Lifestyle magazine covers (I see one on the desk), photo-shoots, on-ground events, online spoofs, comedy shows… This rockstar treatment is rather new to journalism. How’ve you taken it? Or is this just an outcome of television as a medium?
(Laughs) Bottom line is, I’m launching a TV channel, and I’m not swimming on wads of money. I’m going around talking to people to spread my message. It reduces my marketing costs. It’s as simple as that.
I remember reading in a magazine once where you said that your job is to report news, not become the news itself. But you are very much the news itself!
I’m not the news at all. There is public anticipation for Republic TV; also because I’ve been away for some time. When I quit (Times Now), late November, people told me it would take a year to launch a TV channel. Here we are, ready, in 4 months. In 120 days we got 300 people onboard, multiple offices across the country—Delhi, state capitals—with complete infrastructure. So there is buzz around. All the attention that’s coming to me is the attention that’s coming to Republic TV.
Your sell, as it were, has been that Republic will be India’s first independent news channel. But all news channels need investments, advertisers, have stake holders, and therefore inevitable agendas. Is it really possible for anyone to be independent, unless you’re running a personal blog or Twitter handle?
I do things without being influenced by anybody’s agendas. Our previous channel (Times Now) was very popular for the journalism it did, and therefore there were lots of advertisers, and audiences. That’s enough to run your ship. I’m not personally greedy for anything more. As for independence, I have never compromised, or allowed any individual interest, advertiser, or political party, to influence our opinion. Being in Bombay helps us do that. We’re away from politicians, and in the real world.
There is a formula to television news content, if I can call it that, which you cracked, and many, especially in Hindi channels, have tried to adopt since: 1. Nationalism. 2. Corruption (somebody else’s, not the viewer’s own) 3. Terrorism, which at some level is also linked to nationalism. It’s almost as if this nation has no other major problems. Do you think this formula has peaked?
I’ve never looked upon things as a formula to build viewership. I think terrorism is a reality that this country has faced. To report on events, threats, and radicalisation that lead to terrorism is not a formula, but my responsibility as a journalist. Second, exposing corruption at the highest level is something we’ve consistently done. Which is, again, my duty as a journalist. As for nationalism, my love for my country comes from my heart.
When I exposed 5-6 scams in 2010, the entire ‘Lutyens’ media’ stood up against me, and was on the side of the then Establishment. Maybe that’s the formula of the ‘Lutyens’ and ‘Lutyenised’ media. Which is to play safe all the time. I don’t play safe. They ask me, why are we sabre-rattling, asking so many questions, shouting? I ask them why are you so quiet? Why do you compromise so much? Why are you so neck-deep with people in the Establishment? After all these scams, when Manmohan Singh held a press conference, why did proprietors and editors not muster up courage to ask a single straight question to the PM?
Why did you go soft on Uniform Civil Code, Shani Shinghnapur, Haji Ali. I stick my neck out. One thing you can’t blame me for is lack of consistency. It is my right to speak my opinion. But even this view of mine is only my view. I’m willing to place it against everybody else’s. Eventually we’re in the media business. People will like, agree or disagree. I’m not forcing anyone to agree with me.
But that’s what you changed about debating on television, with evident success: Establishing the conclusion of a debate as news anchor, even before the debate has begun. That’s rather unfair, don’t you think?
Absolutely not. I’m a debater. Why should I sit there like a placid daffodil in the middle of a heated conversation? Anchors who do that are actually lying. They should be clear enough to disclose what their point of view is.
When Niira Radia tapes happened, it came to the public-fore that there were some journalists acting as conduits of business houses. Would you have imagined that those people usually talking big at Jaipur Literary Festival would actually be doing these things on the side? What I do is place my point of view openly, and visibly. I don’t do Niira Radia business. I have a view on issues you spoke about—terrorism, nationalism, corruption—and regarding our society. I’m a student of Indian sociology. Now what you said was: Do I place my point of view, and I’m adamant that only my point of view is correct?
Yes.
To that I’ll say if you notice all my debates, I often have more people disagreeing with me. We enjoy that healthy debate. I like the disagreement, and in that disagreement is the essence of our democracy. If we merely reported and not debated, we would not be able to engage with enough people this country. The soul of this country is not Bollywood, or cricket. The soul of this country is debate.
It is your show…
(Laughs) No, it’s not my show.
Of course it is, and you’ve decided what your point of view is…
I’m willing to be engaged. If a contrary opinion has come to me, and I’m proven to be factually incorrect, I have corrected myself on the show. I’ve said so very often.
Have you?
Many a times.
One of the things activists and NGOs tend to do—many of whom you’re not exactly a fan of—is to assert that their word is gospel of truth, and they are the only repositories of good faith, everyone else is an a**hole. If as a journalist, you take a similar stance, that’s being an activist, isn’t it?
I would never do that. I wouldn’t be foolish enough to presume that I’m completely right all the time. What I do is this: Before I place my opinion on every issue, I do a fair amount of research. I come in prepared. I understand the other perspective, and I’m willing to be corrected. I’m a debater by profession, and will essentially always remain one. Some of my own colleagues have corrected me on my programme. I’m open to that. But I do get involved during debates. I can’t help it, and would rather not.
You are an extremely persuasive speaker, and in the spur of the moment can steamroller any opposing view. But the fear is, especially on certain issues, like nationalism…
Nationalism is not an issue. It is a reality. In fact there needs to be much more sense of nationalism in this country. I don’t understand why this ‘Aman Ki Asha’ lobby believes nationalism is a bad thing. How is it a bad thing?
