Isabel Guerrero is the newly minted World Bank Country Director for India. She hails from Chile and her experience is centered around Latin America.In a recent interview, Tehelka Journalist Sankarshan Thakur did the number on her.
It is one thing to push the boundaries of journalism ethics in the context of local politics where rhetorics run high, quite another to play dirty tricks on a high official of an international agency.
Consider the headline: "Privatisation puts too much wealth in too few hands". It appears in quotes, giving the impression that it is a verbatim statement of Ms. Guerrero. Unfortunately, she never said anything like that in the interview. The closest she got was this:
We did push privatisation. I was myself part of the team that went to the former Soviet Union, post-collapse, and we all said privatisation is a very good way out. And then we realised that it was a mistake. First of all because there were no institutions in the post-collapse Soviet Union and we did not realise the importance of institutions. You don’t have the right governance, privatisation gets captured by a few and then you create inequalities.Note that she mentioned privatization in the context of Soviet Union here. What she meant was that unless the right institutions are in place, privatization can lead to cronyism, this is not a new insight.
The whole interview runs pretty much like this. Sankarshan tries his level best to ask leading questions. The article twists her statements out of context and fits them into the Congress template of inclusive justice.
She keeps on saying that she does not have much domain knowledge about India. Her statements mostly relate to Latin America. Her comments on the correlation between income disparity and violence is added as a caption to an image of Naxals. But she has this to say:
ST: Very similar things are happening in India, in the Naxal belt.This is travesty of journalism. This is worse than Stalinist era communist propaganda, far worse because it completely destroys the respect people are supposed to have for international institutions such as the World Bank. What is the point of feeding her with "Salva Judum", "civil war-like situation" etc.? Why didn't Sankarshan Thakur just say to her, look Ma'am, we have an election coming up. Could you please repeat parts of the Congress election manifesto?
IG: I don’t know that at all, I have just about arrived.
ST: In terms of the Bank and all its talk of inclusive development, there is a deep problem here…
IG: Is it as bad as what I told you about? [Ed. she is referring to the Latin American experience she had just narrated]
ST: It is quite bad. You have huge areas in which there is actually no government or police because they fear going there. There is inequity and poverty. There is a State-sponsored armed vigilante movement called Salva Judum, there is a civil war-like situation backed by the State.
IG: Is this linked to drugs? [Ed. She is that clueless about India yet]
ST: You think India is in the phase where inequality is increasing?We hope that sensible people take this issue up with the Indian board of journalism or something. If we let reporters do this sort of things with leaders of foreign nations, we will have a huge diplomatic issue on our hands.
IG: Probably. I don’t know the numbers but that is my sense. Indians have to decide what they want to do about it. As I said you have a strong sense of solidarity and something should come out of this good thing.
Sankarshan Thakur tries his level best to put words into her mouth. But fortunately for us, India's latest World Bank Chief is quite sensible. She doesn't jump to conclusions. Hope something good comes out of her tenure.
ST: You think India’s heading that way: too many things with too few?
IG: I don’t know, I am too new here to say. You really need to know countries.

















