Kapur vs Kapoor, Gates vs Gates

It is routine for the gossip media, and even mainstream one, in this age of social media and digital platforms, to discuss the personal lives, and other salacious details of entrepreneurs, industrialists, and tycoons, apart from the usual celebrities, politicians, and others. Two recent incidents highlight this trend. The first is related to the co-founder of Zoho Corp, SridharVembu. Like many Indians, Vembu worked in the US as an entrepreneur. He was married there, separated from his wife, and then relocated to India.

Zoho Corp, by any yardstick, has done a fair job of making ‘Make-in-India’ a success. The Government announced that to reduce dependence on the foreign entities, it would shift most of its mail servers to the ones created by Zoho, a 100 per cent Indian firm. Of course, there were speculations, and sneers, about the quality of the services and products offered by Zoho. People were skeptical about Zoho’s launch of a WhatsApp-like app, Attarai. There was nothing wrong in such criticism, which is fair in a competitive business arena.

But what about the personal lives of such founders and co-founders? Suddenly, out of the blue, media platforms were awash with articles on the pending divorce of Vembu in the US. In came a few salacious and controversial details. A judge in California imposed an alleged fine, or holding fees, of nearly Rs 15,000 crore on Vembu, because he did not fulfill the monetary and financial obligations to his ex-wife. Many of these media stories turned out to be half-baked, half-truths, and outright lies. Obviously, a few critics felt that the media, in search for click-bait headlines, went a bit overboard.

The other incident relates to the assets of the late Sunjay Kapur, a tycoon who died suddenly in the UK. His name appeared in the gossip media because he was married to a well-known Bollywood actor, Karisma Kapoor. After his death, his will revealed that he had left the entire assets to his current wife, Priya Sachdeva, and excluded the ex-wife, Karisma, and her children, as well his own mother. Karisma and mother Rani have contested the will. Karisma says that it is forged. Rani claims that the assets were siphoned abroad by Priya, and a couple of crores of rupees are left in India.

There are big numbers involved. Sunjay Kapur’s assets, which include control over Sona Comstar, are worth INR30,000 crore. There are financial assets like mutual funds, and rental incomes, apart from physical assets like art works, and watches. Hence, it is a legal tussle about massive amounts. One assumes that the media will talk about the companies under Sunjay’s control, implications for the shareholders, and how much of the INR30,000 crore is vested in listed firms, and what portion is privately-held. But this is not the case.

Instead, the media focused on the claims and counterclaims of the family members, including the ex-wife, and her children. For example, one of the charges was that the will was written in the ‘female pronoun,’ and there were doubts whether the deceased signed it, or was it prepared and signed by a woman. Karisma’s children alleged that Priya, the wife, was greedy, and behaved like Cinderella’s mother. There were other charges about whether Sunjay was in a sane mind when, or if, he signed the will.

One need not be surprised by the two media circuses. In the US and Europe, there is widespread media coverage about the succession battles within the business families after the deaths of patriarchs and matriarchs, and divorces. When the multi-billionaire founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates, separated from his wife, Melinda, the globally-renowned Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, had to change its name. It was reported that Bill Gates was unfaithful in his marriage with Melinda. Which, of course, was more sensational.

Then there was the divorce of another multi-billionaire American, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, who was charged with doing the exact same thing as Bill Gates. The media talk was more about the massive fortune, worth about $70-80 billion that went to his erstwhile wife, and how she wanted to use the money for charity and other purposes. Of course, the one on the top of the media circus list is Tesla’s Elon Musk, who has 14 children, allegedly sired by different women. There are his views about love, marriage, and other issues.

But Musk is a unique character, and gossip does not seem to bother him. In fact, in some ways, he encourages it in the media. Nothing seems to affect his entrepreneurship, pursuits in frontier technologies, and business missions, and visions. The question to be asked by the media is that it may be legitimate to ask questions, and focus on the activities of the entrepreneurs and tycoons when they relate to the fortunes of their firms, business empires, and the future fortunes of the shareholders. But is it justified to salaciously cover their personal lives in a salacious manner?

Of course, the flip side is that everything is valid coverage once a person has decided to become an integral part of the public domain. Like politicians, celebrities, and important persons in other areas, businesspersons are fair game. Once they decide to live public business lives, their privacy has lesser meaning, and it is logical for the media to cover it. In addition, private lives can have public impact, and how they lead their lives, or what happens in their private lives, can have implications for the firms.

For example, let us consider a recent case when there were rumours about the health of a leading industrialist in India. Of course, investors were concerned because the promoter’s children were young, although they were inculcated in the listed firms. The share prices of the group firms were affected. There was talk about the future of the group, and how it will be divided among the children. Indeed, to nip the rumours in the bud, the industrialist put a semi-formal succession plan in place to assuage the feelings.

In cases of deaths and divorces, there may be some meaningful exercise in covering the private side of the entrepreneurs, as it tends to impact the businesses. But as we said earlier, these are legitimate concerns. If the context, subject, and perspective is linked to the businesses, the coverage is relevant. But if it is only to get sensational headlines, click-baits, and more eyeballs, one can raise several questions about such media coverage. We know that scandals and gossip sell. But so do several other issues.

The author has worked for leading media houses, authored two books, and is now Executive Director, C Voter Foundation; views are personal