India, Nov. 15 -- Even though, as an anchor, Iask questions for a living, I'moften placed on the spot by people who question me. Recently, one caught my attention because it wasparticularly striking. The questioner had closely observed me and reflected upon what he witnessed. Today, I've decided to answer in public. "I'm perplexed by the way you usually address your guests", the question began. "Even when your guest is clearly senior and more important, you don't use the word Sir or Madam. Isn't that discourtesy? And yet when the guest is the same age and of a similar standing, you don't call them by their first names. Isn't that needless formality? What's the logic behind either of these ways of addressing people?" My answer is simple and straightforward, and is closely connected to the sort of interviews I do. They're current affairs interviews, not celebrity chat-show discussions. The demands of the interview, which I will explain in a moment, determine how I address my guests. It's not arbitrary or idiosyncratic. I would say it's carefully thought through. In current affairs interviews, it is important not to address your guest as 'Sir'. This is because such interviews are conducted in the belief the interviewer and interviewee, at least for the duration of the interview, are equal. You can't really toughly question your guest if that is not assumed to be so. The use of the term Sir/Madam shatters this illusion. It places the guest on a pedestal and, thus, higher than or more important than the interviewer. Think about it. In current affairs interviews, particularly of the Devil's Advocate variety, the use of the term Sir suggests deference. You won't succeed in conveying the impression that you are being tough if you are deferential in your term of address. It's contradictory. The word Sir conveys the wrong message. This is why no matter who my guest is, I don't call them Sir. Instead, I say Mr. X or Ms. Y. If he or she is a minister, I would simply call them minister. This is not discourtesy. It's a way of ensuring and protecting the illusion of equality. I'm pretty certain most, if not all, my guests recognise or, at least, sense that. Now let's come to the second part of the question. Why don't I use first names? In a sense, it's for the opposite reason. The use of first names can suggest a chumminess or familiarity, which can also undermine the interview. You are unlikely to be tough and unrelenting with someone you refer to by his or her first name. Familiarity precludes rigour and assertiveness. I am, in fact, truly riled when anchors interview politicians calling them bytheir christian names. Not only doesthis strategically weaken the interview but it also does something else. It suggests a relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee from which theaudience is excluded. They know each other while the audience knows neither. To that extent, it excludes the audience from the discussion. To be honest, I would go one step further. I wouldn't use the suffix Ji either. To my mind, it works like Sir or Madam. Equally, I wouldn't use the term Didi, as many anchors do when they interview Mamata Banerjee. That suggests a relationship outside the bounds of the interview. After four decades and more of anchoring interviews, these rules are cardinal for me. However, the situation would be very different if I were doing a chat-show interview. Here, first names should be used every time. Remember, these are informal if not friendly conversations. In these circumstances, the term Sir/Madam or even Mr/Ms would distance and jar. Now, does that answer the question I was asked? And is it a convincing answer? If you think carefully about it, I'm sure most of you would agree. Watch carefully interviews where the rule I've adumbrated is not observed. Do they work? Or do they stumble and falter because the guest is being wrongly addressed? Pay close heed to the next few interviews you see, and I'm confident you'll realise I'm right....