ANI supremo Smita Prakash’s Interviews the ‘Absconding’ Byju Raveendran in Dubai: Shifting the Narrative?
An overseas UAE video-podcast where the embattled edtech tycoon blames “vulture lenders”, pledges a classic comeback, and seeks to outpace mounting legal and investor fury.
About the Author
Karan Bir Singh Sidhu is a retired Indian Administrative Service officer and former Special Chief Secretary, Punjab. An economist by training (University of Manchester, UK), he now writes extensively on public administration, fiscal policy, and the evolving Indian start-up landscape, with a special focus on education and training ventures. His columns aim to bring balanced, evidence-based insights to entrepreneurs, policymakers, and students alike.
ANI’s Dubai Exclusive: A Turning-Point or a Tactical Rebrand?
Asian News International (ANI) has long been viewed as a broadcaster with privileged access to the political establishment in New Delhi. When its Editor-in-Chief, Smita Prakash, travelled to Dubai to film a two-hour conversation with Byju Raveendran and his wife, Divya Gokulnath, the implications were bound to be weighty. BYJU’S once epitomised India’s startup swagger; today its founders fight claims of default, mis-selling, and regulatory non-compliance. The interview promised candour, but has it truly altered the public narrative—or merely bought time?
Dubai as Backdrop: Family, Health, and the “Fugitive” Tag
Smita Prakash began by voicing the obvious: why speak in Dubai when many investors, parents, and regulators want answers in Bengaluru or Mumbai? Raveendran framed the location as a personal necessity, citing his father’s medical treatment and insisting he had not fled India. He blamed “vulture lenders” in the United States for spinning a fugitive story to wrest control of the company. For viewers, the desert skyline underscored both the founders’ physical distance from Indian courts and the symbolism of a business empire built on optimism that has drifted offshore.
A Founder’s Defence: “We Belong in Classrooms, Not Courtrooms”
Throughout the interview Raveendran positioned himself as a teacher-turned-entrepreneur still driven by pedagogy. He and Divya spoke of stadium lectures, children’s curiosity, and the promise of technology. They denied owning fleets of luxury cars or property portfolios, presenting themselves as mission-obsessed educators who reinvested every rupee into BYJU’S.
Yet their defiant optimism was freighted with omissions. Little was said about the sharp sales culture that drew thousands of consumer complaints, or the two-year delay in publishing audited accounts. Each reference to “external headwinds” skirted the charge of internal governance failings—missing board meetings, the absence of an independent Chief Financial Officer, and India’s Enforcement Directorate examining possible breaches of foreign-exchange rules, including the dreaded potential money-laundering charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The Rise—Fuelled by Acquisitions and Blitz-scaling
BYJU’S story still dazzles in outline. Founded in 2011, it grew from live test-prep camps to the pandemic’s most downloaded learning app, peaking at a valuation of roughly US $22 billion. Flush with capital from marquee funds, it embarked on an acquisition spree—Aakash Educational Services, WhiteHat Jr, Epic!, and more. Those deals expanded global reach but layered on debt, integration costs, and cultural rifts. In hindsight, this “growth at any price” mentality was a high-wire act with scant regard for safety nets such as robust compliance or measured organic expansion.
Ethical Fault-Lines: Hard-Sell Tactics and Broken Trust
Parents of modest means allege they were cold-called relentlessly, urged to sign multi-year contracts, and sometimes locked into loans they scarcely understood. Although Raveendran conceded “mistakes were made” and claimed procedures have been reformed, the reputational damage persists. Education is a sector where trust is non-negotiable; once doubt takes root, no marketing slogan can erase it.
Critics argue that slick animation and celebrity endorsements distracted from a core pedagogic question: was the content consistently superior, or did branding outpace substance? The debate now colours every promise of a new, humbler “BYJU’S 3.0”.
The Legal and Financial Maelstrom
Beyond perception lies hard litigation. A consortium of U.S. lenders is suing the founders over an alleged US $533 million fund transfer that breached covenants tied to a US $1.2 billion term loan. In India, investors have approached the National Company Law Tribunal accusing the management of oppression and mismanagement. Enforcement agencies are probing whether foreign remittances violated exchange-control law.
