With reference to the editorial, “Triple talaq in the boardroom” (October 26) the coup-like manner in which Cyrus Mistry (pictured) was removed from the chairmanship of Tata Sons through a board resolution was without grace and finesse.
Mistry had reiterated his view that “every company in the group had to earn the right to grow”. This happened when the Tata group was coping with issues such as buying Corus, marquee hotel investments abroad, huge arbitration award on the NTT DoCoMo contract violation, the huge penalty imposed on TCS for copyright violation by an American court, and high levels of debt — all passed down by the Ratan Tata legacy.
The conclusion that Ratan Tata (pictured) was without any blemish is open to question. To cite one instance, I remember reading a report of a letter he wrote written in his own hand to DMK patriarch M Karunanidhi, praising the role of then telecom minister A Raja, and sent through Tata’s lobbyist Nira Raadia.
Shreekant Sambrani’s article, “Revenge of the angry, old men” (October 26), comparing the Ratan Tata and Mulayam Singh parallels, not merely in terms of experiences but also in the coincidence of their timing, is relevant. Also is Sambrani’s reminder that in some men, there exists even now a Zulu king, Shaka, who killed his sons, or a Cronus/Saturn, who devoured his sons.
I could not agree more with the view of the editorial that “Cyrus Mistry’s exit could have been handled better”. The Tata brand name has taken a beating. It goes beyond the Peter principle.
