Differences are only natural

In the last fortnight, media reportage of Tata has been prolific — from the chairman of Tata Sons not offering himself for a third term in February 2027, speculations around succession, and relationships among leaders to unearthing performance appraisal of leaders through Google Search and much more.

An Ngram analysis of Tata news reportage in August shows a huge increase in words like governance, transparency, trust, and so on. Are the recent developments in Tata 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 how they are sorted out is important so that there are no permanent winners or losers.

The babble has been so intense and assertive that we were reminded of the adage that those who know do not speak and those who speak do not know. The reportage also made us recall the lines, “Kuch to log kahenge, logon ka kaam hai kehna, chhodo bekaar ki baton mein kahin beet na jaaye raina”, from the Kishore Kumar song in Amar Prem.

That the heads of Tata Sons and Tata 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 pair concerned will know. Such a situation can occur between two perfectly well-intentioned and honourable people, and that seems to be so in this case. Indeed, it happens in other relationships like among married couples.

Common sense and experience tell us that conflicts and differences can be salvaged only through conversation, convergence, compromise, and commitment. Importantly, if salvaging a situation is not possible through reconciliation and readjustment, then a dignified and mutual separation is a valid course. Whatever the facts are, top-level differences should not affect the institution negatively.

And it is likely that 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. Graceful and early resolution is essential, and often the preferred path.

Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great were thick political allies in Rome — in fact, Pompey was Caesar’s son-in-law — until personal distrust, rivalry, and competition for prestige gradually poisoned the relationship. Caesar’s 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 crossed the Rubicon and initiated the civil war with rival Pompey the Great.

Around World War I, Kaiser Wilhelm II ruled in Germany, King George V in England, and Tsar Nicholas II in Russia, all related as cousins. Wilhelm’s impulsive behaviour, insecurity, and strained personal relations helped diminish the relationships, leading to the war. Of course, the war was not caused by just family relationships, but personal 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 could not resolve their issues through conversations and convergence, so the differences were extinguished through graceful adjustments. Above all, the leaders have protected their institutions.

However, such episodes tempt 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 aaine 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 Tata Trusts versus Tata Sons dispute, some others as a Parsi versus non-Parsi dispute, yet some others as a promoter versus professional dispute, or even as an issue of capital allocation discipline. It is fruitless to criticise, analyse, and paralyse, based on assumptions.

Two facts are clear. First, in accordance with well-established Tata retirement policies, the Tata Sons chairman would anyway have given up executive positions from June 2028 upon turning 65 years of age. Therefore, the board must have had some succession plan for June 2028. Second, renewing the chairman’s contract for a third term was a unanimous decision of the Trust members in September 2025, 17 months before even the ongoing contract would come up for renewal. It is this unanimous decision of the Trusts 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 this year. It appears that one director expressed reservations about certain economic and business issues. In this background, bearing the interests of the employees, investments, and business of Tata Sons, the chairman has gracefully announced his timely decision not to seek re-election for a third term. 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. How many business enterprises around the world can you think of that people respect and love? You can count them on your fingertips. The Tata family — employees, retirees, vendors, shareholders, and families — exceeds the populations of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland combined.

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 authors are former directors of Tata Sons and together served Tata for over 50 years.

Disclaimer: The views expressed are the author’s own and do not reflect the official policy or position of Financial Express.