The web series Scam 1992: The Harshad Mehta Story is a fascinating account of an infamous Indian figure who manipulated stocks by illegally obtaining money from several banks using fake receipts while initiating a cycle of fraud. The screenplay faithfully fleshes out the protagonist with engaging subplots, and and sticks resolutely to the meteoric rise and vertiginous fall of the subject. Here is an interview with Scam 1992 director Hansal Mehta.

Dipankar Sarkar: Shahid Azmi in Shahid (2012) is thrown into prison under anti-terror laws. Professor Ramchandra Siras in Aligarh (2015) is suspended from the university on grounds of morality. Omar Saeed Sheikh in Omerta (2017) is a criminal responsible for the kidnapping of foreign tourists in India and the cold-blooded murder of an American journalist. And Harshad Mehta in Scam 1992 is a scamster. Why are you interested in protagonists whose views and beliefs stand in opposition to the conventional principles of society?

Hansal Mehta: I like humanizing flawed characters. I find them fascinating to explore. My films are essentially driven by characters who drive their stories. I am interested in discovering them as human beings beyond their public perception of being black or white. I don’t wish to idolise them, nor do I wish to demonize them. Through these characters, their stories and their worlds, I am hoping to chronicle our times for future generations who will most probably be fed a different and politically convenient version of these times.

DS: What are the creative liberties involved while fictionalizing real-life characters and situations and molding them within the framework of your cinematic choices?

HM: I try to reimagine my characters — understand their motivations through all the known and research situations. I try to distance myself from research while telling these stories and to focus on the human drama throughout. One picks up clues about the characters, situations and the world through the research which then gets dramatized in the screenplay. The important thing is to communicate the spirit and soul of the character’s journey through my telling of his/her story. I do not place much importance on the physical likeness of the cast to the original character. That helps me widen the choice of available actors and also allows me to dramatize more freely. What is more important to me is how the character resonates with me and how the perceived image is subliminally replaced by the cinematic sketch I’ve presented. As a result, Shahid Azmi and Rajkummar Rao, Prof Siras and Manoj Bajpayee, Omar Sheikh and Rajkummar Rao or Harshad Mehta and Pratik Gandhi become synonymous. I try to do the same with all the other characters in these stories too. I also freely imagine the world in which these stories are set. Period authenticity is maintained while reimagining the spaces, but I don’t find it essential to re-create exactly what is not available as a reference or is not iconic. Otherwise, I try to shoot in actual locations as far as possible and get them backdated to the period they are supposed to represent. For example, the stock market ring in Scam 1992 is a real location that has been reimagined and re-created through production design and VFX to resemble the time. There are some liberties taken in the representation as pointed out by some overzealous “experts,” but those are conscious decisions. The intention is to convey the energy and madness of the trading ring rather than get mired in excessively unnecessary and unimportant details. What is important in these narratives is the illusion of believability that we create for the characters and their spaces.

DS: The web series Bose: Dead/Alive (2017) and Scam 1992  — both of which you produced and and directed — are based on a book. Do you think that such adaptions help create one engaging episode after the other due to the detailed information provided in the original material?

HM: Adaptations help fast-tracking research or finding a plot amid information. They create the ground for further research and they fast track the process of building a dramatic screenplay arc while also helping define characters that will inhabit the final script. Sucheta and Debashis’ book was dense, informative and very technical. We had to find the ultimate story and journey on our own. But without the book, we would have found it difficult to explore the depth of this scam and to try presenting so many rich characters. But to answer your question, adaptations could be useful, but their big function is to substantiate some of the real characters, real situations and potentially awkward facts that could otherwise be a subject of libel. Honestly, most adaptations depend on the quality of the source material. There is no generic formula for the successful adaptation nor is there a guarantee of good adaptation even if the source material is rich.

DS: The dialogues in Scam 1992 maintain an even balance between catchy one-liners, situational Gujrati idioms and technical financial jargon to keep the viewer hooked to the story. Can you share your thoughts on this?

