paano manalo sa casino slot machine HOBART: Two years. Anwar Ibrahim has now been Malaysia’s prime minister for two years. When he was sworn in as Malaysia’s 10th prime minister on Nov 24, 2022, many critics doubted he would last a year, given the country’s turbulent politics. After all, Anwar did not win the election, but was asked by the King to form a coalition government because there was no clear winner. His decades-long journey to power has been nothing but bumpy, marked by two stints in jail that Anwar has long maintained were politically motivated. Yet, as he completes his second year in office, Anwar has already outlasted all three of his immediate predecessors, whose tenures were prematurely ended. Still, questions remain about the man in the prime minister’s seat. Is he the reformer he claimed to be before becoming prime minister, or is he a closet Islamist pushing an agenda now that he is in power? Simply put, he could be both. But there is also a third explanation. THE REFORMER Ever since Anwar was sacked from his posts of deputy prime minister and finance minister in 1998 after a bitter fallout with then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad and subsequently tried for corruption and sodomy and thrown in jail for the first time, his watchword has been "reform". His People’s Justice Party (PKR) has always been committed to reforming Malaysia into a more democratic country. This is most clearly shown by the party's logo - a depiction of a "black eye", inflicted on Anwar in prison by Malaysia’s then police chief Abdul Rahim Noor. Anwar’s years in prison strengthened his belief that radical reforms were needed to transform Malaysia's political system into a model of democracy for Muslim countries. In fact, he is often presented as a "Muslim democrat", a type of Islamic leader who can blend the main principles of Western democracy with political Islam. Anwar has frequently spoken about the compatibility of Western ideas of human rights and democracy with Islamic law in his public speeches. He gained admiration not only by Western countries, but also from non-Malay politicians in Malaysia who saw him as a leader capable of steering Malaysia back to the centre after years under Dr Mahathir and UMNO. There were hopes that if he came to power, he would undo the excesses of the previous government. In the 2022 general election, the Democratic Action Party (DAP), the Chinese wing of Anwar's coalition government, won 90 per cent of the Chinese vote, in part because the Chinese community viewed Anwar as the only Malay leader who could reform the political system. THE ISLAMIST Since then, however, Anwar has faced growing criticism from many Malaysians, particularly for actions that some view as increasingly aligned with Islamist policies. Key to this discontent are his strong stances on issues like the Palestinian cause and his support for the Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill, a controversial piece of legislation that would give religious authorities unbridled powers without parliamentary oversight. A fatwa is a religious edict or formal ruling on Islamic law, and it is binding on Malaysian Muslims. Currently, fatwas can be legally binding in Malaysia if they are gazetted by the relevant state governments or federal territories. Under the proposed Bill, however, fatwas issued by the FT mufti cannot be challenged in court. Critics warn that this could lead to punishments for actions that are not criminalised under the country’s secular law. It would also give power to the government, through the mufti, to police nearly every aspect of Muslim life in Malaysia. A further concern is that the Bill will set in law that only a person belonging to certain streams within the Sunni school of thought can hold the position of FT mufti. There are fears this will marginalise non-Sunni sects and make Malaysia into a de facto theocratic state in the long run as other states adopt the same legal framework as the FT Mufti Bill. This would leave no room for alternative streams of thought. There are some who argue that the real target of the Bill is the Shia movement in Malaysia, which has been gaining strength and followers in the past decade. Many of the top Sunni clerics in Malaysia support this Bill. The Bill is in its final stage in the Malaysian parliament and thus far, the mounting opposition has had no effect. Critics argue that Anwar may delay the Bill but will proceed with it later. Some Muslims and non-Muslims are concerned that if the Bill is passed, Islamisation will accelerate to the next level. Another issue that worries many is Anwar’s announcement that the Malaysia’s Islamic Development Department (JAKIM) be involved in all aspects of public policy. JAKIM used to be mostly concerned with the administration of Islam in the country. For example, if JAKIM intervenes in financial matters, it is feared that Malaysia's large non-halal industry will suffer. There are also concerns that Anwar's high-profile crusade for Palestine may harm Malaysia internationally. His request for Israel's expulsion from the United Nations contrasts sharply with Malaysia's previous actions. Malaysia typically collaborates with other Muslim nations to diplomatically isolate Israel and use the UN to condemn it. It has never previously called for Israel's expulsion from the United Nations. Even China and Russia, permanent members of the UN and critics of Israel’s actions in Gaza, has not called for Israel to be expelled. OR THE OPPORTUNIST? The third explanation is that Anwar is simply doing whatever is necessary to ensure that he wins a second term. Again, one must not forget that he did not win the last general election; he was selected by the King to form a “unity government” and he did it by forming a coalition with UMNO and the Borneo parties. The big test for the coalition was the six state