In India, the Tata name is ubiquitous. People see it on the packet of tea that wakes them up in the morning, on the buses that carry them to work and in the hotels where they go for a drink after work. No other name is as representative of the possibilities, and failures, of India’s private sector — and so all Indians would have felt the passing of the group’s patriarch, Ratan Tata, this week.
In his ambition and through his mistakes, Tata captured the potential of a global, modern India. The centuries-old conglomerate he led has grown along with his country, from the first stirrings of an industrial economy in the subcontinent with its steel plant in Jamshedpur, through the dreary years of socialism and the burst of post-liberalization optimism.
Tata took over in 1990, a year before India began to deregulate and open up. Under him, a group that made steel, trucks, and chemicals quickly diversified into small cars and information technology.
The shift exemplified India’s move away from a state-directed, capital-intensive growth model to one based on consumer demand and services exports. Today, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS) accounts for the largest share of the group’s value.
Unfortunately, deindustrialization has not worked out so well for the rest of the country. A services-led economy cannot quite produce enough jobs, nor does it appear able to ensure economic security.
India’s current government is desperately working to turn back the clock with sweeping industrial policies. However, transforming a high-cost, relatively uncompetitive manufacturing sector has proved to be a difficult task.
Perhaps that is because Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s efforts have tended to focus on tariffs, subsidies and protection for domestic manufacturers, rather than on improving productivity. The government would like companies to stay home and indigenize their entire supply chains.
Tata Sons Ltd CEO N. Chandrashekharan agreeably promised Modi in 2022 at the opening of a new airplane plant that “Tata Group will now be able to take aluminum ingots at one end of the value stream and turn it into an Airbus C295 aircraft for the Indian Air Force at the other.”
The Tatas are also building, in response to a push from the government, three semiconductor fabrication factories and one chip testing and assembly complex.
Ratan Tata’s own instincts seemed to have nudged him in a different direction. While he never gave up on manufacturing, he always believed that Indian companies should be global.
He used TCS’ profits to make big bets on both — wagers that did not always pay off. In 2008, Tata Motors Ltd bought Jaguar Land Rover. That deal might be considered a success, given that the company reported its highest revenues since 2015 last year.
Other decisions do not look so good in hindsight. In 2007, Tata bought Corus Group Ltd, which made steel in the plants that used to belong to the Dutch and British national producers Koninklijke Hoogovens and British Steel respectively. Tata probably overpaid and has lost billions on that bet; the former British Steel’s last blast furnace just shut down. The week that Ratan Tata passed is also the first week in centuries that no steel is being poured in the UK.
Nevertheless, India trusted his judgement, even in matters of politics: When Tata Motors Ltd picked the Modi-run state of Gujarat as the location for a new car factory in 2008, it was seen as a sign that the private sector trusted then-controversial Modi above all other chief ministers. The country followed Tata’s lead a few years later.
Why not also back his commercial instincts? India’s ambitions should be global, not local. Its companies should manufacture in and for the world, not just focus on the domestic market. Whatever his faults, Ratan Tata always benchmarked himself and his group’s products against the world’s best. The rest of India should, too.
I grew up in Jamshedpur, the beautiful company town that the Tatas built around their giant steel plant. Ratan Tata was already a larger-than-life figure then. Jamshedpur, with its world-class facilities, its orderliness and its productivity, seemed a harbinger of what India could become. The country might not have lived up to that promise yet, but, like Ratan Tata, it should not stop believing.
Mihir Sharma is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, he is author of Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS