I'd like to be remembered as a person who made a difference: Ratan Tata

Ratan Tata passed away at the age of 86 in Mumbai on Oct 9

The country is mourning the loss of Ratan Tata, who built the Tata Group into a global business empire. Tata passed away on October 9 in Mumbai after being admitted for age-related illness. He gave an interview to Suhel Seth for CNBC-TV18 in 2017. Here are the edited excerpts.

There are very few people in the world, and more so in India, who inspire with decency, with a strong set of values, who believe in what they say, who are torchbearers of not just a legacy, but who are deeply passionate about India. Even fewer are from the world of business. But today, I have a guest who is not just a colossus, but actually an inspiration to people across ages. Age doesn't define him. His work does. And he continues this tirelessly as someone who always believes in what he does, and does what he believes in. Welcome Mr. Tata.

Thank you, Suhel. It's nice to be here.

Sir Ratan Tata Trust will be completing almost 125 years of its existence, the first of the trusts. When you look back at the work that the Tata Trusts have done, what do you feel, and what ignites this feeling of compassion and giving back? 

Well, I have a great sense of pride that over these 125 years, Sir Ratan Tata left his legacy to philanthropic causes, followed by his brother, Sir Dorabji Tata, when he passed away, did exactly the same. And over the years, Tata's have been structured by the holding company or the proprietor's ownership being held by two charitable trusts, and over the years, an increase in the number of charity trusts that were created. To work on the disparities that one found in the country, that time a colonial country, and to work for the common good of the common man. This was a different thing. It set up cancer hospitals, schools, and institutions of that nature. It had also dealt heavily in terms of individual hardships.

So through the years that the Trusts have dealt with individual hardships, they have given scholarships to students. We've had past presidents of India who have been scholars of those Tata scholarships. We have created institutions which stand today, like the Indian Institute of Science, which the Trusts did not actually set up. Jamshedji Tata set that up.

But there's an interesting anecdote there, right, between Swami Vivekananda and the conversation that Jamshedji Tata had with Swami Vivekananda aboard a ship.

I don't specifically know about that conversation, but they met each other and were inspired by each other. I know that. So over the years, the Trusts have focused on either creating institutions that serve the common good, like cancer hospitals, et cetera, and institutions of learning, some international and some domestic, and causes which were said to be for the common good. What is refreshing is that the holding company for the whole Tata group, which Jamshedji Tata set up, that 66%, or at that time more, 85% of its income and dividend outflow became income to the Trusts for the common good of the Indian citizen and foreign causes.

But when you, I mean, as you rightly said, at that time there was no need, there was no mandate. Today we have CSR (corporate social responsibility), much abused as it is a phrase. But what do you think went through the minds of the founders when they set this up, and especially transferring their value in Tata Sons to the Trusts? 

Well, I think it was a different view of ownership. Mr. J.R.D. Tata often used to refer to Tata's as being the trustees of the people. The Tata family could have become tremendously wealthy by having distributorships, partnerships, et cetera, in the businesses. But most of the businesses, whether it was steel, whether it was power, or institutions, were set up as institutions for the country. So Jamshedji Tata could just as well have dedicated Tata Steel to the nation, or dedicated Tata Power to the nation. They belonged to the shareholders and to the people.

Personal ownership and personal wealth happened when it happened, but was never the criteria for these companies to be established. So it was natural that he did leave his ownership to his two sons. And then his two sons, who had no children, left them in charitable trusts as beneficiaries of the companies that they held. So it was a refreshing change that gave way to ownership in an industry not being for the beneficial interest of A or B or C, but for the better good of humanity.

So if you look at the trusts today, they span a wide range of sectors. And there's a certain stress that you've laid on technology being a great intervention in some of the applications. Where do you believe the transformation of the trusts actually began, and why? 

Well, you know, if you look at India through the years, the needs of India have changed. We had famines, food famines, in the British times. We don't have famines any longer. We had a majority of the people living in the rural areas. Today there's a mass migration to the urban areas, giving, finally, an important issue of creating an important issue of urban poverty and hardships that didn't exist before. There was the creation of jobs in industrial organisations.

