The sacking of Cyrus Mistry as the chairman of Tata Sons is a dark day in the history of the Indian corporate world.
Quelling the Kashmir unrest
It is a welcome step that a delegation (though not official) headed by a senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha is visiting J&K to make an assessment of the volatile situation prevailing there for more than 100 days. During all these days of turmoil—J&K has been on a boil throughout—the Union government remained a mute spectator except a futile visit by the all-parties’ delegation. Everybody is aware that a sense of victimhood has existed in Kashmir owing to the lack of economic and social development and ineffectiveness of governance by the PDP-BJP alliance. The present situation has arisen because of spontaneous indulgence of youth of J&K in protests, and they ventilate their anger through violent means. Given the sense of alienation among people, especially the youth, greater political engagement is needed. Under this accentuated position, dialogue is the only way out to solve this complex issue and the Sinha delegation should do this and listen to public opinion of all stakeholders there and arrive some ultimate solution to give feedback to the Union government to tackle this terrible situation.
The sacking of Cyrus Mistry as the chairman of Tata Sons is a dark day in the history of the Indian corporate world. Not long ago, a South-based national daily had resorted to a similar abrupt sacking of its Editor after having been brought him on board from outside the family-run setup. The organisations that respect professionals and believes in transparency, failed to give its top executive opportunities to turn things around. A chairman being shown the door without being a valid reason being cited calls into question the opaque decision-making process. The move was least expected from a company that is known for its excellent corporate practices and governance. That the reasons behind the sacking of an “intelligent and qualified” successor to Ratan Tata—one who was the unanimous choice of the selection committee in 2011—is still being guarded closely do not augur well for a well-respected conglomerate. Ratan Tata being called upon to serve as interim chairman shows that the company was solely dependent on Mistry ever since the former relinquished office.
R Prabhu Raj