I already agreed with you on the optics aspect - as confined to the Conclave.Well if you look at that Q&A, Rahul Kanwal had clear these were the two narratives which were playing at the international stage and wanted to pick the minister's mind on how India was going to manage our narrative..... It seemed the junior minister did not have the patience to even listen to his full question. Well compare this to Shashi Tharoor, may be the comparison is not fair, who answers tough and awkward questions on the 'family dynasty' with great articulation and aplomb. I concede sometimes it's nothing more than verbal sophistry and nothing more, but that's how public figures should handle awkward questions....
This was English Q&A, on a English channel, attended by a largely English speaking audience, who had enough education to know that the minister was ducking the question in the most uncharacteristic manner.... This reflects poorly on him, in my opinion.
But as I explained, in the larger context of an impending election it made perfect sense to be in sync with the party messaging.
That old hag Ahluwalia already created ripples by speaking out of turn (that maybe the strikes weren't intended to hurt anyone!).
Rahul Kanwal could have asked a generic question on how the government could be more proactive with their communications....instead he quoted news entities that were directly peddling Paki lies (with no mention of Indian claims on downing F16 etc; & the news sites were concealing how Pakis were playing fast&loose with facts & changing narrative by the hour). By repeating the fake news in a setting like that...Rahul was challenging Goyal and giving credence to such lies.....which is not good journalism!