http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?edorsup=Main&queryed=9&querypage=5&boxid=31781456&parentid=142000&eddate=06/08/2011

Kapil Sibal is in this very special place reserved for a few in the Congress like Manish Tewary and Abhishek Singhvi. And, for some unfathomable reason, only Congress boasts of such stalwarts on its rolls who can scalp a few honorable men anytime they wish.
These three gentlemen specialise in a genre of attack which could perhaps be called chew-till-mince for want of a more suitable coinage. Come to think of it, devising a nomenclature for their unmatched calibre is something they can apply their overactive minds to. Not to mention that this would spare some deserving rival a few moments of breathing space.
Check out Manish Tewari on any news channel any evening. You dont have to visit any particular one. All you have to do is surf a couple of them and he is on. The channels need him for the weighty discussions they host every evening on some issue of national importance. In a tele-version of musical chairs, the same players surface on different channels every day. It speaks volumes for their commitment but we are not on that.
Regardless of the subject under discussion, you'll find Manish frowning. When asked for his take by the anchor (I suppose that process follows the alphabetical order and with M ranking before N for BJP's south-accented Nirmala, Manish gets in first), Manish heads straight for battle. The issue could be the new education policy announced by the PM, and Manish shoots off like a pit bull hit by a tornado: "The BJP did nothing for years and here we are trying to help the poor but they wont let us. All they like to do is attack.   They are vicious, negative, .... " During the delivery of  this high-decibel lava, the ever-appreciative anchor would have tried to nudge the debate in the direction of some other issue or some other person. After a few attempted interventions, he succeeds when Manish pauses for a half-breath.
As this spiel was pronounced before the BJP had begun any of this much-anticipated attack, Nirmala is asked to comment. Nirmala simpers in response about how it is a good idea to provide right to education. Manish, half-hooded eyes and disgust in place, snaps, "What do you know about education? It would be in the interests of the people of the country if the main opposition party supports us. But that's not going to happen. They dont have the interests of the nation at heart. Look at what Vajpayee did when he was in power. He let Pokhran II happen. That has killed the natural appetite for education in the people. They want to live and learn but the BJP wants war."
The anchor, being a sound news journalist, is always eager for a new assessment of an issue and therefore listens respectfully. Some educationists yanked onto the pulpit then get a few murmurs in on the suitability of the policy. Manish listens with a grim scowl, his eyes radiating sparks through the screen at anyone who dares to look like he may dissent on the fact that Vajpayee intended to kill his countrymen.
No, this particular debate never took place. Probably because Dr Manmohan Singh cannot be seriously bothered with an education policy until Madam finds some stooge in that arena who can stuff her purse and signals the PM to let the stooge do his job.  Remember telecom policy for 2G, 3G and SG?
But this is certainly the drift of Manish's vocal contributions to any television "debate", as these time-spongers are called. I have often thought Nirmala should consider changing her name to something starting with a letter from A to L -- she will still be mauled every day but it will get her a word in first, see? -- and perhaps her party if she wishes to live. It is not humanly possible to be reborn every day.
But we were talking about Kapil Sibal. Unlike Manish whose mission is to save the world from every non-Congress alien and whose strategy involves biting the head off every panelist from the word 'go', Sibal belongs to a gentler breed. He is suave, or so the media would have us believe in the assumption that we dont get to watch him. Sibal achieves the same purpose as Manish but with less effort -- he demolishes any wannabe opponent by pulverising him out of business with his superior sneer.  Sibal does not speak in a forked tongue; he speaks with a forked face. His cold eyes take in the picture condescendingly while his lips, stretched into a smiling grimace or a grim smile (depending on your outlook), speak soft, happy words that kill without bloodshed.
Unlike Manish, he is not agitated but like Manish, he outwits every potential opponent on the panelist by the sheer force of his personality and power of his voice rather than his reasoning. It could be poor old Nirmala, Jaitley (often paired with Sibal for the the tempting sparring; Jaitley looks like a sulking child while Sibal scoffs and gruffs), or even a frail old man called Anna Hazare.
Sibal is unsparing and indiscriminating. He brooks no evil like an opponent. Compared to him, Manish looks warm and Abhishek Singhvi looks part-human. It is difficult to believe a Congressman is chosen on the basis of his hostility quotient. It is probably the other way round. Hostility becomes the Congressman in due course.
What is most intriguing is the media obliviousness to their charms. In a rote manner, the channels continue to indulge them, address them respectfully and actually pretend that the gems emerging from their mouths is distilled wisdom.
After having lived through Sibal's thousand barbs at the IIT faculty in the past single year alone, they innocently believe he will stand by them when a fellow minister and fellow media-digger Jairam Ramesh (known best for his ability to survive on a diet of his own words) casts aspersion on the quality of the faculty at IIT. All that Sibal said in response was, that since Ramesh was an IIT student himself, he perhaps knows. This can by no means be fashioned into a dig at his colleague. More like an endorsement of his take. Yet, the papers were full of Sibal’s moralistic standing by his team.
A day later, he said 25 per cent of the faculty are former IIT students. This could be implied to mean that Sibal meant that by Ramesh’s own reasoning, they were therefore good enough for the job. Well, this nothing statement sparked media frenzy and you had headlines screeching, ‘Sibal snubs Ramesh’ and 'Sibal defends IIT.' Never mind that Sibal said not a word about the 75 per cent faculty left out in his “defence.” Never mind that Sibal did not even say that at least 25 per cent were good.
If the media were smarter, they would see it for what it is. Sibal was actually wholeheartedly agreeing with his Ramesh that the IIT faculty was pathetic! Consider that he did not once make the basic statement that he was satisfied with the quality of IIT faculty and or that they were good. He made two smart statements- the first clearly declaring his agreement with Ramesh and the second, evidently made after a strong protest lodged by the IITs, still not standing by his team but making apologetic noises for one-fourth of them. But you could be forgiven for not getting this sense while reading the paper or watching the channels.