The other day I was on one of those television discussion panels, one of those 'Bengal Election Special' ones that pop up every time the state goes to the polls. I usually find myself in the minority on these programmes, unadorned as I am by any party affiliation, while everybody else comes waving their flag. Occasionally in these panels you might get an intelligent discussion, but mostly these things are verbal slugfests, cluster-rucks where all the different spokespeople try and shout wounding sound-bites over one another. Why do I agree to be on these panels? Well, partly because they are fun to watch from up close (sometimes), and partly because you can pick up gossip, or interesting attitudes, usually at the moments cameras aren't rolling. I've seen it so often but it never ceases to startle me how these politicians flick on their aggro-buttons when they are on air and how quickly, almost like professional film actors after a fight scene or a heavily emotional shot, they switch off and revert to civilities and asking after each others' families etc once the mikes are removed. It doesn't mean that any of these worthies will hesitate to slam one or two of the others into jail if the opportunity presents itself, but the idea is to avoid personal unpleasantness - the jail stuff can be done later by cops who are paid to do that sort of dirty work.

Since I detest the kind of WWF shouting that passes for debate and discussion on Indian TV, the few rules I try and lay on myself go like this: 1) Avoid raising your voice as far as possible. 2) Minimize the times you cut in when someone else is speaking - do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc. 3) Give others a long rope - most likely, the more they talk the more they will hang themselves. 4) As far as possible, address the issue or the argument and avoid personal attacks and wisecracks, no matter how odious your opponent. 5) Again, avoid raising your voice as far as possible; if there's a multi-cornered shouting match, keep out of it and watch the wreckage unfold, but from a distance. Having said this, I'd put my compliance rate of my own rules at about 6.25 out of 10. Each time I try and do better but it's not always easy. For instance, it is devilishly hard not to retaliate against gratuitous personal attacks, just as it is difficult to keep shtum when someone shamelessly unfurls a whopping huge lie. Another pitfall - and I've sometimes seen other non-combatants also make this mistake - is when you start playing schoolteacher and asking one or the other squabbling brats to let others speak. This is to be terminally avoided, I tell myself, it's not my job to fill the vacuum created by an anchor who is either ineffective or actually sees value being added to their show when it turns into a shout-riot.

More often that not, I find myself coming away from these programmes, whether live or recorded, with a feeling of deep dissatisfaction, with a sense that - yet again - all the culprits have got away without really answering any serious questions that a voter might have. When I express this to them, friends (far more sensible than I) find it hilarious. "Did you really expect any of these people to give substantive answers? How naïve are you, exactly? Do you also expect auto-rickshaws to go by the meter? Do you expect manufacturers to list the flaws of their product on the packaging?"

I may be comically naïve, or just plain mule-headed, perhaps, but I do want to be able to ask some straight questions on television and push for un-fudged, non-rhetorical, non-deflective answers from the people who want to rule over us. People like me may look foolish for some time to come, but my hope is that the day is not that far away when some politicians, maybe one at a time to begin with, will twig that there might be substantial chunks of votes attached to honest, short, cleanly articulated answers. That if everybody is playing the rhetorical grandstanding game, there might be some profit in marking yourself as different from the rest of the field.

To give one example, I've yet to see a West Bengal Congress representative reply straightforwardly to the question that can be most obviously asked of them: how come you are in an alliance with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in Bengal while fighting them tooth and nail in Kerala? The standard reply, the one we hear all the time, is "we will do whatever it takes to uproot the Trinamul from power". Yes, understood, but the question is, "Why?" Or, "Why are you so hell-bent upon de-throning the TMC in Bengal?" It's not my job to do the Congress's homework for them but surely there is an honest answer? For instance: "Our fight with the CPI(M) in Kerala is within the push and pull of normal politics, we have exchanged power with them, back and forth, over decades, and Kerala has benefited from this democratic process. When we joined hands with the TMC in Bengal in 2011 we made an error in judgment. We did not foresee how Mamata Banerjee's megalomania would become so toxic to the state and to normal democratic functioning in Bengal. To atone for this error we think the correct and humble thing to do is to ally as a junior partner with our old rivals, the CPI(M). The good of the people of West Bengal is more important than the progress of the INC." Many people may tear into the Congress for this reply but equally many others might nod and say, "Ah, they've learnt a lesson, they are being brutally honest, let's vote for them this time."

A second example is a mixture of arrogance, bravado, fudging and hypocritical humility. Whatever question you ask the good representatives of the TMC, their reply is a khichuri of the following: a) I don't have to answer your questions, the public will answer your questions on May 19; b) we have done great work in the state except the biased media won't mention it; c) such and such scandal is sub judice, caught up in procedure in the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha, no TV channel has run the footage without caveats, it's all lies, the public will give its judgment on the May 19; d) I will only say we are humbly standing before the people with our hands folded, quietly requesting them to allow us to continue the great work we have been doing. No. The point of elections is that you need to answer questions about your record now; we, who are asking the questions are also part of the public. No, maybe one media house can be biased, one or two channels might have taken against you, but your brief but scandalous reign is legend all over India via the national press and TV, Bengal is a laughing-stock of the country, so please list all the great things that you've done, that you've initiated, found the funding for off your own bat and executed. No, that footage is not fake, some of the stingees may be able to provide provable attenuating contexts, but where is your second line of command, who and how un-corrupt are they, should this happy bunch go to jail en masse? No, stop folding your hands and answer some questions.

But, indeed, why solely blame the TMC? At the recent TV discussion I asked all the four party spokesmen a single question: should you come to power what is your vision for West Bengal, what will you do when in government? The replies were telling. The gentleman from the TMC: "We will continue the unnayan, the progress and good work exactly as we have been doing." The Congress worthy: "When we were in power (he meant 39 years ago) we brought the most progress to the state and will bring that progress back." The young Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Turk from the Bharatiya Janata Party: "Your question tells me all I need to know about you. I can see through your mask and who you're working for. All of you are laughing at the thought of us being in power. But wait and see how many seats we get on May 19." The comrade from the CPI(M): "The first thing we will do is investigate all this huge TMC corruption. We will make sure the guilty are arrested. (At which point the TMC gent shouts "Clear vendetta.") However, we will not drive the TMC out of the state like they did us, they will be able to stay right here."

Delusions. Nostalgia for an imaginary past. Paranoia, bullying and bragging based on projections. Classic, regime-change account-keeping and tit-for-tattery. Nothing that even vaguely attempts to draw a road-map out of the nightmarish swamp in which we find ourselves. Television cameras running or not, these (non) answers indicate that, no matter who wins in May, things look likely to get (even) worse before they get any better. Happy 1423.