So the next head of the Tata group need not be a Parsi. Is it good news? Does it mean that the great big Indian industries are getting out of their little family holes?
Not really. The simple reason for looking for "the right person" is that Ratan Tata has no direct heir. It happened even when JRD was around and poor Rusi Mody had to go back to playing his piano as Ratan was called upon to wear the mantle. This time around, there could be absolutely no right person within the family ranks.
I am quite certain that the Parsi community will be disappointed. The Tatas, for whatever reason, stood for a certain different class of business that got associated with the community. Just as Marwari, Gujarati business houses are. If they can stick to their lineage, why can the Tatas not?
I find it curious that Ratan Tata is emphasising that it is an Indian company. Of course, it is. Does being a Parsi take away from that? It might be considered an extremely liberal attitude on his part, but let us not forget that there is a difference between a stake-holder and the chief. The latter will perform a role; s/he will not inherit the empire.
There is this superficial liberalism that does not amount to much. Narayan Murthy’s son gets engaged and it makes front page news and he and his fiancée, who is also from a business family, are portrayed as royalty of sorts.
Another gem from Ratan:
If he is not interested in the Parsi angle, then how does it matter? Do head honchos have to take an oath that they don’t care one way or another for Parsis?
Now if he had said he need not be pro-Modi or anti-Modi, then that would be talking.
Not really. The simple reason for looking for "the right person" is that Ratan Tata has no direct heir. It happened even when JRD was around and poor Rusi Mody had to go back to playing his piano as Ratan was called upon to wear the mantle. This time around, there could be absolutely no right person within the family ranks.
I am quite certain that the Parsi community will be disappointed. The Tatas, for whatever reason, stood for a certain different class of business that got associated with the community. Just as Marwari, Gujarati business houses are. If they can stick to their lineage, why can the Tatas not?I find it curious that Ratan Tata is emphasising that it is an Indian company. Of course, it is. Does being a Parsi take away from that? It might be considered an extremely liberal attitude on his part, but let us not forget that there is a difference between a stake-holder and the chief. The latter will perform a role; s/he will not inherit the empire.
There is this superficial liberalism that does not amount to much. Narayan Murthy’s son gets engaged and it makes front page news and he and his fiancée, who is also from a business family, are portrayed as royalty of sorts.
Another gem from Ratan:
“In my opinion the successor should be a suitable person for the job. He need not be a pro-Parsi or anti-Parsi.”
If he is not interested in the Parsi angle, then how does it matter? Do head honchos have to take an oath that they don’t care one way or another for Parsis?
Now if he had said he need not be pro-Modi or anti-Modi, then that would be talking.
How about pro-Muslim or anti-Muslim.
ReplyDeleteThe ONLY social responsibility a business has, is to increase it's profits, quarter after quarter, year over year. Profit is the only reason for it's existence. From that perspective, Ratan's comment is geared toward increasing the profitability of the Tata & Co guised as social responsibility. Now who would be opposed to killing of two birds with a one stone - that is doubling the profit, right there. Which brings us back to the sole social responsibility, some call it the bottom line. A little bit of conscience did hurt no body.
ReplyDeleteMore here
Ah, yes. Uncle Miltie: He of the "working" economics laboratory in Chile under Augusto Pinochet and his Chicago School of Economics-trained henchmen. Nice find, Anon. Here's another:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/03/chile-earthquake
Anon 1:
ReplyDeleteIs that floats your Taj Mahal Palace?
Anon2 & Mstaab:
There is much to profit from social responsibility too, which is marketed rather well these days. The problem is marrying mercenary business interests with 'concerns'...it is not merely industry but the media that seems to excel in it as well. Thanks for your links.
You're welcome, Farzana. I don't mind contributing links provided they're relevant. In this instance, and while I haven't exactly been following Tata's growth model and community standing as a "family" business (I remember Tata from when they built big trucks -- eye-candy for many young males), with a bit of a nudge from Anon, I figured there was a chance you might also have been addressing business "models" generally. Hence the link. It seems to me that at a certain stage of growth (and where additional financing and/or markets are concerned) there is only one model followed . . .
ReplyDelete>>The problem is marrying mercenary business interests with 'concerns'...it is not merely industry but the media that seems to excel in it as well.<<
Certainly the media are likewise comprised of businesses -- businesses which, again, at a certain stage of growth, can no longer meet their operating costs through subscription but become increasingly reliant on injections of capital through advertising revenues. It becomes that content then -- naturally, some might suggest -- becomes driven by your "best" customers. And, as I recently read somewhere, one certainly doesn't want to aggravate them who are doing the driving. To put it somewhat crudely, back in the day, this was referred to as the old "put-out or get-out" ploy, where the option to get-out usually involved being left alone without resources in the woods, the desert or some really scary neighborhoods.
Of course, the latter has been *somewhat* ameliorated with the advent of the cell-phone -- provided there's someone to call, and it works as advertised . . .
Mstaab:
ReplyDeleteI don’t mind the links, Mark and I “generally” address quiet a few things without many people figuring them out! Thanks for letting me know that big trucks are ‘eye candy’ for young males. No wonder they don’t need to be advertised all that much. The market is driven by instinct…
The media as a business proposition is a bit dicey for it includes ‘news’. While the news is subject to interpretation, unlike products we cannot make it suit our personality or needs. If this analogy works, then would being “left alone” amount to ignorance about the world? How much importance do we give to the news we receive and the level of our vulnerability to the way it is transmitted?
Why do you think it would be “without resources in the woods, the desert or some really scary neighborhoods”?
Of course, the latter has been *somewhat* ameliorated with the advent of the cell-phone -- provided there's someone to call, and it works as advertised . . .
Okay. Got your point :)