Media reportage during the last fortnight has been prolific regarding Tata — the chairman of Tata Sons not offering himself for a third term in February 2027, succession speculations, relationships among leaders, leaders’ performance appraisal, and much more.
Are recent Tata developments signs of flaws in governance and transparency? Or, do they reflect the reality that views can differ among individuals? Society teaches us that differences are normal, but what is important is resolving them so there are no permanent winners or losers.
The babble has been so intense that we were reminded of the adage, “Those who know do not speak and those who speak do not know.” The reportage also revived our memories of the Kishore Kumar song from Amar Prem: “Kuch to log kahenge, logon ka kaam hai kehna, chhodo bekar ki baton mein beet na jaye raina.”
That the heads of Sons and Trusts had professional differences is not a secret. Whether the differences were small or large, legitimate or misplaced, ego-driven or not, are all matters that only the concerned pair will know. Such a situation can occur between two perfectly well-intentioned and honourable people, and that seems to be so in this Tata case.
Common sense and experience tell us that conflicts and differences can be salvaged only through conversation, convergence, compromise, and commitment. Importantly, if salvaging is not possible through reconciliation and readjustment, then a dignified and mutual separation is a valid course. Top-level differences should not affect the institution negatively.
It is likely that recent actions have been motivated by precisely this consideration.
History offers many cases where what appeared to be a difference of opinion was not addressed and ended up contributing to undesirable conflicts. Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great were close political allies in Rome — in fact, Pompey was Caesar’s son-in-law — until personal distrust, rivalry, and competition gradually poisoned the relationship. Caesar’s successful conquest of Gaul made him extremely powerful, and Pompey became concerned that Caesar would dominate Rome. Their growing conflict could not be resolved through negotiation or compromise. Finally, in 49 BCE, Caesar initiated the civil war with Pompey the Great.
Around the time of World War I, Kaiser Wilhelm II ruled in Germany, King George V in Britain, and Tsar Nicholas II in Russia, all cousins. Wilhelm’s impulsive behaviour and insecurity damaged these personal ties. Of course, the war was not caused by family relationships, but mistrust among family members lessened the opportunities for compromise.
There are three common patterns suggested by history. First, honour and prestige become key. Second, leaders personalise disputes. Third, miscommunication creates exaggerated perceptions of insults.
In the Tata case, the leaders were unable to resolve their issues, so the differences were extinguished through graceful adjustments. Above all, the leaders have protected their institutions.
However, such episodes attract everyone to analyse and comment. It is in this context that Padma Shri poet Bashir Badr wrote, “Parakhna mat, parakhne se koi apna nahi rahta, Kisi bhi aine mein der tak chehra nahin rehta (If you analyse too much then you will lose relationships, just as a mirror does not hold a reflection for long).”
Conspiracy theories circulate, where none or some may be true. In this case, some view it as a Trusts versus Sons dispute, some as a Parsi versus non-Parsi dispute, some as a promoter versus professional dispute, some as a capital allocation discipline issue. It is fruitless to criticise, analyse and paralyse, based on assumptions.
Two facts are clear. First, as per Tata retirement policies, the chairman of Tata Sons would anyway have given up executive positions from June 2028 upon turning 65. Therefore, the board must have had some succession plan. Second, renewing the chairman’s contract for a third term was a unanimous decision of the Trust members in September 2025, 17 months before the ongoing contract would come up for renewal. It is this unanimous decision that led to the likely change in the tenure and dates of the chairman’s succession. The matter appeared on the Tata Sons board agenda at the instance of the Trusts in February. It appears that one director expressed reservations regarding certain economic and business issues. Bearing in mind the interests of the employees, investments and business of Tata Sons, the chairman has gracefully announced his decision not to seek re-election. The die has been cast, and attention must change to effective succession.
Tata is a rare national jewel. It is a business group that most Indians respect and love. Let us, therefore, wish Tata all the best in finding a successor and returning the enterprise to its mission of creating employment, family advancement, and national prosperity.
The writers are both retired directors of Tata Sons with a combined experience of working for Tatas of over half a century
Are recent Tata developments signs of flaws in governance and transparency? Or, do they reflect the reality that views can differ among individuals? 
Share
