Ratan Tata’s ‘no comments’ spoke volumes on Cyrus Mistry, says biographer

PTI, Nov 6, 2024, 3:18 PM IST

New Delhi: Ratan Tata’s ‘no comments’ was more ‘thunderous’ than any statement when asked if he shared the apprehensions of some Tata group veterans who felt that Cyrus Mistry was trying to break up the conglomerate, according to the author of biography of the late industrialist, Thomas Mathew.

Tata had fully supported late Mistry as his successor in 2012, despite having second thoughts over the suitability of the latter at the end of the first year of ‘parallel running’ as Chairman designate and his replacement as Chairman of Tata Sons in 2016 was due to “an ethical and a moral issue”, coupled with performance issue, Mathew told PTI Video in an interview.

In the biography ‘Ratan Tata A Life’, some Tata group veterans have been quoted airing their apprehensions about Mistry trying to break up the salt-to-software conglomerate based on his style of functioning as the Chairman and the past record of the Shaprooji Pallonji (SP) Group’s acquisition of shares in Tata Sons.

“There are two schools of thought. Some Tata veterans say the way SP Group accumulated the shares of Tata Sons did not forebode well,” the former bureaucrat said when asked about the issue.

According to the Tata veterans, Mathew said, “The way they (SP Group) went about accumulating the shares was frowned upon by JRD, that is to put it mildly and he was very, very uncomfortable… (in a) clandestine manner, so to speak, SP Group acquired the shares exploiting, they say, the weak moments of the weak family members. It’s not mine. This is all Tata veterans say.”

As per the book, the SP Group had increased its stake in Tata Sons gradually to around 18 per cent acquiring shares of the company that JRD had given to his siblings.

Mathew, whose long association with Tata began in 1995, when he was secretary to the then Industry Minister, said, “Now the other supporting narrative is that when Mr Tata was the chairman of Tata Sons, the directors in Tata Sons were also directors in the large companies of the Tatas. There were about 15-20 directorships in which these people were the link between the Tata Trusts, Tata sons and the Tata companies.”

He further said, “That (practice of having Tata Sons directors as board members in other Tata companies) was largely absent during the time of Cyrus Mistry. In fact, he was almost exclusively, except for two people, in (the boards of) the largest (Tata) companies. So they said excluding the Tata veterans from the major companies (boards) also did not forebode well.”

Attributing to the Tata veterans, Mathew said, “They say it (breaking up the Tata group) was not put to test but it could have been the motive.”

When asked if Tata shared the same apprehensions of the Tata veterans, he said, “Mr Tata was a very reticent man, he was a very kind man. He would not comment on it. But to me, his absence of a comment is more thunderous than a comment… I said, ‘Sir, do you think that is true? No comments (Tata responded)’. I think that’s more thunderous than him making any statement.”

Mathew, however, asserted that the ‘replacement’ of Mistry as Chairman of Tata Sons in 2016 was due to “an ethical and a moral issue, and second is a performance issue”.

Late Mistry was chosen in 2011 after a global search by a selection committee to succeed Tata — who retired as Chairman of Tata Sons in December 2012 — with his full endorsement, despite apprehensions and reservations expressed by group veterans. For a year Mistry was the ‘Chairman designate’ before he took over as Chairman of Tata Sons after Tata’s retirement.

While approving the recommendation of the selection panel, Tata had two observations while nodding Mistry as his successor. He wanted Mistry, who was then the MD of Shapoorji Pallonji Group with interests similar to the Tatas such as construction, real estate, textiles, engineering goods, and power among others to ‘severe all relations’ with the company by creating a separation that would be ‘legal and tenable’.

The second was that for a year, Mistry would do ‘parallel running’ with Tata to ensure that he got insights and hands-on experience on how to run the Tata Group.

Mathew said Mistry did not separate himself from the SP Group after becoming Chairman of Tata Sons, over which “Mr Tata was extremely uncomfortable and raised the point to Mr Mistry several times”.

Also, Tata was not satisfied with the performance of the Tata Group under Mistry, and was concerned about its impact on the relationship of the group with its shareholders, and the limited dividend that Tata Sons received which had a consequential impact on the amount of funds available to Tata Trusts for philanthropic activities.

“He (Tata) says do we step in to correct the wrong or let the situation drift. So, he said it was a very painful decision for him to replace him (Mistry).

“In fact he had taken a letter to Mr Cyrus Mistry and said why don’t you sign this and step down for personal reasons but that did not happen and the rest is history, He did not want to replace him in this manner,” Mathew said recollecting Mistry’s ouster.

On Tata’s relationship with his half brother Noel Tata and why the latter was not considered to succeed him, Mathew said, “Mr Tata was really fond of Mr Noel, the way I understand it, he genuinely felt that he (Noel) did not have the experience to run a conglomerate like this (Tata), but he knew that he was a very capable man.”