HM: The idea was to keep the viewer engaged while slipping in the very technical procedural behind the financial scam. I had just finished shooting a film called Chhalaang before commencing Scam 1992. One of the learnings I used from that experience was to keep the viewer entertained while telling a very dense story. This was the brief from both me and the studio [Applause Entertainment] that collaborated on this show. The choice of dialogue writers to match this brief was crucial. Vaibhav Vishal has been a friend and collaborator for a long time. He has a penchant for one-liners and is some sort of expert on the popular cinema culture of the 80s and 90s. Karan Vyas was the ideal foil to Vaibhav as he came from a world that is very similar to the world created by my writers [Sumit Purohit and Saurav Dey] and me. After all the heavy lifting on incorporating research, drama and structure was done by Sumit and Saurav, we needed our dialogue writers to add the necessary “punch.” Frankly, none of us expected the sudden surge of popularity for our dialogues and “one-liners.” In my opinion, the writing of this show is a masterclass in creating a very complex show that is full of complex characters and making it accessible to a larger mass.

Another important factor was the way these lines were delivered. My brief to the actors was to speak to them as if they were part of their everyday life, to make them part of their interpretation of the character. Often dialogues sound over the top and out of place. With the help of great writing and phenomenal actors, I think we managed to balance this quite well.

More by Dipankar Sarkar: An Interview with ‘Nasir’ Writer-Director Arun Karthick

DS: Sucheta Dalal (Shreya Dhanwanthary) had to cross one hurdle after the other to publish her news article on the financial “scam” and a good length of screen time has been utilized to dramatize the sequence in episode six. What was the importance of this particular sequence?

HM: We had structured the entire season with episodes one-five dealing with the rise of Harshad and the rising arrogance and greed that could prove to be his undoing. Episodes seven through 10 dealt with the fall of Harshad Mehta. Episode six was the link between these two distinct phases of Harshad’s life and how Sucheta Dalal’s crusade for the truth changed the course of not only Harshad’s life but for the future of the financial markets. The show is as much about Sucheta’s passion for truth as it is about the struggle that some exemplary journalists like her must face while trying to report the truth.

DS: The scene in episode nine where Ram Jethmalani (Mithilesh Chaturvedi) announces “It’s a PV Narasimha Rao scam” is intercut with the actual footage of the press conference. What did you decide to use such an editing pattern?

HM: This was an edit pattern I had used a lot previously in my film Omerta. I am fascinated by the juxtaposition of real and reel. However, in this show, it was purely the handiwork of my editors Kunal Walve and Sumit Purohit that you see this. All of us saw this edit and found it a befitting end to the penultimate chapter in the Harshad Mehta story, perhaps the last nail in his coffin. This was not a planned decision and more of an edit improvisation. And like a lot of things, one discovers and explores so much more through various processes of making films/shows.

DS: What was the purpose of using popular songs from Hindi films such as Yeh Zindagi Hai Ek Juaa and Toofan Kehte Hai, as well as “Mat Kar Maya Ko Ahankar” and “Do Din Ki Zindagi Hai” from Neeraj Arya’s Kabir Café in some of the episodes?

HM: This started when we were writing the final shooting draft of the show. We just decided to have fun with the ending of each episode by paying homage to some of the most kitschy melodies from the 80s and 90s. We put some songs on paper, Sumit and I put something else in the edit, and then because of publishing rights, we used something different. But we had fun selecting these songs. My personal favorites are the Anu Malik song “I am coming, you are going” and the Hari Om Sharan Bhajan “Teri kripa ko maine paaya.”

The Kabir Café songs also came about in the edit. In place of doing Din ki zindagi,  Sumit had used another Kabir Café song. Unfortunately, the rights to that song were unavailable. I knew Kabir Café from a very drunken night of jamming together at a festival in Raipur. I called them, and they suggested this song in place of what we used originally. It took some time getting used to in terms of melody, but it worked out well as it came as a warning to Harshad at a time when his arrogance made him feel he was infallible. Kabir’s philosophy is so timeless and so relevant to humanity. I wish we had more efforts like Kabir Café to bring his teaching to the world that is reeling under the superficial teachings of self-proclaimed gurus (or Sadhgurus).

Mat kar Maya” was a stroke of brilliance by Sumit once he realized that we had access to Kabir Café. Initially, I felt it was over-sentimental, but on viewing the sequence repeatedly along with a more holistic view of the character’s journey, it became a very philosophical way to culminate his story.

