Gleefully Anointed, But Furtively Dethroned
This refers to your cover story on the Tata Group (The Exit?.and After, November 20). It was a deep analysis of the tumultuous developments and commotion at Tata's corporate house. No business organisation can take exception to ups and downs in its operative channels. Upheavals are not uncommon at any point of time as they are induced by domestic factors and global trends. It has been experienced through Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy and Brexit impact. When Russi Mody refused to step down as MD of Tata Steel, J.R.D. Tata diplomatically tackled the isuue and normalcy was restored harmoniously. Nani A. Palkhivala ended the stalemate with the implementation of age ceiling of 75 for directors on the Board of Tata Group. The unceremonious removal of Cyrus Mistry has substantially hurt its safe-guarded image in a jiffy. J.R.D. Tata strived to ensure that the place of work should be the place of joy and there is a notion that Tatas will never dismiss any employee, but now their chairman himself has been fired. Once the chairman is put in the saddle, he should be allowed to stretch his strategies, streamline business portfolio, hive off cumbersome ventures and hew its path of progress with collective endorsement of the board. Instead,Mistry finds himself unceremoniously shown the door! A chairman of any business group cannot discharge his role functionally under the sword of Damocles of the questionably amended Articles of Association. Mistry was gleefully anointed but furtively dethroned much to the shock of everyone. It appears to have violated all corporate governance standards. It is a warning that the Indian family businesses are yet to be fully diffused with professionalism and freedom of operations as envisaged in the Companies Act 2013 and SEBI guidelines. The Centre must set right these types of anomalies in the enforcement of its relevant laws to take them to their logical ends for objective corporate governance - both administratively and ethically.
B. Rajasekaran, Bangalore
A Clear Case of Ineffective Succession Planning
The cover story (November 20) is indeed the first time in the Tata's history that dirty linen has been washed in public. It should have been clearly avoided. The least the board could have done was to give a fair chance to Cyrus Mistry to present his case and then decide his fate because he had been appointed by none other than Ratan Tata himself. It is a clear case of ineffective succession planning, which is easier said than done anywhere in the world. It looks like Ratan Tata was still fully controlling or managing the group. It is very difficult to let go of power, more so when you have created and built an institution like Tatas. Ideally after initial handholding, Ratan Tata should have given Mistry full control of the company, and let the world judge him. Now after the removal of Mistry, it will be very difficult to find his successor as all the potential candidates will be anxious to sign on the dotted lines. But it raises many queries in public mind: If Mistry felt he was a mere lame duck, then why did not he resign himself in the first place? Why did the Tatas have to write to the prime minister rather than just inform the company law board about this decision? There is no doubt that this episode has dented Tata Group's reputation to an extent.
Bal Govind, Noida
Monitoring Officers
This refers to your article on the anti-ageing drug start-up (Elixir of Life, October 23). Prime Minister Narendra Modi may have announced factors that could aid innovators and entrepreneurs through the start-up/Make-in-India movement, but the programmes will succeed only if he monitors government officers for accountability. It is essential that government employees, especially from tax and public sector departments, nationalised banks, etc., are able to discharge their duties without succumbing to corruption. Strict action must be taken against those who fail to carry out their duties.
Mahesh Kapasi, New Delhi