elections held last August and they failed. The majority of the Malay vote went to the opposition Perikatan Nasional (PN), in particular PN’s Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS). For example, PN managed to win 100 per cent of the seats in Terengganu. Thus Anwar’s swing towards the religious vote is simply a matter of political survival and his current political manoeuvre is simply to ensure that he can get enough seats to win the next general election (GE16). GE16 is due in 2027, but most believe it will be held much earlier. TURN TO THE RIGHT In some ways, it does not matter who the real Anwar is simply because the needle of Malaysian politics has moved significantly to the right. The middle ground for Malaysian politics is no longer a tolerant multiracial Malaysia but a conservative Malaysia with an Islamic outlook. The fear is that this will lead to sectarianism never seen before in Malaysian history and split the Muslim population more. The real tragedy of Anwar is that his “Muslim democrat” approach will bite the dust of history, and no other young Malaysian Muslim leader would dare to return Malaysia to the centre ground in the future. Under Anwar, Malaysia is getting more and more polarised along religious lines and Anwar’s position on political Islam may just move the country to uncharted territory. Nonetheless, there is hope that Anwar's political manoeuvres are aimed at winning big in GE16, which will provide him with the political capital needed to return the country to the moderate road. James Chin is Professor of Asian Studies at the Asia Institute Tasmania, University of Tasmania. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Jeffrey Cheah Institute on Southeast Asia and adjunct professor at Monash University.

The South Carolina women's basketball team has been defeated for the first time since March 31, 2023. The No. 1 Gamecocks fell Sunday in Los Angeles as Lauren Betts posted a double-double effort to lead No. 5 UCLA to a 77-62 triumph. The Gamecocks (5-1) suffered their first defeat after 43 consecutive victories, dating back to the loss to Iowa 77-73 in the NCAA Tournament semifinals. South Carolina defeated Iowa last season for the national championship. Betts finished with 11 points, a game-high 14 rebounds, four assists and four blocks to power the Bruins (5-0) to a historic victory. UCLA also got 15 points from Londynn Jones on 5-of-5 shooting from 3-point range, 13 points from Elina Aarnisalo and 11 each from Kiki Rice and Gabriela Jacquez. It's the first time UCLA has beaten South Carolina since 1981. The Bruins lost twice to the Gamecocks in the 2022-23 season, including in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA Tournament. Te-Hina Paopao had 18 points for South Carolina on 4-of-4 3-point shooting, while Tessa Johnson had 14 points. UCLA won the rebounding battle 41-34, marking the second time this season the Gamecocks have been outrebounded. South Carolina also got outscored in the paint 26-18. It's rare that a Dawn Staley-coached team -- units that typically revolve around dominant centers from A'ja Wilson to Aaliyah Boston to Kamilla Cardoso -- gets beat in the paint and on the glass, but with 6-foot-7 Betts, UCLA had the recipe to outmuscle the Gamecocks in those areas of the game. South Carolina never led after UCLA began the game with an 18-5 run, capped off by back-to-back 3-pointers from Jones. The Gamecocks cut the deficit to nine points in the second quarter, but the Bruins responded with a 17-5 run and entered halftime ahead by 21 points. Aarnisalo scored seven points during that run. From there, the Gamecocks never got within single digits of the lead in the second half. It's the first time in 21 tries that UCLA has beaten an AP-ranked No. 1 team. And it's the first time South Carolina lost a true road game since 2021, a streak of 33 games. The schedule doesn't get any easier for South Carolina. While UCLA faces UT Martin next on Friday, the Gamecocks play No. 8 Iowa State on Thursday. --Field Level MediaNone

JioStar, the newly formed media behemoth spawned by the merger of Walt Disney ’s Star and Viacom18 , has the potential to reshape India’s media and entertainment landscape, Vice Chairman Uday Shankar says. “The merger gives us a strong foundation to innovate and experiment, paving the way for transformative change,” he tells Javed Farooqui and Vinod Mahanta in an in-depth conversation that touched upon subjects as diverse as industry structure, vision for the combined entity, and execution challenges in synergy capturing. Announced last week, the merger has created a company with Rs 26,000 crore ($3.1 billion) in combined revenue for FY24, reaching 750 million viewers through 115 TV channels under the Star and Colors brands. It also includes two of India’s leading streaming platforms, JioCinema and Disney+ Hotstar. In this exclusive interaction, Shankar discusses the vision for building India’s largest media and entertainment company, the challenges of competing with global tech giants, strategies to address sports business losses, and the future for television that many believe is in an attritional decline. Edited excerpts: Will the scale of JioStar be able to create a powerful differentiating factor? This merger presents a tremendous opportunity to redefine the relationship between content and consumers, as well as with key stakeholders like advertisers and distributors. While the merger itself doesn’t directly alter the consumer’s experience, it lays the foundation for us to innovate and experiment in ways that could transform the industry. With our combined reach of 750 million people and significant presence across critical content pools, we have the scale to lead impactful change. In my experience, when the industry leader takes bold steps that resonate with consumers, others tend to follow. This is especially important in a media landscape that’s undergoing rapid transformation globally and here in India, driven by technology and evolving consumer behaviours. Television, in particular, remains a dominant force in India, and I believe reports of its decline are premature. Yes, every medium has its lifecycle, but television in this market still has a long way to go. The merger gives us the ability to explore new ideas and create offerings that strengthen the connection between content and audiences while adapting to the broader changes shaping the media and entertainment landscape. Artificial Intelligence(AI) Mastering C++ Fundamentals with Generative AI: A Hands-On By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Strategy Succession Planning Masterclass By - Nigel Penny, Global Strategy Advisor: NSP Strategy Facilitation Ltd. View Program Web Development Advanced C++ Mastery: OOPs and Template Techniques By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Office Productivity Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide 2024 By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Office Productivity Microsoft Word Mastery: From Beginner to Expert By - CA Raj K Agrawal, Chartered Accountant View Program Artificial Intelligence(AI) AI and Analytics based Business Strategy By - Tanusree De, Managing Director- Accenture Technology Lead, Trustworthy AI Center of Excellence: ATCI View Program Web Development Intermediate C++ Skills: Master Pointers, Structures and File Stream By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Leadership Building Your Winning Startup Team: Key Strategies for Success By - Dr. Anu Khanchandani, Startup Coach with more than 25 years of experience View Program Data Science SQL Server Bootcamp 2024: Transform from Beginner to Pro By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Leadership Crafting a Powerful Startup Value Proposition By - Dr. Anu Khanchandani, Startup Coach with more than 25 years of experience View Program Artificial Intelligence(AI) Generative AI for Dynamic Java Web Applications with ChatGPT By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program Marketing Marketing & Sales Strategies for Startups: From Concept to Conversion By - Dr. Anu Khanchandani, Startup Coach with more than 25 years of experience View Program Leadership Business Storytelling Masterclass By - Ameen Haque, Founder of Storywallahs View Program Office Productivity Advanced Excel Course - Financial Calculations & Excel Made Easy By - Anirudh Saraf, Founder- Saraf A & Associates, Chartered Accountant View Program Office Productivity Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By - Study At Home, Quality Education Anytime, Anywhere View Program Leadership Boosting Startup Revenue with 6 AI-Powered Sales Automation Techniques By - Dr. Anu Khanchandani, Startup Coach with more than 25 years of experience View Program Office Productivity Mastering Microsoft Office: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and 365 By - Metla Sudha Sekhar, IT Specialist and Developer View Program If you have 90 million homes paying for TV every month and 125–135 million families watching TV daily, it’s clear that television is far from dead. There’s a significant opportunity to reinvent, revitalise, and make TV stronger and healthier. On the other side, the streaming business offers immense growth potential. With 700-750 million people using mobile phones and consuming data in some form, we have a huge opportunity to connect with each one of them, given the compelling nature of our content. But achieving this isn’t just about providing content—it’s about transforming the entire consumer experience. India is evolving rapidly, and with that comes the need for innovation across the content ecosystem. From how we create and offer content to how we monetise and produce it—everything needs to adapt. This merger gives us the scale to experiment, innovate, and execute these changes on a much larger level. It’s about reimagining what the future of entertainment can be, both in traditional and digital spaces. And how do you intend to go about doing this? By fundamentally changing the way content creation works, though it’s not something that can happen overnight. We already have a lot of content that’s performing well, and we’re running a successful business. It’s essential not to disrupt that core too much or too quickly. This process has to be calibrated. We’ll start by experimenting selectively, seeing what works, and scaling up successful initiatives. As new ideas and content take shape, some of the older approaches will naturally phase out. It’s a dynamic process, and while I can’t say we have a fully defined plan at this stage, we are firmly committed to this strategic direction and evolving with the changing needs of the audience. The merged entity includes a profitable entertainment segment but also loss-making digital and sports businesses. Will these losses impact the overall financial health of the new entity? Historically, when Star made significant bets, such as investing heavily in IP, there were similar concerns. Many believed Star was taking an enormous risk, but those investments worked out brilliantly. Star built a high-quality, integrated sports franchise and monetised the IPL, which turned out to be a game-changer. On the back of the IPL, Star was able to create Hotstar, which would have been impossible otherwise. Additionally, Star leveraged its integrated sports and entertainment content to secure a disproportionately large share of distribution revenues. In our case, while some expensive rights exist, they are typically short-term—3 to 5 years at most. This has both drawbacks and advantages. The short tenure allows us to assess and recalibrate quickly. The entertainment segment is robust and financially strong. Our streaming business, while at scale, continues to operate