More by Dipankar Sarkar: An Interview with ‘Dolly Kitty & Those Twinkling Stars’ Filmmaker Alankrita Shrivastava

DS. The game of golf appears in few scenes across the series, and Harshad takes an effort to acquire the necessary skills required to play like a pro. Does it signify an important trait in the protagonist’s character?

HM: Golf is a metaphor for exclusivity and class. It is a metaphor for Harshad’s desperate aspiration to belong to a world that looks down upon him as a crude, classless broker. This show is as much a study of class and privilege as it is about Harshad Mehta. This is also a reflection of my own experiences while growing up as an outsider among the privileged and of my aspirations to belong to that elite club.

DS: Tyagi (Nikhil Dwivedi) from Citibank informs Harshad that there is no place for new people like him because pedigree is very important to enter the money market. Similarly, Harshad never gives Bhushan (Chirag Vohra) the status of a partner in his non-government company Growmore because he’s not a part of the family like his blood brother Ashwin Mehta (Hemant Kher). Is this the reason behind Bhusan’s betrayal or did he take undue advantage of the situation?

HM: There is no black and white answer to this question. Every character at some level betrays something or somebody. Betrayal is also an action that one feels while the one seen as the betrayer perceives as either the right thing or a result of the other person’s inadequacy. On a larger level, people like Harshad, Tyagi and Bhushan are betraying a system ridden with loopholes. At a more basic level, they are all playing, exploiting or betraying each other in some way or the other. By relegating Ashwin to a less spectacular life than his own, isn’t Harshad also consciously or unconsciously betraying his brother too? Betrayal is a complicated emotion and has no straightforward answer. All we can do as storytellers are to explore these complex aspects of human nature to perhaps seek a better understanding of ourselves and our world.

DS: Why are there very few scenes between Harshad and his mother and children in the entire series?

HM: I think considering the focus of the story and its scope, we have balanced Harshad’s business and family life quite well. Without that balance, his end would cease to be the emotional culmination it is. Similarly, with any excessive family scenes, things would get over-sentimentalized. Good storytelling is all about balance. And I think we have achieved that balance here. Something I also had in Shahid. Something that was in excess in Citylights, slightly amiss in the final cut of Aligarh and quite decently balanced in Omerta. But I think here we’ve managed to hit that right balance. You know, honestly, I’m surprised you are even asking this question. And that I am even taking the pains to answer it!

DS: The investigating CBI officer K. Madhavan (Rajat Kapoor) resigns because of overpowering intervention from the higher government official. He even threatens to reveal the corruption within the investigating agency to the press. But as the plot moves forward, he completely disappears from the storyline. Why is it so?

HM: Well, Rajat Kapoor as K Madhavan deserves a series of his own, a thought that has been echoed by so many viewers. His function in Harshad Mehta’s tale was limited to what has been shown. Anything extra could have been an indulgence. This was not a show for indulgence. It was a show ABOUT indulgence — about indulgence in one’s delusions of power, fame and wealth; about indulgence leading to human failure. So coming back to your question, we are looking at a K Madhavan show!

More by Dipankar Sarkar: An Interview with ‘Class of ’83’ Director Atul Sabharwal

DS: Harshad Mehta is a fraudulent businessman who exploits the flaw in the public sector banks and private financial institutions to his benefit. As a result, individuals linked with him lost their lives and a few others got their reputation tarnished. But yet there were people who refused to castigate him as a criminal. Even the concluding episode evokes empathy for Harshad and depicts him as prey of political hostility. Are you sympathetic towards his plight?

HM: I am neither sympathetic nor am I contemptuous towards him. I am merely observing him as a flawed human being who tricked a flawed system. We have seen humanized a criminal — that does not mean we have glorified him. It also does not imply that we have demonized him. This show is an observation, a meditation into a life that was, and a show that poses questions about a life that could have been. It is a tale of morality and its glorious ambiguity and open interpretation by different people. It is up to you to make your observations and judgments. We have merely presented a story as we understood it.

Dipankar Sarkar is a graduate in film editing from the Film and Television Institute of India and currently based in Mumbai. As a freelancer, he frequently contributes to various Indian publications on cinema-related topics.