Today, automation and differences in terms of value chains, etc., make human jobs less important than machine jobs in many companies. So the needs of the nation have changed. Food shortages continue to exist in pockets. Water shortage is something that never existed in the past, but is an issue today. A much larger population and creating jobs and knowledge, these are all issues that are issues of the changing times. For the trust to continue to do what they did at the turn of the century would be to be sitting in the twilight, thinking that the issues of the country are the same.

And to me, that would have been a disappointment. So I think the trusts have gone through and are going through a transformation that, to use a short term, is making the trust relevant today. If we had not done that, they would have become irrelevant and creators of edifices that stood out as evidence of what the trust did, but did not make a contribution to the country.

Well, I completely agree about the relevance of trust. The one thing that a lot of people talk about is the Tata culture, the Tata way of life. If you work for the Tatas, on the one hand, it's almost as if we are working for a family. On the other hand, it's almost as if you're part of a legacy. How have successive leaders, before you, JRD, how have you managed to retain that Tata culture in times which are sadly materialistic, competitive? How have you maintained that culture?

First of all, that culture becomes embodied in the DNA of an organisation. It's set off by the early leaders, the founder in our case, who never was in need of wealth because he had it all. But it wasn't what drove him, of giving India its own independence in steel or power or the hospitality area. What gave him the pride that he had made India self-sufficient? He didn't, at that time, look at the companies as being his, but belonging to the country. Somehow, that prevailed through the years, through his sons, and then through J.R.D. Tata for 50 years or so, where J.R.D. would stand in a line rather than jump a queue, where he would give way to a customer first and not him. That humility, I think, became embodied in what all the leaders of Tata companies had done. We should protect that ferociously. The day we lose that, I think we've lost an important facet or input in the companies that we have. The day we decide to cheat, the day we decide to do something that holds something for us and not for the customer, I think we will have lost a very, very important asset.

Has it been tough to stick by these values, especially during times when values were being trampled upon because of politics, competition, blah, blah, blah? Were there times that you often felt that, thank God, we are not the shortcut Tatas? Because you could have taken that shortcut. 

Yes. I'd be lying if I said there weren't moments when those issues came up and those decisions had to be made. Happily, at every time, boards stood together and leadership stood together in saying, that's not what we do. Over the years, on occasion, I've suffered as a result of that. But on the whole, I believe that it's very important to come back at night and say, I have not succumbed.

I love that because it's very easy to succumb

Yes.

I mean, you must have faced political pressure, economic pressures, and yet you stood the course.

Sometimes you didn't know if you were doing the right thing. All things are not black and white. You have a choice. One choice leads you down a certain path long term. Another leads you down another path short term. And then you have to weigh one issue against another. Hopefully, you make the right decision. Sometimes we don't, but we do it with innocence or naivety rather than intent and negativity. So I think that that's a sort of dilemma that faces many leaders, many leaders in the corporate world or politics. So it does in the business community too.

In 1991, when you took over, you were stepping into giant shoes, J.R.D.'s shoes. And then you brought the entire group together. I still remember the work that you did around the Tata brand and royalty, blah, blah, blah. When you took over and sat in that corner office in 1991, what was the one thought that raced through your mind? Because you were now the torchbearer and the legacy holder of almost 120, 130 years of existence.

On the one hand, it was a big move for me. But on the other hand, I joined the group in 62. So I'd been in various positions on the shop floor in Australia, in textiles, in steel, in Tata Motors through the years. And it was, in relative terms, easy for me to relate to the bigger issue. The one thing I had, which maybe is not so evident, is I had a terrific mentor in J.R.D. Tata. I remember walking back from the meeting where I was appointed chairman. When he walked back, I walked with him to his office and he told his secretary, Alu, we'll have to move out of here now. And I said, no, Jay, you don't move out. This is your office as long as you want it. So he said, really? So I said, yes, it is. He said, where would you sit? I said, where I'm sitting today. I have an office down the hall. And that's fine. Then I was deadly afraid that J.R.D. would forget that he stepped down time and time again, because he never stepped off the companies. He remained on the board of Tata Steel or Telco at that time. And I thought, suppose he runs the group from behind and forces his view. And he never did.

