You know what, I have a huge admiration for Karan Thappar. What makes him different than the rest of interviewers from the Indian television scene is that, he is well-researched and very much up to the point in many of his interviews, rather than throwing some silly questions and being happy and content in just asking some questions.
Here he puts forward a good thought in an interview with Farooq Abdullah while they talk about Shashi Tharoor and the recent IPL controversy:
Farooq Abdullah: I don’t think so, I don’t think he needs to be corrupt
Karan Thapar: He doesn’t need to be?
Farooq Abdullah: No
Karan Thapar: Need doesn’t determine corruption.
Ever since Tharoor was contesting for MP from Trivandrum, the people who were supportive of him was of the opinion that he could not be corrupt like the other politicians because he doesn’t need to be corrupt. Because he gets – and they made up some big figures about this – a large amount of pension from United Nations and runs his own business. Some say it is 40 lakhs per month. Some say its more than that. But I really don’t get that point. Is privately owned wealth a good reason enough to claim that people wouldn’t be or needn’t be corrupt? If so, why isn’t that kind excuse offered to other rich and allegedly-corrupt politicians in India? How is Shashi Tharoor any different?