at a loss as part of the ongoing investment phase. However, these investments are essential to building a future-proof ecosystem. With the right strategies and synergies, we’re confident in managing these dynamics to strengthen the overall financial health of the new entity. But even the streaming business is operating at a loss? Right now, yes, it’s still in the investment phase, but that’s intentional. Take sports rights, for example—JioCinema wasn’t profitable initially, but that was a conscious choice. We were building a platform that didn’t exist before, and no business starts making money from day one. First, you build the product, create the market, bring it to customers, and then you start monetising. With JioCinema, we knew that putting IPL on the platform wouldn’t make money immediately—it was about investing in growth and building the foundation. Now, the platform has matured, and we’ve established a solid customer base on both the ad and consumer sides. This allows us to start recasting our strategy and become more disciplined. For instance, with the recent Asia Cup rights, we chose not to bid because it didn’t align with our strategic priorities. While we are willing to invest heavily in assets that are strategically important, we’re disciplined about evaluating their long-term value. Back in 2017, when we invested in IPL at Star, many thought it was expensive. But without that investment, we wouldn’t have been able to build a world-class TV sports franchise and Hotstar. Looking ahead, we’ll continue to evaluate expensive rights. We’ve carried the burden for some time, and as the renewal periods approach, we’ll decide whether it makes sense to continue or to pivot. It’s all about being strategic and disciplined. When you say some of the rights are expensive, are you referring to those that came with the merger? That’s all history now. Everything is part of us, and we were fully aware of the rights we were inheriting when we made the deal. So there’s no point in revisiting that. That said, the cumulative value of the rights is significant—no question about it being onerous. However, we’re optimistic that we’ll be able to create incremental value from these assets to justify the investment. What is the board’s mandate to you in terms of profitability, users, and scale? To clarify, I’m not directly running the company. We have a team of executives, including three CEOs (Kevin Vaz, Kiran Mani, and Sanjog Gupta), who are responsible for the day-to-day operations. My role is more about shaping the strategy and guiding the leadership team. I’m part of the team that establishes the mandate, but execution lies with the operational leaders. I’ve made an investment from my fund in this business, and there are other shareholders, with Reliance being the controlling shareholder. Naturally, there’s a clear expectation that this business will deliver very attractive financial returns—that’s the foundation on which I’ve raised money from my investors. Reliance, as a highly business-focused company, has similar expectations. It’s a given that we need to generate strong returns on investment and capital. However, beyond financial returns, I have a very clear mandate from Reliance and other stakeholders: to redefine the media and entertainment ecosystem and prepare it for the future. While the media already has massive reach, I believe there’s a far greater opportunity to deliver content people love, whenever they want it, to the entire population of the country. Previously, distribution was the biggest barrier, but that challenge has largely been addressed with the proliferation of mobile and broadband, a revolution that Reliance itself has been instrumental in driving. This transformation creates an incredible opportunity to reimagine how content reaches and engages audiences at scale. I believe there’s a significant opportunity to drive deeper penetration and better consumption of content. To achieve that, we need to completely rethink how we approach content creation and delivery. This is what I referred to earlier—we must redefine many aspects of the process. One key issue is the current concentration of content production and supply, particularly Hindi-language content, which remains heavily centralised in Mumbai. This model has its limitations. Gone are the days when a single production ecosystem could cater to the entire population north of the Vindhyas. India is changing rapidly, with people’s tastes, aspirations, and expectations undergoing a dramatic transformation. To keep up with these shifts, we need to diversify and decentralise how and where content is created. That’s just one example of the kind of changes we’ll need to make to meet these evolving demands effectively. You’ve said that the obituary of television has been written prematurely. Do you believe that the TV business still has a lot of potential in India? Let me explain why I say that. In the US, television became very expensive, with consumers paying $60, $70, or even $80 as the minimum monthly cost. Streaming emerged as a cheaper and more convenient alternative—you paid $10 for a streaming service and got access to a wide library of content. While it wasn’t fresh content, it didn’t matter because most consumers hadn’t seen it yet, and they enjoyed the convenience of watching on their own schedule. Streaming addressed both affordability and convenience in that market. In India, however, the dynamics are entirely different. Television is already extremely affordable, while streaming services aren’t as inexpensive. The Western narrative that TV is dying because consumers are shifting to streaming to save money simply doesn’t apply here. In fact, the global streaming landscape is evolving too. With so many streaming services now available, consumers in markets like the U.S. are spending more collectively on subscriptions than they did on