The only person that becomes controversial from his interviews is he himself. He is either admired or loathed by people after the interviews he conducts. But the very essence of those interviews, to reveal the person he is interviewing, to get as much credible and relevant information about the interviewee gets lost or forgotten due to the kind of characteristics he shows in the interviews. I cannot think of any interviews of politicians or celebrities in western country that I have watched where the interviewer has come out as more controversial than the interviewee. If this was to be the case, what is the point of the interview? Vijay Kumar feeds his ego in all the interviews he conducts thus failing miserably to gain the purpose of the interview.