© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Ratan Naval Tata, who moved to Cathedral and John Cannon in Mumbai for high school studies in late forties faced some unusual problems as the school was ‘too anglicized’, ‘never equated well with it’ and was ‘quite unhappy in Cathedral’, according to Tata’s biography.
The young boy’s problems were compounded by his mathematics teacher, who treated him rather harshly. “But he had a favourite teacher too: an Anglo-Indian, Glenn Howell, his geography and English teacher. Ratan scored exceptionally well in these subjects, which became his favourites,” writes former IAS officer Thomas Mathew in a biography titled ‘Ratan Tata: A Life’.
The author says both Ratan and his brother Jimmy Tata were ragged and humiliated in school by their peers. “Ratan recalls that they were made to feel ‘conspicuous and outclassed’. After his mother remarried, he says that boys of the school said ‘all kinds of things about both of them,” the author says.
Ratan hardly had any friends in Cathedral because his mother and father were separated and his brother and he would always tag along with his father (Naval Tata), so his friends became their friends. “I hardly ever had any friends [of my own]. Of the three he says he had, Zubin Mehta, the famous orchestral conductor, and his brother, would occasionally come to Tata House. The other friend, Behram Dubash, is now a veteran in the shipping industry and involved in his family construction business,” Ratan is quoted as saying in the book.
After their parents’ separation, Ratan and Jimmy became so insecure that they would try and tag along with their father wherever possible, the author says. They would also accompany him to the Sunday lunch that Naval hosted for his friends in a small house in Juhu, Mumbai. They were the only children there amongst the adults. Ratan had his first taste of liquor at one such party. “Occasionally, someone would pour a few drops into a small glass and offer it to him, saying, ‘Come on, join in the fun. But liquor did not delight him. He recalls that he ‘never enjoyed and he and his brother, in fact, hated it,” the book says.
On why he was selected as the Tata Sons Chairman after the legendary JRD Tatas, the book says, “equally difficult was the research to get to the bottom of the reasons why JRD chose Ratan as his successor, when there were many one accomplished and experienced stalwarts (like Russi Mody, Sumant Moolgaokar and Ajit Kerkar) of the group at hand. The finding has upended the existing narrative that Ratan was chosen because he was a Tata, since at the time he was selected no one knew that he shared common ancestry with Jamsetji Tata, founder the Tata group. “This work has revealed that Ratan was chosen for a variety of reasons, the least important being that he had a Tata surname; most definitely, it was for reasons that he had a scientific mind, a distinct vision and the potential to lead the group through the tumultuous time of economic liberalization,” Mathew writes.
“Ratan, however, was still unsure of JRD’s intentions. He says that he had always entertained the belief that it would be (Russi) Mody who would finally take over as Chairman, Tata Sons. But if Ratan was like JRD in many ways, he was also unlike the chairman in others. The young Tata was a man of few words, an introvert. JRD, on the other hand, was the life of the party,” the book says.
On marriage, the book says that for a man who deep down feared marriage, unsure of how it might work out, Ratan got perilously close to wedlock more than once. “Ratan muddled through a few relationships without the courage to culminate any into marriage. Fearing the unknown, he backed off,” the biography says. “Yet, it is a little unusual that he, his brother, Jimmy, and his sisters, Shireen and Deanna, are all unmarried,” the author writes.
When Ratan was asked if there was some link between his decision to stay a bachelor and the divorce of his parents, he paused to think, then replied, “I have not thought about any link so far, but it is a fact that all the children of my mother are single, none has married. I need to think about it.’ But there is nothing to show that he would have been anything but a great husband and a wonderful father. The love and affection he bestows on those who are around him leaves little room for any other conclusion,” Ratan is quoted as saying.
The book says no one would expect the reclusive, reticent, media-shy Ratan to be a prankster. “But he is one, and incorrigible at that. His age never restrained the child in him. He would play pranks on his colleagues with great delight. During long board meetings, when he discovered that some of the ‘old guard’ would clandestinely relax by kicking off their shoes, he would kick their shoes as far away as he possibly could,” it says.