cable or TV. This just reinforces the point that television’s role, especially in India, remains strong and far from obsolete. But isn’t it the case that once people cut the cord, they’re unlikely to return to traditional TV? Once people get used to streaming, no, they’re not coming back. However, the number of streaming services in existence today is overwhelming, and many are struggling—except for one or two that are doing well. Affordability and quality of product remain a major factor. My point is that for any platform to succeed, the product must be both attractive and affordable. In India, television’s biggest strength is its affordability. It delivers content that, while it might not appeal as much to certain segments of the urban elite, connects deeply with a vast population across the country. That connection gives television enduring power, and I believe it will remain relevant if reinforced with more innovation. There’s a strong case for greater creative innovation on both sides—television and digital. Right now, both seem to be following predictable templates, and that’s where the opportunity lies: breaking out of the mould and offering something fresh and engaging. Additionally, pay TV subscriptions have seen a significant decline over the past few years. What’s your perspective on this trend? There are two or three key points here. First, the decline in pay TV numbers isn’t the full story. What really matters is the overall television universe, including free TV (DD Free Dish), and that hasn’t come down. In a value-conscious market like India, if consumers don’t see enough value in pay TV but find reasonable value in free TV, they’ll naturally migrate to free TV. What exacerbated this trend is that many pay TV providers began offering their content on free TV platforms (DD Free Dish). Once that happened, why would a consumer pay for something they could watch for free? However, live sports remains a stronghold for pay TV. It continues to perform exceptionally well because live sports are a unique draw—they’re best experienced in real time, and the TV viewing experience for live sports is unparalleled. While some mandatory sharing of live sports happens on platforms like Doordarshan, the core TV experience for live sports remains a major pull for audiences. And I believe Star Sports has set the benchmark for creating a robust ecosystem that delivers an exceptional viewing experience. People aren’t walking away from that—it’s all about maintaining a compelling value proposition. Let me give you some background to illustrate this point. Back in 2007, when I took over Star, there was a similar narrative—television was said to be in decline, people weren’t paying, ratings were dropping, and so on. Around the same time, Colors entered the market, shaking things up and sparking intense competition. The battle between Star Plus and Colors played out over several years, but it also led to a significant surge in the reach of Hindi entertainment. Suddenly, audiences were seeing fresh, engaging content, and they were excited again. Another example is when we experimented with Satyamev Jayate. It brought in entirely new audiences and reinvigorated interest. Media thrives on innovation and creative disruption. It’s not just about maintaining the status quo—it’s about constantly finding ways to excite and engage audiences with something fresh and meaningful. That’s the essence of this industry. The key difference between then and now is that, back then, we only had television screens, whereas today, the widespread adoption of smartphones has introduced multiple screens into our lives. It doesn't make any difference to me as a media company since we are providing content across screens. If your universe of monetisation expands, unit values don't matter. We have created an artificial divide between TV and digital. Viewers don't see that way. They go to the screens that are easily available to them and the experience that they want. For a laid-back, relaxed experience, they will go to broadcast TV or connected TV. They will watch it on mobile if they want to watch content on the go during the weekday. We just want to be ubiquitous on all screens and create great experiences for consumers. Many traditional media companies, including Viacom18 and Star, have been heavily investing in digital platforms, often at the expense of television. As a result, investments in TV have significantly decreased, with funds shifting towards digital. Given your optimistic outlook on television, will you be increasing your investments in this area? I can’t speak for what others are doing—those decisions are made by their leadership teams. But we’re very clear that we’re not cutting down investments in one area to favour the other. We see significant growth potential in both digital and TV. Of course, digital is growing at an incredible rate, so naturally, we’ll need to allocate more resources to fully capitalise on that massive universe, which is set to become a billion screens. However, that doesn’t mean we’ll reduce investments in TV. In fact, given the strength of the franchises and brands (Star and Colors) we have on the TV side, we intend to invest even more in television. It’s a different scenario now compared to when we were at Viacom18, which had a smaller television business. Back then, we had to prioritise, and it wasn’t feasible to grow a small TV business while simultaneously building a large digital platform. Now, with a strong presence at scale in both TV and digital, there’s no reason not to continue building on both fronts. Even today, nearly $10 billion (Rs 83,000 crore) of revenue comes from traditional TV business. Why would we step back from such a significant space? Instead, we’ll double down on investments to ensure both platforms thrive. Do you consider big tech companies to be a significant threat to traditional