Dec 24, 2023Liked by Shreedhar Manek

1. They can no longer represent themselves as BBC journalists. There's a reserved area for the media at functions such as the republic day parade or in the parliament - this isn't open to everyone in the media - there's usually a certification process with the government, including years of experience in the industry, audience, turnover etc. The subsidiary will fall this test, at least for a decade.

2. Even if you're the same famous journalist if you can't represent yourself as part of a big brand you lose out on many opportunities. Look at Burkha Dutt since she was forced to start her own brand, she's not got the same influence.

3. They are now a small and new media organization who are on contract with the BBC. This means the employees can no longer get visas as easily, or get transfers to the mother ship. Expect it to be much more difficult to recruit new talent.

4. It's not as easy to avoid taxes or government scrutiny or responsibility - the government may conclude that despite the breakup they continue to act as agents of the BBC - unless they also serve other clients. It would be seen as a de facto violation of the tax laws at least and it could still invite troubles.

Let's say they need 200 crores to set up the new office, will they get it as a loan from the BBC? Will they get it as an advance? The government may conclude that these are under handed means to circumvent the intent of the law, and the courts are likely to agree. The source of the capital is what the authorities will be watching, they may not stop this immediately, but wait a few years until there's a solid trail of evidence.

There's a lot of other factors to examine in detail, it's not a simple matter.

Expand full comment
Jan 27Liked by Shreedhar Manek

I had no idea. Great finds, Shreedar

Expand full comment
Dec 21, 2023·edited Dec 21, 2023Liked by Shreedhar Manek

Great piece! We will see more of this, simply owing to the fact that governments and multi-lateral forums around the world, are struggling to develop ways to legally deal with internet companies who don't operate from country soil but offer services there. We see this with infamously named "Google tax" (https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/google-tax-to-stay-post-2023-as-global-deal-faces-hurdles-11655750564356.html)

Expand full comment
Dec 21, 2023Liked by Shreedhar Manek

Wait till they create a law in retrospect where 'proof of blah blah' needs to be shown or something similar. I have seen this way up close and this will not end well. For the B.B.C.*

*Disclosure - I have worked with B.B.C. in the past.

Expand full comment

Modi doesn’t want facts and truth. He has become a curse to India much like UPA 2 was to India. God save india from right wing nuts who don’t know how to create good quality jobs. It’s sad to see Indian kids working in call centers scamming elderly in the western nations

Expand full comment

An important point is that BBC is not a private company. It is a part of the British Government / British establishment. The stand it takes is an extension of the British establishment.

They have been caught lying a number of times.


The point being, media is not like mining. Media and its coverage shapes minds of citizens and has been used by countries opposed to us.

Hence the controls...

Expand full comment

Let's just go back to the good old days of Doordarshan. Just one government media channel. There is no point having 10 different government media channels running the same propaganda. One enough it keeps the viewer focused and brain washed.

Expand full comment

Govt should create a press note clarifying a news entity is the one that publishes the content. In this case Creative Newsroom is not an independent media organization, it’s a contractual production company. BBC India cannot publish in India because it is not following the FDI rules.

Expand full comment

My understanding was that for tax purpose BBC would still have to pay taxes on income deemed to accrue in India.

Expand full comment