In fact, he was my greatest mentor. And the years that he was alive, I used to go into his office and say, Jay, I wish this had happened 10 years ago. We have got such a great relationship. And he said, yes, you know, I wish so too. So I was very lucky to have him there. He lent his weight when he had to. Example, the retirement age. Without his support, I could never have done that. He would explode if he thought something was being done that was wrong. But on the whole, he was a terrific mentor. He was like a father, like a brother, and gave advice. He always had time for you. It was a terrific relationship and very, very important. Not enough is being said about that.

But you too have been pretty reticent and shy, if I may add, about talking about the experiences that you went through, your relationship with Jay. I mean, some of the things that we are hearing now, we have never heard before. In your interactions with J.R.D., what is the one thing that you took away from that interaction? What was the core of his brand values or his kernel, as it were? 

I would think if I were to have to pick one, humility would be on the top of the list. He was just a person who longed to be anonymous. And to some extent, that's rubbed off on me.

Yeah, you love being anonymous.

I do and as you go through life, you find that that becomes less so and less possible and then you look at seeking anonymity by hiding.

But were you always shy? Were you always away from, you didn't want to meet, not meet people, you didn't want the arc lights on you?

I think so because when I was in school, etc., you wanted to be part of the school and not the rich man's son or the chairman's son or have a big car take you home while your classmates went by bus or smaller cars. You just wanted to be a normal person. I think I owe a lot to my father to ensure that we at no stage grew up, my brother and I, as pompous young people, but as people who would like to be every day. And I think that has stayed with me.

I want to come back to the city you were born in, Bombay. What was it like growing up? And I know the personal trauma you went through on 26/11. What went through your mind on that evening? I remember you rushed to the Taj to see what was happening. What went through your mind? And it must have broken your heart to a great extent.

Well, to me, it started by one of my colleagues, Noshir Soonawala, telephoning me and saying that there is some shooting at the Taj. So I called the Taj and nobody replied from the switchboard. As things turned out, I was not allowed into the lobby. The police came and they pushed everybody out. And Krishna Kumar was standing on the footpath outside. I was partly there, partly home, watching on television. And it became very clear in a couple of hours that it was not a gang fight or an underworld thing. It was some form of attack by terrorists or by enemies of the state. The next morning, the government rang me to say it was all over. I, in fact, issued a TV statement that morning saying it was all over. And it was not. It went on for three days.

By that time, everyone knew what it was. It was an attack by the enemy of the state. And my take on that was that whatever happened, we were under siege in this hotel. Whatever they did, we would rebuild the hotel. The city would stand up and not fall down. And there was a tremendous galvanizing of the citizens of Bombay, something that made everybody very proud of the way everybody stepped up to play a role. Nobody walked away from the situation as it stood. And you felt a great sense of pride that you were a part of this great city with citizens who were not running away from what we did.

And I remember you were particularly grieved at the loss of so many people, including people who were working at the Taj.

Oh, yes.

I want to come back to a larger national picture. You've seen prime ministers. You've seen governments at work at the state level, at the international level. India is at an exciting time at an exciting place. What are your views about Narendra Modi? 

First of all, let me just say I've known Mr. Modi when he was the chief minister of Gujarat. I turned to him when we had to change factories from Singur in West Bengal to Gujarat. So I've seen him and will never forget the way he found solutions for a company that was looking for a home.

How was that meeting when you met Mr. Modi in those days and told him about this move? 

What I've said publicly is he invited me to move the factory to Gujarat. And I said, we'd come if we had a home. And he said, I'll get you the land you want in three days.

Amazing. 

And then he delivered that on the third morning. He said, Ratanji, here's the land that I promised. And that just doesn't happen in India. So Mr. Modi, as Prime Minister now, is offering India, the Indian people, a new India. I think we need to give him that opportunity to offer that new India. He's able and capable and innovative enough to look at India afresh. And I, for one, am optimistic that with his leadership, India will be that new India that he has promised.

It's interesting you mentioned the new India. Of late, we've seen you invest in a lot of startups. You're backing a lot of entrepreneurs, young people who are taking great risks. What is your philosophy and why do you choose the kind of investments you make? 

