His studied silence at the untimely demise of former colleague Cyrus Mistry has, therefore, come as a bit of a surprise to long-time observers of the Tata Group. It seems uncharacteristic for a man like Ratan Tata to not publicly acknowledge this tragic turn of events.
It is quite possible that Ratan Tata, being an intensely private person, has conveyed his condolences to the Mistry family in private. After all, apart from the intergenerational relationships between the two families, Ratan Tata and Cyrus Mistry have also worked closely together for many years, ever since Cyrus Mistry was appointed director on the Tata Sons board in 2006, as a representative of his family’s over 18.5% stake in the holding company. It is, therefore, quite likely that Ratan Tata has expressed his commiserations through private channels.
You might also like
Tata Sons plans to raise $4 bn for Air India
What data tells us about India’s deadly roads
Who's driving NSE options? Students, housewives, techies, small bizpersons
Order book a plus, but HAL must get execution right
However, despite the private nature of grief and mourning in this case, the lack of a public statement seems atypical, given Ratan Tata’s status as the chairman emeritus of Tata Sons, the chairman of Tata Trusts and as the leading representative of the House of Tatas. The current chairman of Tata Sons, N Chandrasekaran, did issue a statement expressing his shock and sadness at the news of the untimely demise. But, it’s still not the same thing.
There is an additional reason why Ratan Tata’s lack of a public statement sticks out: the recent history of litigation and rancour that has come to define the relationship between the two personalities. It is true that the fallout has been acrimonious and has embittered relationships between the two families. Ever since Cyrus Mistry’s public ouster from Tata Sons board, the two sides have locked horns in the National Company Law Tribunal, its appellate bodies, the high courts and the Supreme Court. This has taken a toll on the relationship.
Ratan Tata is not new to such internecine squabbles. His christening as chairman of Tata Sons in the early 1990s was greeted with court cases by many of the group’s ruling satraps; Ratan Tata’s comportment during the various legal battles stood out for its graciousness. And, so, given the nature of the current tragedy and the premature snuffing out of a bright light, Ratan Tata could have set aside all past differences, displayed the extraordinary sense of propriety that has marked his entire corporate career and rightfully occupied the higher moral ground.
Which is why, given Ratan Tata’s stature as a statesman for India Inc and his past record of public courtesy, it all seems a bit unseemly. A public statement would have set an example, provided the template for the rest of Corporate India. Ratan Tata, through his tenure in the Tata Group, has set an example for numerous budding Indian entrepreneurs on how to align corporate life with values and ethics. Which is why a public statement condoling Cyrus Mistry’s death would have provided them with an additional lesson on dignity and civility, qualities that Ratan Tata has come to epitomise in real life. The purposeful silence also sits at odds with the Tata Group’s corporate culture–of ploughing back profits into various charities, standing out as India Inc’s consummate corporate citizens–and leaves younger generations with a flawed paradigm.
Elsewhere in Mint
In Opinion, Ajit Ranade profiles Cyrus Mistry, a leader who shunned limelight. Amish Mehta argues decarbonizing conventional smokestacks will be no cakewalk. Vidya Mahambare & Praveen Kumar write about a crucial piece of information hidden in the price data. Long Story details how IndiGo will defend its No. 1 position.