He would then wait for the meeting to end, to watch the directors desperately moving their feet in all directions to locate their shoes. When they would fail in their effort, they would struggle to bend and reach under the table in search of their missing footwear, to the amusement of the rest of the room, Mathew writes.
His love for dogs saw him provide a home for the strays in the iconic Bombay House, the headquarters of the Tatas. During the nine-month-long renovation, while the employees of Tata House were briefly shuttled between the headquarters and their temporary office, even the four- legged occupants were taken along. When the renovated building was inaugurated in July 2018, the dogs got a room of their own. It was well-stocked with feeding bowls, chewies, toys, dog biscuits, treats, mattresses and a plush resting area, besides water and food.
The dogs are only belted and not chained, and they have the freedom to move about. There are two large windows that look out onto the street and the kennel even provides a separate bathing area for the dogs’ weekly Saturday baths.
On his nature, the biography says just as Ratan expects people to trust him, he too easily trusts others. “This, at times, made him a poor judge of character, said (JJ) Irani (former Tata Steel MD). [Ratan] sometimes has blind faith in the people who are close to him, he felt,” the book says.
“Ratan is not generally perceived to be a man in a hurry. But he is. Yet, he is unlike most other achievers and as is his wont, rarely speaks about his accomplishments. This led to both positive and negative outcomes during his chairmanship,” Mathew writes. It was an advantage as he let his work speak for itself, leading to a more convincing and enduring assessment of his capabilities. The downside was that he often received less publicity for what he was doing than he could have, making him vulnerable to the uninformed public who believed his detractors’ claims that he was a non-performer, the book says.
Commenting on his style, former US State Secretary Henry Kissinger said: ‘He (Ratan) (is) not (as) dramatic as Jeh (JRD Tata), but he’s a man of enormous solidity and a leading thought.’ His manners are ‘unobtrusive’ and his views are designed to elicit ‘cooperation’ as opposed to it being viewed as an ‘imposition’. Contrary to public perception, Ratan was not always reclusive. He formed enduring friendships and was able to convince both political and business leaders about his sincerity of purpose and the morality of his approach, the biography says.
On Air India acquisition, the book says, “when the Air India proposal was discussed with Ratan, he ‘did not show excitement’, nor did he say, ‘somehow we should do it’, says N Chandrasekaran (Tata Sons Chairman). But he was extremely supportive’ and ‘wanted it to happen’, yet ‘he did not want to force’ the decision, the present chairman adds. Ratan asked Chandrasekaran, ‘Can you run it as a financially viable [company]?”
On the day (October 24, 2016) Cyrus Mistry was sacked as Chairman, Ratan had met Mistry and requested him to step down but the latter had declined. With this introduction, he renewed the request to Mistry to reconsider his decision (not to resign) before the formal meeting started. “Mistry ignored the request and attempted to draw Ratan into the proceedings by requesting him to speak. But the effort failed. The chairman emeritus politely declined, stating that he would prefer to be an observer. (Amit) Chandra, a Tata Sons Director, thereafter sought Mistry’s opinion on the resolution. A visibly agitated Mistry kept repeating, “This is illegal, this is illegal, you can’t do this.’ He punctuated this with the declaration of his intent, I need to get legal opinion’; ‘I request fifteen days’ time to give my reply’; ‘Under the articles of association, this time was required for the consideration of a proposal for a change in the Chairman’.
Tata Trusts (which controls 66 per cent stake in Tata Sons) had already got legal opinion from eminent jurists, confirming that such a notice was not required. Mistry was sacked as Chairman of Tata Sons.
According to the book, J.J. Irani was unhappy with the choice of Mistry as Chairman. To him, the Pallonji family’s intentions seemed far from sanguine. He remarked that the manner in which Mistry’s father Pallonji had gone about acquiring the Tata shares from JRD’s siblings was ‘despicable’. It was done in a way that ‘disappointed’ and ‘disgusted’ JRD, the book says.