media companies? I wouldn’t call them a threat, but they are certainly formidable players with immense resources. They’ve built scale at a global level and have access to vast amounts of data, which gives them a significant advantage in terms of targeting. However, I don’t see them as direct competition. The market is large enough, and the growth opportunities are substantial enough for multiple operators to thrive and grow. Big tech will continue doing what it does, but that doesn’t mean traditional media companies can’t succeed and scale alongside them. The key lies in ensuring we build the right safeguards to protect consumer interests while leveraging our strengths to grow. While big tech excels in technology, traditional media has its own unique value propositions, and there’s plenty of room for both to coexist and flourish. Media companies don’t necessarily need to replicate the data-driven ad stack that big tech companies excel at. Trying to compete on their turf, where you’re already at a disadvantage, doesn’t make sense. In my view, media companies should focus on what they’re inherently good at—creating compelling content and building strong consumer connections. It’s about running your own race, staying confident in your strengths, and recognising that every runner has a different style. The key is to leverage what makes you unique rather than chasing a game designed for someone else’s strengths. What time frame are you considering for integrating the two organisations? There’s no fixed rule for how long integration should take, although these processes can often drag on. From the very beginning, it was clear that I didn’t want the organisation to be paralysed by volatility, uncertainty, or a lack of clarity. We announced the merger last week and have already moved quickly. In fact, one of the unique aspects of this merger is that we announced the entire senior-level leadership team on the very day of the merger. I’m fully committed to finalising all aspects of the integration in the next few weeks and then focusing on creating value in the business. Whatever it takes, we’ll make it happen. From my experience handling other mergers, I know the uncertainty these processes can create, and that uncertainty can be damaging to the organisation, especially to smaller teams. We’re determined to avoid that and move forward decisively. We have brought in EY to help with the integration. Given the potential duplication of roles, will there be layoffs during the integration process? Wherever there’s more than one person for the same role, we’ll first look to find them another meaningful position within the organization. However, in some cases, there may be redundancies. We’re committed to managing this process thoughtfully and transparently. You know both sides are very familiar with each other. It's a small ecosystem. Given the likely overlaps of channels during the integration process, how do you plan to address this issue? Yes, there may be some overlaps, but our primary focus is ensuring that corporate actions don’t disrupt the consumer experience. A viewer of Star Plus is a committed viewer of Star Plus, and the same goes for Colors. Just as we aim to minimise internal confusion, we are equally committed to avoiding any confusion for external stakeholders, whether they are advertisers, consumers, or producers. Each company has its own relationships, and we don’t want to disrupt those in the name of efficiency. The goal isn’t to force changes unless they genuinely enhance the experience or add value. Simply put, we won’t make changes just for the sake of it. For now, all these brands will continue as they are. Of course, there are certain obligations imposed on us by the Competition Commission of India that we’ll need to adhere to, but beyond that, there are no immediate plans to make significant changes. Have you decided whether to keep both streaming apps separately, or will you combine them to create a super app? That’s exactly the kind of discussion we’re having—exploring the merits of various approaches. There are strong arguments on both sides, whether to differentiate the platforms by content type or take another route. Personally, I’ve spent more time debating this specific aspect of the integration than almost any other topic. It’s a critical decision that requires careful consideration. Do you expect a shake-up in the broadcast industry due to the size and scale of JioStar? On the TV side, I don’t see much of a shake-up. Essentially, what’s happened is that four companies have consolidated into three. While there’s a change in ownership and some consolidation, it’s not the kind of shakeup it’s being portrayed as. For advertisers, consumers, and producers, the impact will likely feel minimal. What I do believe, however, is that this consolidation presents an opportunity to create incremental value. We’ll experiment, and in my experience, when the leader experiments successfully, it often sets a new norm for the market. This has the potential to benefit the entire industry. In fact, I’ve seen this happen before—moments like these often invigorate the industry, infusing it with fresh energy and creativity. I hope this merger will lead to something similar, bringing renewed momentum to the broadcast space. Considering the merger of two major players and Sony's cautious bidding approach, do you anticipate a correction in sports rights costs during the next cycle? We chose not to bid for the Asia Cup this time because the base price was set at a level we didn’t find viable. As you mentioned, we already have a substantial sports portfolio with serious financial commitments, so we decided to sit this one out. I believe the cricketing world needs to address a critical issue: the current model, where buyers rarely make money while rights holders continue to profit, is simply unsustainable. Disproportionate