When ‘no questions’ becomes standard practice

US Ambassador Sergio Gor may have inadvertently exposed something more revealing about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's relationship with the press than he intended.

Speaking at the Economic Times World Leaders Forum, Gor said India had asked ahead of PM Modi's meeting with US President Donald Trump at the G7 summit in June that journalists could be present but not ask questions. Gor said he conveyed this to Trump, who agreed — only to turn to the cameras after the leaders' opening remarks and ask: "Any questions?" What followed, Gor said, was a 45-minute media interaction.

As per a Times of India report, the Indian government's response is revealing. It has not disputed that such a request was made. Instead, government sources said discussions over arrangements for leaders' public appearances are "normal practice" before VVIP visits and that India had communicated its "standard practice".

That raises a rather obvious question. If ‘no questions’ is standard practice, what does that say about the standard?

There is nothing unusual about governments negotiating media arrangements for a VVIP meeting. Security, access, camera positions and the format of an interaction are all legitimate matters of protocol. But a journalist being allowed into a room while being told not to ask a question is not really a media interaction. It is a photo opportunity with journalists present.

And in Modi's case, this is hardly an isolated incident. The prime minister has not held a solo press conference in India since taking office in 2014. He has given interviews, made speeches and appeared alongside foreign leaders, including at joint press conferences. But the open-ended format in which journalists can ask questions, pursue an answer and ask follow-ups has remained exceptionally rare.

That makes Gor's account less about one meeting with Trump and more about a governing style.

Gor added another, rather extraordinary, observation at the same event. "I love getting back home and watching Indian TV news shows," he said. "The later it gets, the crazier the shows become." He described panels in which eight or 12 people were talking simultaneously, saying that viewers could barely hear anyone.

He went further, saying that he had once thought America had a serious fake-news problem, but that some of what gets reported on Indian television was "nowhere close to the mark".

There is an obvious irony here. India does not exactly suffer from a shortage of television news coverage of the PM. Nor does Modi lack access to media platforms willing to give him extended space to speak.

In other words, even in a media environment in which much prime-time television has been criticised for being conspicuously friendly to the government, the preference remains for controlling the question rather than answering it. That is the part worth dwelling on.

Modi has argued that he communicates directly with citizens through rallies, interviews, social media and other platforms. That is true. But none of those is a substitute for a press conference.

The point of a press conference is not merely to give journalists access to a politician. It is to surrender some control over the conversation. A speech lets the politician choose the subject. An interview lets the politician choose whether, where and with whom to speak. But a press conference allows a journalist to ask the question the politician did not prepare for — and, crucially, to ask a second question when the first answer does not suffice. That unpredictability is precisely what makes it journalism.

The government may be right that negotiations over VVIP media arrangements are routine. But after 12 years without a solo press conference, perhaps the more uncomfortable question is whether the routine itself has become the story.

Because a democracy does not merely need leaders who are willing to speak. It needs leaders who are willing to be asked. And sometimes, apparently, it takes a Trump to ask: "Any questions?"