How about linking Hinduism to nationalism—is that a bad thing? Do you think mixing politics and religion is a good thing?
Of course not. You cannot mix politics and religion. And linking Hinduism to nationalism is unacceptable.
The fear is that a lot of Right Wing trolls circulate your videos and arguments to further points that you don’t possibly mean yourself.
I don’t care about trolls—Right Wing, Left Wing, ‘Aaptard’, ‘Congi’ or Sanghi. I have my perspective. But if you call someone a Right Winger because that person is a nationalist, then that’s the most narrow definition of who’s a Right Winger.
If speaking up for people in uniform, criticising stone-pelters, calling out J&K CM for being pro-Pak, is being a Right Winger, then I’m happy to be a Right Winger. But then, what’s the definition of Right Wing, and Left Wing. There are illiterate people, who call themselves ‘Left-Liberal’, which is an oxymoron—a leftist cannot be liberal, and a liberal cannot be leftist, by definition. These are proclamations made by those in cocktail circuits who are neither Leftist in ideology, nor liberal by thought. I’m not part of that fashionable, politically-correct lit-fest, cocktail circuit. I cannot stand it. I’m part of the reality of this country.
Which is?
That the mood of this country is changing, and there is a need to be unified about things that are genuine challenges. Issues like terrorism cannot be taken lightly. Don’t you think about why, in this city (of Mumbai), we allowed a dangerous Salafi hate-preacher like Zair Naik to continue unchecked for 15 years? Is it politically incorrect to speak about these things? If it is, then I’m truly concerned about what we define as right and wrong.
Now when you express these points of view fearlessly on television constantly, you may become an irritant for people who believe there ought to be a certain kind of thinking in the Establishment. I have reopened peels of guilt among the pseudo liberal elite in this country, who have gone unquestioned for a long time.
I have questioned them all—from Shashi Tharoor, to Lalit Modi. Both of them were questioned by me. Why is it that when I was questioning Tharoor during IPL scam, nobody else was. Why was I going after Modi while others were doing deals with him? In my perspective, there is a system of patronage that has been built up in our country, and that includes a large part of the media. I want to correct that, and bring a sense of balance operating out of Mumbai.
Do you think a lot could have already changed since 2014, and the new Establishment?
I don’t think anything changes immediately. Living in Mumbai I don’t know enough about what’s been happening over the past couple of years. I see the top-level corruption (in the government) is visibly down. It’s not like people of this country don’t have enough complaints. But I do see some amount of strategic intent (from the government) in certain areas of strategy, defence and economy. No government is completely without fault.
As media, it is our responsibility to keep an eye on everyone. So we questioned people (from Congress) during the CWG scam. And we questioned (those from the BJP) on Vyapam (scam), and during Lalit-gate—Sushma Swaraj, Vijayraje Scindia. Even then, the same ‘Lutyens’ media’ said nothing. They’re almost in denial zone about stories that we do.
Relatively speaking, how responsive do you find the current government to be, with stories in the news media, on say Lalit-gate or Vyapam?
I can tell you with fair sense of delight that I’ve been boycotted by all political parties at various points in time—the BJP, Congress, and AAP.
The other thing, I’m told, this nation really wants to know is, how are you at home? Are you really this angry as a person? Or is that a persona acquired for television?
(Laughs) I do believe in the idea of debating. But it’s not like I’m debating all the time. And TV is a transparent medium. I’ve debated right from school at Mount St Mary’s School (Delhi), Kendriya Vidyalaya, to Hindu College, Oxford. I’m not the judge who sits in the middle, looks serious, doesn’t speak, and sometimes goes off to sleep. The person ‘for’ and ‘against’, and the audience, are involved in the debate. I’m already ‘for’ or ‘against’, and I’m debating with those on the other side.
So it’s not an act at all. It’s actually my obsession. And it’s our contribution to Indian society. This is how fierce we naturally are. I don’t want to artificially inject Calmpose into the conversation.
Would it be correct to say that Times Now got hugely hit after you left the channel?
I haven’t seen the channel since I quit.
Ratings wise?
Ratings show me that the leadership position is gone. Am I delighted that Times Now has slumped to where it is? I’m not. Would I be very happy to see the entire viewership base disappear? No. But I’m sorry, I’m not with that channel anymore, and I can’t do anything about it.
You were heading the channel. Could you not have perhaps built a second line of stars?
I’ve done whatever I could. We built a fairly good product. I can be responsible for it as long as I’m there. Now I’m launching Republic. Why the Twitter trends aren’t as hot for Times Now, why people aren’t engaging, these aren’t things I have any control over. You should ask those who have. On the contrary I would say the love and support towards Republic TV is a function of the sort of journalism we did at Times Now.
Just think about it. There’s a new generation starting a media enterprise where journalists—who at the core of it are reporters, not businessmen—are getting to manage the place. Earlier there were so many monopolies that stopped us from doing that. If this works out, then we’ll have many more experiments like this. So this is a David-Goliath fight. That’s great. And to be able to do it from Mumbai, where people said you could only start a business channel from, is fantastic. People are already calling Lower Parel the second media capital of India!
Final question?
Bolo. Grilling kar rahe ho (laughs)
You have the big launch story in your pocket already?
We’re working on some stuff. I don’t over-plan every move. It’s difficult enough to build a TV channel. I want to go with the flow.