value in cricket comes from one market—India—and within that market, it’s heavily reliant on the media sector. For the long-term health of the ecosystem, rights owners need to consider the interests of broadcasters. If they don’t, it’s a shortsighted approach that risks undermining the very market they depend on. Sustainable partnerships are key to ensuring the growth and success of the sport and its stakeholders. Do you view losses as one of the primary challenges for JioStar over the next two to three years, particularly in relation to sports rights? This is especially relevant considering that, unlike Star, entertainment profits might not be sufficient to balance out the losses from sports. First of all, I wouldn’t say that entertainment profits are capped or unable to grow. I believe there’s still substantial headroom for growth in TV entertainment, and even more so on the digital entertainment side. In sports, I see significant opportunities for incremental value creation within the business itself. The key is to unlock that potential effectively. As for entertainment, if our content is compelling enough to consistently deliver 25–27% viewership on TV, there’s no reason it shouldn’t generate similar engagement on the digital side. The challenge is curating the digital experience better—leveraging advanced technology and deeper customer insights to enhance the way audiences interact with our content. It’s not about compensating for losses but about realising untapped value across both entertainment and sports. With the right focus and strategy, I’m confident we can achieve sustainable growth in both areas. Will JioStar go public some time in the future? That decision rests entirely with the controlling shareholder. At this point, an IPO isn’t something we’re actively considering. Our focus is on building a strong, scalable business that could support a highly successful IPO, if and when the time comes. Whether there will be an IPO, I can’t say. As for myself, I will need an exit eventually, but there are several ways to achieve that beyond just an IPO. How did the talks between Star and Viacom18 begin? The conversation started between the principal stakeholders at Reliance and the senior leadership on the Disney side. I believe there was an understanding that if the two companies came together, it would address many of the emerging challenges in the media landscape. You have to understand that, whether it’s television or digital, the biggest challenges aren’t coming from within the media industry itself—even in India. The real challenges, in terms of value and consumption, are coming from global tech media companies. There was a shared appreciation of this reality, and I think that’s what led to the belief that joining forces could help reset the landscape and create a stronger foundation for the future. That’s how the talks began. How did you find yourself at this stage after leaving Star in 2020? To be completely honest, these things don’t happen overnight—it’s a process, a series of conversations, and decisions along the way. When I was leaving Star and Disney after serving as Head of Asia Pacific for Disney, I thought my time in media was done. For someone who never set out to be a CEO, even for a day, it wasn’t part of my ambition. I started as a journalist, and my only goal was to become a good editor, which I achieved. I was fortunate enough to create brands I was proud of and found fulfilment in that phase of my career. What happened next was almost serendipitous. One thing led to another, and I was brought into Star, where I spent close to 15 years. It was an incredible journey, but when the time came, I had to ask myself: Do I continue doing this for a few more years, or do I take a leap and try something new? It was clear that this wasn’t going to be the final chapter for me. It wasn’t an easy decision, but I felt ready to move on and explore what else was out there. And here I am, in a role and space I never could have fully envisioned back then. And then there were areas of personal interest that I felt strongly about, given my background and experiences. I’ve always had a point of view on social issues, and earlier in my career, news was one way for me to engage with those. I also deeply believe in the power of media, both entertainment and news, as a socially transformative tool. However, having already explored those avenues, I began to think about what else could make a meaningful impact. One area that always excited me was the power of technology to solve big social and consumer problems in India—especially in sectors where access and affordability have been longstanding challenges. Two areas stood out in particular: education and healthcare. These are deeply personal to me because I’ve seen parts of India where access to both is severely limited and the impact that lack of access has on people’s lives. At the same time, I’ve witnessed the incredible transformative power of ensuring availability and affordability in these critical areas. That realisation has fuelled my interest in exploring how technology can be leveraged to bridge these gaps and create lasting change. We are all fortunate to be sitting around this table because we had access to good education. That realisation led me to consider two possible paths to make a difference—one through a not-for-profit model and the other through a corporate structure. Early in my career, I spent several years in the not-for-profit sector, so I’ve seen that world up close. I worked with organisations like Anand and was closely associated with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), where I served as Associate Director for many years. Those experiences shaped my understanding of how impactful not-for-profits can be, but they also highlighted the challenges of scaling their efforts. That’s what made me curious about