With reference to the editorial, “A question of answers” (November 1), some more questions arise about the controversy over the reasons and method of ousting Cyrus Mistry as Tata Sons chairman. Is Mistry as innocent as he claims? He was on the board of Tata Sons for six years before he was appointed its chairman. Surely, he was aware of the “interfering” style of leadership of Ratan Tata. He should have weighed the promise of full autonomy with due care and not at face value.
Second, he was not made the chairman of Tata Trusts, the first-time departure from practice. With Tata at the helm there, he should have factored in the implications of the move in his job as the head of Tata Sons.
Last, when he talks of being pressured to take decisions detrimental to business, he should have asserted himself, more so when he held the position for four long years out of the total five. Was it due to insufficient understanding of the complexity or a desire to carry on for five years?
As for the Tatas, what was the need to open a Pandora’s box when there were more honourable ways of parting with an undesirable appointee such as by discussing with him and seeking his resignation on mutually acceptable terms?
Or, was the “crime” so serious that an immediate sacking was the only way out? If so, it does not speak highly of a business alertness system and is against the public perception of Tata culture.
Y G Chouksey Pune
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201 · E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number
