Vijay Mallya and the business of spin

Last week, in a surprise move, former industrialist Vijay Mallya emerged from a long period of silence to discuss the rise and fall of his empire with social media influencer and podcaster Raj Shamani. It was Mallya’s first interview since he hastily left his homeland on March 2, 2016. His four-hour interview was a confident, well-articulated retelling of the Kingfisher Airlines saga and leaned heavily on grievance and personal vindication. That is where the surprise element began to wane.

Mallya has repeatedly played the victim card via his tweets over the past decade. Therefore, the interview didn’t reveal anything new, except for referring to a few political leaders whom he felt didn’t give him good advice; however, since they are no longer around, his story will be perceived as his own.

He fired his first salvo not at the government or the lenders but ironically at the media, claiming that “legacy media only shows one side of the story.” Given how he leveraged the media to craft his public image, his gripe doesn’t sit well. While the storytelling was polished, many of his arguments were forceful, and upon reading them alongside public records, regulatory findings, and the broader context of Kingfisher’s collapse, not watertight enough for a retrial.

For instance, his oft-repeated assertion that “Kingfisher Airlines borrowed the money, not me” cannot be disputed legally. But as a promoter and the public face of the airline, Mallya wasn’t just another shareholder – he was its founder, chief strategist, and decision-maker. It’s disingenuous to disown responsibility for decisions he took, particularly the risky acquisition of Air Deccan.

That move – undertaken when Kingfisher was already incurring losses of around Rs 1,000 crore annually – was rationalised as access to international flying rights, which Mallya now denies was the reason. Still, the fact remains that he launched international flights soon after the acquisition. One can’t justify an acquisition when the acquired company itself has over Rs 1,000 crore in losses.

Mallya claims that he should not have listened to the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, who advised him not to scale back the airline’s operations due to the 2008 oil crisis. “If I had scaled down the operations, the airline would still be around,” he says. However, the fact is that a year later, he deferred the induction of 32 A320s by a couple of years, claiming that there was overcapacity in the sector. The airline benefited from the decision.

He further claims that broader economic conditions, including high aviation fuel prices and an unsupportive policy environment, hurt the airline. True again. But other airlines faced these challenges too, and you can’t complain about the rules of the game after you sign up for it.

The interview is at its weakest when the podcaster fails to ask enough questions about the airline’s treatment of its employees who, for months, went unpaid even as the promoter continued to enjoy a good lifestyle.

Mallya reiterates that actions of India’s enforcement agencies were excessive. While claiming that the lenders have recovered more money than what was due, he fails to point out that these were not voluntary repayments. The money came from the forced sale of pledged shares in United Breweries and United Spirits. That the banks got more than they lent only underscores how deeply Mallya had mortgaged his empire – and how long they had to wait.

His discomfort with the label “fugitive” is evident. Mallya claims that he remains abroad during legal proceedings. Fair enough. However, the broader question remains unanswered: why has the matter not been resolved even after so many years? If the intent is to engage with the legal process fully, why has repatriation remained elusive?

Intent and reality

The well-curated interview conducted in London, where Mallya has sought sanctuary, can be seen as a subtle overture or even a plea – to the government to reconsider its stand or an offer for negotiation. For any such reconciliation to happen, the first move should come from Mallya. His decision to go public with this interview may be more strategic than cathartic, given the shifting nature of political narratives and the continued involvement of economic offenders in larger diplomatic discussions. However, blaming the current regime for his misfortune isn’t likely to go down well with the government, whose leader has often stated that fugitive businessmen will be brought back and made to stand trial.

None of this is to say that Mallya’s story should not be heard. And yes, media narratives can sometimes be one-dimensional. However, retelling history also requires a certain degree of balance. The burden of leadership includes the burden of responsibility – not just in success, but in failure.

(The writer is a business journalist and author of The Vijay Mallya Story)