exploring a corporate approach to tackling some of these pressing issues, combining purpose with scale and sustainability. I realised that while the intent behind not-for-profit work is always admirable, its impact is often constrained by scale. You’re limited by the resources you can secure and constantly dependent on external funding. For me, the challenge was how to tackle social issues in a way that allowed for meaningful, scalable impact. That’s when I decided to pursue these ambitions within a corporate structure—a social business model that could combine purpose with scale and sustainability. Around that time, I connected with James Murdoch, and one thing led to another. He’s always been very passionate about India, deeply connected to the country, and excited about its potential. Although he had already set up his own family office, we decided we could do something meaningful together. We identified sectors we both felt strongly about and agreed to move forward. That’s how Bodhi Tree Systems was born. Together, we raised funds and established a structure to drive impactful initiatives while operating on a corporate framework. It was a way to align our shared vision for transformative change with the ability to execute at scale. That’s when Reliance reached out to us. They knew about our background in media and said, “You’re media guys, and we have a media business with exciting plans—why don’t we collaborate to shape something together?” And that’s how this partnership came to be. Nominations for ET MSME Awards are now open. The last day to apply is November 30, 2024. Click here to submit your entry for any one or more of the 22 categories and stand a chance to win a prestigious award. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel )Tulsa fires head coach Kevin Wilson

NoneChina's getting a big electric car battery swapping boost in 2025. Would that work across the globe?

Senate calls out airlines for the 'extra' fees they charge youNo. 5 UCLA snaps No. 1 South Carolina's 43-game win streakIran said on Sunday that it would hold nuclear talks in the coming days with the three European countries that initiated a censure resolution against it adopted by the UN's atomic watchdog. Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the meeting of the deputy foreign ministers of Iran, France, Germany and the United Kingdom would take place on Friday, without specifying a venue. "A range of regional and international issues and topics, including the issues of Palestine and Lebanon, as well as the nuclear issue, will be discussed," the spokesman said in a foreign ministry statement. Baghaei described the upcoming meeting as a continuation of talks held with the countries in September on the sidelines of the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. On Thursday, the 35-nation board of governors of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted a resolution denouncing Iran for what it called a lack of cooperation. The move came as tensions ran high over Iran's atomic programme, which critics fear is aimed at developing a nuclear weapon -- something Tehran has repeatedly denied. In response to the resolution, Iran announced it was launching a "series of new and advanced centrifuges". Centrifuges enrich uranium transformed into gas by rotating it at very high speed, increasing the proportion of fissile isotope material (U-235). "We will substantially increase the enrichment capacity with the utilisation of different types of advanced machines," Behrouz Kamalvandi, Iran's atomic energy organisation spokesman, told state TV. The country, however, also said it planned to continue its "technical and safeguards cooperation with the IAEA". During a recent visit to Tehran by IAEA head Rafael Grossi, Iran agreed to the agency's demand to cap its sensitive stock of near weapons-grade uranium enriched up to 60 percent purity. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in power since July and a supporter of dialogue with Western countries, has said he wants to remove "doubts and ambiguities" about his country's nuclear programme. In 2015, Iran and world powers reached an agreement that saw the easing of international sanctions on Tehran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme. But the United States unilaterally withdrew from the accord in 2018 under then-president Donald Trump and reimposed biting economic sanctions, which prompted Iran to begin rolling back on its own commitments. On Sunday afternoon, the United Kingdom confirmed the upcoming meeting between Iran and the three European countries. "We remain committed to taking every diplomatic step to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, including through snapback if necessary," London's Foreign Office said. The 2015 deal contains a "snapback" mechanism that can be triggered in case of "significant non-performance" of commitments by Iran, allowing many sanctions to be reimposed. Ali Vaez, an Iran expert with the International Crisis Group think tank, told AFP that Friday's meeting was set to happen earlier, but "those plans were derailed as a result of Iran-Israel tensions" over the Gaza war. Though the parties will be meeting "without knowing what the incoming Trump administration wants to do", Vaez said that "after a lose-lose cycle of mutual escalation, now both sides are back to realising that engagement might be the least costly option." Tehran has since 2021 decreased its cooperation with the IAEA by deactivating surveillance devices monitoring the nuclear programme and barring UN inspectors. At the same time, it has increased its stockpiles of enriched uranium and the level of enrichment to 60 percent. That level is close, according to the IAEA, to the 90 percent-plus threshold required for a nuclear warhead, and substantially higher than the 3.67 percent limit it agreed to in 2015. pdm/smw/ami