Against that backdrop, Raveendran’s insistence that no lookout notice exists may be technically correct—yet stakeholders note that investigative bodies rarely publish such notices in advance. His assurance that the company has repaid “thousands of crores” shows willingness to meet obligations, but does not clarify why the liabilities arose in the first place.
Sponsorship Settlement Stymied: BCCI Dues and Lenders’ Veto
Earlier, BYJU’S much-publicised proposal to clear its ₹158-crore sponsorship arrears to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) became a fresh flash-point in the insolvency saga. Co-founder Riju Raveendran offered to dip into his own wallet to pay the cricket body and persuade it to withdraw its petition. But the company’s principal creditors, led by US trustee GLAS—which controls 99.4 per cent of the Committee of Creditors’ voting rights on the US $1.2 billion term-loan—blocked the manoeuvre. They argued that any deal struck under section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code required their prior consent and that personal funds used on the BCCI settlement might, in effect, be assets diverted from the wider creditor pool.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal initially waved the pact through, only for the Supreme Court to quash it, revive insolvency proceedings, and order that any funds earmarked for BCCI be parked in an escrow account supervised by the creditors. Both the NCLT and NCLAT have since reaffirmed that no carve-out can be finalised without the lenders’ explicit green light—underscoring yet again that, in this restructuring, creditor primacy trumps all side-deals.
Investors’ Patience Wears Thin
Global investors once lauded BYJU’S for bringing Silicon-Valley-style scale to Indian education. Today, several have written their holdings down to near-zero. They cite unanswered audit queries, the absence of independent directors, and a rights issue pitched at a valuation barely a fraction of the 2022 peak. In an ecosystem already jittery after past scandals, the descent of a former unicorn is a sobering reminder that rapid growth cannot mask fragile governance forever.
ANI Under the Spotlight: Journalism or Soft-Landing?
For ANI, securing an on-camera dialogue with the embattled founders is a genuine scoop. Yet the tone of questioning—sympathetic, reflective rather than interrogatory—has drawn criticism. Media organisations perceived as close to the corridors of power owe the public a higher standard of forensic scrutiny. A single interview, however extensive, is no substitute for systematically airing the grievances of employees, parents, tutors, and minority shareholders whose fortunes have been upended.
BYJU’S 3.0: Vision or Last Throw of the Dice?
Raveendran pledges to retreat from aggressive marketing, focus on core product, and seek capital “only when absolutely necessary.” He speaks of filling stadiums again, of his enduring appetite for teaching. Whether that constitutes a viable turnaround or romantic nostalgia depends on multiple unresolved variables:
Liquidity – can BYJU’S service loans while rebooting operations?
Governance – will the founders yield to a truly independent board?
Regulatory outcomes – how swiftly can investigations conclude, and on what findings?
Consumer sentiment – will parents give the brand a second chance?
Without credible answers, the promise of “classrooms over courtrooms” risks sounding aspirational rather than actionable.
Cautionary Endnote: Narrative Is Not Judgement
The Dubai interview attempts to humanise two founders under siege, but it does not erase the equity-wipe, the job losses, or the regulatory questions still looming. Indian jurisprudence must determine culpability through timely, transparent proceedings. If wrongdoing is proven, prompt redress will prevent another saga akin to Vijay Mallya or Nirav Modi, where endless delays corrode faith in accountability.
Conversely, if the founders are exonerated, they deserve a fair runway to rebuild. Either way, public discourse should resist premature verdicts. For ANI, the next journalistic duty is clear: place equal microphone time before students seeking refunds, employees awaiting salaries, and investors nursing write-downs. Only then will the narrative approach the balance that democracy demands.
Closing Thoughts
Credibility Beyond Media Moments
BYJU’S rise and stumble epitomise both the audacity and the excesses of India’s start-up boom. The Dubai tête-à-tête is undeniably compelling—but it cannot stand as the final word. A real reset will demand that Byju Raveendran return to India and engage, in person, with every stakeholder: lenders eyeing balance-sheet black holes, parents awaiting refunds, staff nursing unpaid dues, regulators probing compliance gaps, and investors whose billions have all but evaporated. Until he submits to forensic audits, independent board oversight, and open courtroom scrutiny, even the slickest media outreach—however respectfully framed—will purchase little more than a brief pause and a measure of private reassurance. Sustainable credibility is not a function of polished optics; it is earned only through hard transparency, shared sacrifice, and swift, verifiable action on home soil.