INTERVIEW

‘It’s all about market share’: Arnab Goswami’s funder Rajeev Chandrasekhar on Republic TV and more

The businessman and Rajya Sabha MP opens up on his media investments, leaked emails, The Wire and his alleged conflicts of interest.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar is less bombastic than the man who runs his most famous investment. The businessman-turned-media owner-turned politician has been in the headlines in recent months for being one of the principal investors in Arnab Goswami’s Republic TV. But where that channel thinks of itself as the conscience of the nation, Chandrasekhar is clearer about what Republic is doing.

“I think the mandate in the newsrooms of the media brands I have invested in is very simple,” Chandrasekhar said, in an interview to Scroll.in. “You have got to have a large share of the market. You have to do what you have to do to get a large share of the market. That’s my only brief. If that happens to be a slight leftist slant in a market that requires a leftist slant, they do that, if it requires a certain slant in another market, they do that.”

Republic TV is only the most recent of Chandrasekhar’s many media investments. The Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, who is also the National Democratic Alliance’s Vice Chairman in Kerala, owns shares in Malayalam television network Asianet News, newspaper Kannada Prabha, TV channel Suvarna News and Radio Indigo, and rumours suggest he is considering an investment in TV9.

BJP mouthpiece?

Asianet News, his oldest media holding, comes up a lot while discussing Republic TV. This is because Goswami and the rest of the channel seem more willing to question the stances of the Opposition and even students at Jawaharlal Nehru University than holding the BJP-run Centre to account. Asianet News, however, is generally seen to be Leftist. This allows Chandrasekhar to say his own interests are simply in successful media companies, not ones that push a specific line – even though he is a leader of the BJP-run NDA.

“I’m an investor and editors of our channel run the channel,” Chandrasekhar said. “I’ve been told my Kerala channel, Asianet News, has a leftist point of view. That’s the journalists of that product. The Kannada channel has a different point of view, an anti-establishment point of view, whoever the establishment is. Republic has a different point of view, and people have accused it of being pro-BJP, mouthpiece of the BJP. That is for the editor to explain. It’s not for the shareholder to explain.”

Chandrasekhar insists that he prizes credibility as much as his emphasis on gaining market share, claiming that he would obviously not employ journalists who would blatantly lie. But when he asked how he judges credibility, as a check against those simply pandering to echo chambers to build an audience, his answer is somewhat circular: Credibility comes from the size of the audience.

“For us, it’s about looking at building brands that are credible,” he said. “Credible is important from the size of the audience, and that the audience believes in it. That is the only measure of it. What is the other measure? I don’t want to slip into this easy trap of having three people decide what is credible...Large audience will only come if they believe in that brand. There is no way you can be a compromised brand, and a brand lacking credibility, and at the same time have a large number of people following you.”

Prima donna editors

Chandrasekhar dismissed the suggestion that brands like America’s Breitbart News, a right-wing news organisation that has been known to spread fake news, make it evident that simply having a large audience is not the same as being credible. He insisted, at one point in the interview, that his brands are different because he puts real journalists in charge, who can be held accountable. But he also insisted the era of the editor deciding what to cover in the news is over.

“There has to be a realisation among a lot of so-called prima donna editors that they are not the custodians of what people want or don’t want or they think they want or don’t want,” Chandrasekhar said. “With digitisation and the complete disintermediation of the audience and the news, people are now directly demanding a, b and c because of what they want. Some editors don’t like that...but that is the future. The future is not one wise man or two wise men sitting and sort of saying, thou shall be given this knowledge because that’s what you need.”

And what if that wise man refers to himself as The Nation?

“My point is this issue that one man or two men or a woman knows what you want, is done with,” he said. “It went out whether you’re a politician, whether you’re in media, whether you’re a businessman, it has all gone out the door. Today, anything can be challenged.”

Leaked email

Which brings us to an email that leaked out of Chandrasekhar’s office in 2016. The email, first reported on by Newslaundry, was sent from the office of the Chief Operating Office of Jupiter Capital, the holding company through which Chandrasekhar invests in media firms and others. The email, sent to the heads of Chandrasekhar’s various media companies, said all editorial talent must be “right of centre”, “pro-Military,” and “aligned to Chairman’s ideology”. The Chairman here is Chandrasekhar. The email was withdrawn the next day.

“First of all, it is not my email. I have investigated it after it was reported to me, and it has nothing to do with anybody in my team. The theory that has been put out there is that this is a disgruntled employee who is trying to do a hatchet job on someone. Regardless of that, it’s not my time and effort to waste something on that. The performance of our media investments is reflected by what they do.”

Does he take issue with people saying Republic is a BJP mouthpiece, in part because of his connections to the National Democratic Alliance?

“I have worked extremely hard to create a track record of public service that is out there for everyone to see,” he said. “Now if Republic coming in and taking this line or that line is the only way you can make a narrative fit is that there’s a grand conspiracy of this guy being in the NDA and him having business interests and him warmongering and Republic being at the centre of this conspiracy, if that makes you satisfied then go for it. I’m not going to stop you from doing it.”

The Wire injunction

But he is trying to stop people from doing it. Chandrasekhar went to a Bengalaru court in March and convinced it to order news website The Wire to take down two articles about him, which Chandrasekhar claimed were defamatory.

“Look, I won’t say much on this except to say if a political person uses a platform to slander me, I have the right – please remember one thing, every one of us has rights. Just because I am a media investor doesn’t mean I surrender my rights. If you slander me, and say a deliberate lie, and you are a political person, not a journalist, then I have the right to do what I do. Which is to take you to court and let us adjudicate that dispute in court.”