Ratan, on the other hand, refused to let various such factors influence his decision. He approved the recommendation and extended all support to his to-be successor Mistry. “He said that he wanted Mistry to truly succeed and take the group forward. Explaining why he chose Mistry to head the Tata empire despite JRD’s disdain for Pallonji, Ratan says that Mistry’s British education had blinded him. Mistry was an alumnus of the Imperial College, London, and London Business School. ‘I naively thought that the ‘DNA’ of a person with such an impressive education would be different, he says,” the book says.
The book says Ratan had two other reasons to stay away from the selection process. The first was that there were many contenders from the Tata group and he wanted to give the comfort and confidence of knowing that a collective body of equals would recommend one of them based on a unanimous decision, or if not, by a majority, and not on account of the chairman’s preference. “The second reason was more personal. Ratan recalls that the overwhelming view was that his half-brother Noel Tata was the ‘default candidate’ to succeed him,” Mathew says.
The Parsis in the company, as also the ‘traditionalists’ in the community, pushed for Noel’s appointment as they considered him to be one of them. They contended that it would prevent the break of a more-than-125-year-old tradition of only a Tata, or at least a Parsi related to the founder, heading the group, book says. “Ratan, however, did not have any such concern. For him, only the talent and the values of the person mattered. Religion, community or the region they came from were hardly of relevance. He made it known that he was open to the (selection) committee even considering foreigners if they had the right qualifications, it says.
On Nano small car, Mathew writes that the Nano’s biggest failure, however, was its unimaginative marketing and advertising. An expert even dubbed it as “a monumental marketing blunder.” It was a problem that Ratan admitted to as well. In an interview in 2012, Ratan said that the low point for Tata Motors was its failure to leverage the wave of global interest and attention that the Nano had already generated. “The Nano has not realized its potential, largely because it’s just being marketed and sold like any other car,’ he said. ‘It’s a different car and it has to be dealt with differently,” the book quoted him as saying.
When the author requested Ratan to recall his most memorable day of his life, in an instant he said, “Amongst the happiest and most fulfilling would be the creation of the Nano.’ It was ‘because everyone said that a one lakh car was not possible, and we did that,” the book says.
On the 26/11 terrorist attack on the iconic Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai, the biography says Ratan spent half the night watching and waiting outside on the footpath, pacing between the hotel and the adjoining Gateway of India. “Ratan stood on the road looking up in horror, with ‘tears in his eyes’ as flames engulfed the more-than-a-century-old landmark. He was horrified and told himself, ‘I cannot believe the hotel is burning down. It is just not possible,” the author writes.
The biography also gives vivid details about many acquisitions like Corus and JLR of the UK and consolidation in the group after Ratan took over.
For Ratan and the Tata Group, March 25, 2008 was a red-letter day. On that day, Tata Motors signed the agreement with Ford Motor Company to buy its luxury brands, Jaguar and Land Rover. It signalled the change that three months earlier The Economist had predicted would come about, that the ‘future of these two grand old badges will be shaped not in Coventry, cradle of the British motor industry, but in Pune, home of Tata Motors’.
When Ratan returned to India from the US at the age of 24, he had become a strong votary of free enterprise. Two aspects of the US economy particularly impressed him, its resilience and innovativeness that continued to ensure its position as the world’s largest economy for more than a century, and its technological advantage that has made it the world’s pre-eminent industrial and military power.
“Ratan lamented the lack of prospects for India to make swift economic progress under the then economic architecture. State controls had stymied economic growth in the country, with the government keeping a tight leash on industrial houses, controlling how, what and even where they produced their wares,” Mathew writes in the book. Under the system, pejoratively termed as the ‘Licence Raj’ arbitrariness thrived and led to crony capitalism. It fed the meteoric rise of certain Indian industrial houses at the expense of others. Further, Indian industries were cradled and mollycoddled by state protection. They had a huge captive market as consumers were hamstrung by a Hobson’s choice. In this cushy environment, the rent-seeking Indian corporate houses had little reason to be efficient or steer outside the nation’s boundaries, the book says.
“To sum up, when the layers of this passionately private personality that Ratan is, are unpeeled for history, he emerge as a fierce capitalist who was driven, paradoxically, by the need to fulfil the goals of an implacable socialist heart,” Mathew told this newspaper.
