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.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS