.
‘If course I’ll do it. I’m thrilled and honoured to accept.’…
Preparations for the Obama session began almost immediately. However, this is also when the scales began to fall from my eyes. With every passing day, it became not just apparent but undeniable that Barack Obama is not an easy man to deal with. …
With three weeks still left for D-Day, I was told by the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit director, Anand Bhardwaj, that Obama wanted the questions he was likely to be asked in advance…. I expressed my astonishment to Anand, but was told that the paper had agreed to Obama’s request. In addition, Anand didn’t seem to think it was such an extraordinary demand. So I submitted an initial list of sixteen questions… .
Within days of sending the questions, Anand Bhardwaj called to say that the Obama team wanted five dropped. It didn’t take me long to discover that these five were the potentially difficult ones in the collection. But they also happened to be questions that either dealt directly with issues he had covered or decisions he had taken as president or with primary concerns for the Indian people.
…This was like waving a sort of metamorphical red flag at a bull— it was bound to invite a challenging response, if not outright defiance….
The first question was to do with Obama’s claim, made when he visited India as chief guest on Republic Day in 2015, that the resolution of the nuclear liability issue was ‘a breakthrough understanding’. … Here’s the precise question:
The 2015 visit, when you came as chief guest on Republic Day, ended with an agreement resolving the nuclear liability issue which you called ‘a breakthrough understanding’. in contrast, The New York Times said itwas ‘vague and inconclusive’ and an attempt to kick the problem into the long grass. Given that nearly three years have passed and neither Westinghouse nor GE have taken meaningful steps to establish a nuclear plant in india, whose description was right? Yours or The New York Times’?
The other question I was determined to retain was about what Indians consider America’s equivocation, or even two facedness, over the terror India faces from certain groups in
Pakistan. Here’s the question:
Now you once said: ‘America can be India’s best partner.’ on another occasion you called IndiaUS relations ‘one of the defining partnerships of the twenty-first century’. And to be honest, both your predecessor and your successor have spoken in very similar terms. Yet many Indians feel that America differentiates between the terror groups based in Pakistan that target Afghanistan and, perhaps, the US, and those like LeT and Jaish that target India. How do you address this concern?
Alas, Obama didn’t really answer either. Though he spoke at length, he deftly evaded answering. …
The nice part was that I had more time to question Barack Obama than the twenty minutes in the original schedule. His prepared speech had barely lasted fifteen minutes. That was at least twenty, if not twenty-five minutes shorter than expected. My Q&A was the beneficiary. It now stretched for forty-five minutes.
This worked to both our advantage. It gave me time to bring in the questions I knew Obama did not want asked without dropping any that I sensed he was keen to speak about. … So by the time we came to the end of the hour, I felt I could get away with one more ‘resurrected’ question. This time it wasn’t a serious one. It was an attempt at humour so that our conversation would end on a lighthearted note. My intention was to leave the audience laughing. ‘Finally, President Obama,’ I began, ‘America is famous for two Donalds—Donald Duck and Donald Trump. Which one represents the real America?’ The audience got the joke at once and burst into laughter.
We all expected a witty comeback from the former president. But that was not to be. Instead, he chose to sidestep the question and deliver a long homily on equality and the importance of treating people fairly. …
Later I was told that the former president had found the question offensive. But for the life of me I’m not sure what offended him unless, of course, it’s improper and inappropriate to joke with him or ask him to respond to one.
All of this means that my memories of meeting Barack Obama are a confusing, if not polarizing, mix of awe and delight alongside disappointment and disillusionment. There’s no doubt that at one level he comes across as an inspiring, charming, informal and friendly celebrity. He’s bewitching, though he keeps you at a distance, but that reserve, paradoxically, only enhances the attraction you feel. But on another level, it was deeply disillusioning to discover how he wanted to vet questions, strike out those he did not like and complain because a few had still been asked. It’s not what I’d expected of him and it made me question whether the captivating image we all have is also carefully manufactured or as cosmetically created as his approach to the Q&A.
BarackObama is not an easyman to deal with. In fact, he is so protective of himself and so determined to avoid awkward and difficult moments that he has no hesitation in making demands that amount to censoring his interlocutors