The political person Chandrasekhar is referring to here is Sachin Rao, the author of one of the articles that has since been taken down. Rao, who is said to be part of Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi’s core team, wrote a piece pointing out that Chandrasekhar is a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence while also investing in a company, AxisCades, which has a manufacturing contract from the Ministry of Defence.

“There was a person there, one of the persons who wrote that article was a political guy,” Chandrasekhar said. “I have fought for freedom of expression, I have fought section 66a, nobody went to court, I did it. I have absolutely no problem with anybody criticising Republic, I have absolutely no problem with anyone criticising me. But don’t do something that is so blatantly wrong, of connecting dots that don’t exist and then characterising me in a manner that is absolutely wrong. Then to say, freedom of expression and I must not do anything. That is unfair. What have I said? Let’s discuss this in court.”

David and Goliath

But Rao’s wasn’t the only piece that was taken down. Chandrasekhar’s defamation case also included another piece by journalist Sandeep Bhushan, which made similar connections between the MP’s Parliamentary standing, his media investments and his business interests. Chandrasekhar admitted that he might have let his lawyers do too much.

“The second piece sort of got dragged along with it,” he said. “The action was against the platform. In anything today in defamation, the way the legal is setup that is how the lawyers take you. The lawyers take you in that direction. I am not a lawyer.”

He goes even further, admitting for the first time that taking action against The Wire might have been counterproductive.

“I think I wanted to essentially exert my right to defend myself,” he said. “Unfortunately in India today the only way to defend your rights is through defamation. There’s no other way of doing it. Did the other party use that beautifully to spin it as some David and Goliath manner and raise money and all that? They probably did. In hindsight would I have not allowed the lawyers to drag me in that particular direction? Maybe. I would have explored some other ways of doing this.”

Other organisations, like Newslaundry and the Indian Express, also covered some of the same material as the Wire articles did. But Chandrasekhar said he only proceeded against the website because one of the pieces was written by a political person, which is not the same as if it were by a journalist.

If political involvement in journalism is the problem, then does Chandrasekhar not see a contradiction when he, a politician, funds a number of news organisations including Republic?

“If a political person uses a platform to slander me, I have the right to defend myself. I have no problem with the politicisation of the ownership of Wire. I have no problem with who’s invested in Wire. Did I say there are five businessmen including Nandan Nilekani who has invested in Wire? Did I say that? So then? I’m saying, limited point: Why should everything be a grand conspiracy. If you say something blatantly untrue about me, I have no right to defend myself?”

Chandrasekhar is referring to the Independent Public Spirited Media Foundation, which counts Infosys co-founder and former Congress candidate Nandan Nilekani as one of its anchor donors. The IPSMF has provided grants of Rs 3.74 crore to the Foundation for Independent Journalism, which publishes the Wire.

Defence interests

Chandrasekhar sees a deeper problem with the narrative about his business interests conflicting with his role as a politician. He believes an approach like this will only keep business people out of politics, or encourage them to hide their investments.

“Look, technically as an entrepreneur and an MP, if you say an entrepreneur cannot sit on any committee then entrepreneurs will not be in politics,” he said. “By that token, I will not be on the committee on tourism, I will not be on the committee on finance, I will not be on the committee on anything, because some company in my investment portfolio will be doing something somewhere,” Chandrasekhar said. “We must not allow true entrepreneurs to get browbeaten out of politics. If it is to be kept hidden, if you want business interests to go underground, it will go underground. Are you telling me today if a Member of Parliament comes and discloses all of his interests as an entrepreneur, that is bad?”

Chandrasekhar insists that he can’t tell his companies what to do, that they are free to invest as they wish. At the same time, he says they will not invest in anything that would directly seem like a conflict of interest for him, such as manufacturing weapons or tanks.

“This defence narrative also has crept up from somewhere,” he said. “Where is the investment in defence? I have invested in a series of technology companies…all of them are technology investment. Now today there is no technology company that does not do work with the government. It suits everybody fine to characterise that as some defence. It’s not like I’m selling aeroplanes or tanks or weapons.”

Criticism and Twitter

Still, he insists he is open to criticism and happy to take questions on uncomfortable issues. Indeed, the brief his office emailed before the interview said he was open to questions on the legal action taken against The Wire, his alleged conflict of interest and the leaked email. Chandrasekhar says public life means being open to taking criticism, something he does on Twitter as well.

“I think Twitter is good, but with all good things that technology provides, there are downsides,” he said. “I don’t get too bent out of shape on that. I think you have to accept that the moment you put a platform out there that is public, and you put yourself out there you have to accept that you will take a lot of flak, you will take a lot of negatives, you will take lots of trash....I don’t like just nonsense, but if people say what is your view on Republic or I want to engage with you on your role in NDA in Kerala, I have no problem with that. The day I entered public life, I realised you have to deal with healthy scepticism with a healthy sense of patience.”

When pointed out that, despite this healthy sense of patience, his Twitter account has blocked this reporter’s account, Chandrasekhar is surprised.

“How come? It must have been something to do with Wire. I don’t know, my team does share the use of my Twitter account. So we shall unblock you.”

Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version of the piece said Chandrasekhar “inherited” ownership of Asianet News. Chandrasekhar retained ownership of Asianet News, as a result of regulatory restrictions, after selling the rest of Asianet Communications – a company he bought in 2006 – to Star TV between 2008 and 2014. The piece has also been updated to include additional details about the Wire’s funding.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.

Play

In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.

Play

Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.

Play

The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.

Play

The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.