Well, first of all, the embodiment of a vision that makes a startup happen is important. I'm not going to invest in a business that I have no interest in. So the business or the vision of that startup is important, first. But the most important of that startup is first. But the most important issue is to meet the founders. I have changed my view sometimes from negative to positive, sometimes positive to negative with the founders. For example, a founder that intends to just scale up his company to sell off is not a company I obviously want to be with. A founder who has a passion to stay with something and build it into a sustainable company that is taking its place is somebody I tend to support. So it varies. When I was chairman, I couldn't take this kind of view because somewhere or the other it would be conflicting with something that Tatas were doing. Now as a free person, it's invigorating to do this and I'm meeting a lot of young people who one day will be leaders of their industry and it's nice to interact with them.

But I don't think you'll ever be free in a sense. I'm sure Chandra would come to you, come to you, seek your advice, seek your views. He too needs a mentor. So which brings me to a very interesting point. You've done so much from flying planes to running conglomerates to sitting on international boards. What's the one thing that continues to drive you to this day?

That's a difficult question to answer because you get driven by some fire within yourself. You don't necessarily know what it is. It could be the people who lead an organisation. It could be the passion with which somebody is pursuing what he wants to do. It may be taking the side of the downtrodden because he's being picked on.

It varies from time to time, but there's an issue of wanting to make a difference. And if you can help make that happen, that consumes you and provides you with the motivation to go forward.

As you said at the beginning of this conversation, there are still some sociological issues that affect our country. Let's imagine if the Prime Minister were to say, Mr. Tata, please lead one specific nation-altering mission. What would you pick, if asked?

First of all, I hope I would never be asked anything like that because I would not be the kind of person to lead that. I don't think I could answer that off the cuff. It's too important an issue to flip an answer. But I think the way such a thing ought to be done is to be freed of political baggage that often such a thing would carry, and the freedom to the person who is asked to do whatever is necessary to make that happen. Far too often you have a good idea that's squelched because of a political or sociological thing. It just cannot be done, or it's too difficult to be done, or it's too risky to be done as such with public funds. Those might be the very things that are necessary to pull a country out of a particular morass that it may be in an area. So, I'd like to duck that question of yours.

From your vantage point, seeing what you've seen of the trusts, of the relationship that the trusts have with the people, and with the holding company, do you believe corporate India has really pulled its weight in the area of philanthropy? And involved itself in nation-building, like in many other countries where individuals get involved with nation-building as well? 

I think the only fair answer to that is there have been certain companies that I think would make everybody proud with what they have done, be it in the pharmaceutical area, or be it in chemicals, or be it in areas relating to rural development, which they've done more than they need to do to have a public face. And there are companies who have not. But I think if you go to any country, you would have the same mix. Companies that are conscious and compassionate about the have-nots in their country, and those who don't care.

Now that you're at arm's length from the operations of the Tata Group, what excites you the most about the group? And what worries you the most, if anything worries you at all? 

What excites me is the area we're working in now in trying to transform the trust. Because we're actually, in a manner of speaking, having the same excitement as one did in setting up an industrial enterprise. Dealing now with trying to reach people, trying to provide health care.

The National Cancer Grid.

The cancer grid, nutrition. And while the trust cannot take care of the country, we're setting some footfalls in the sand. Which, I must say, the state governments and the central government, they're all supporting us fully. And I think what we're trying to do is taken as being genuine and honest. And it's very rewarding to see state governments and the centre working with us. Things that some people would say could never happen.

So that's the trust. What excites you about the Tata, the house of Tata, the industrial bit? And what worries you the most, if anything?

I think it's too hot a question to answer, given what we've been going through in the last several months. All I'd like to say is that I feel that the group is in very able hands with Chandra. And businesses are cyclic. They will have their ups and downs. We have been a group that has worked with companies when they're in peril and brought them up. And I hope we can continue to do that in the years gone by. We will probably, the group will look different over the next 10 years. There'll be companies that were not there earlier. And there'll be companies that were there, not there 10 years from now, because they will not be relevant or they may have been sold or transferred to another company. So the face of Tata's may change. But so long as there's still the same drive to make this an enterprise or a conglomeration of enterprises that operate with ethical standards and value systems, I think I would feel very proud.

I know you're not the preachy kind and you don't like pontificating, but there are going to be tons of young people watching this conversation. They're going to be watching it on television. They're going to see snippets online. Many, and you know this yourself, many admire the house of Tata. They admire the Tata way of life and they admire Ratan Tata. If you were to send out a message to these young people who are watching the programme today, what would that be? It could be anything. It could be business, nation, whatever. 

What I would tend to want to convey is that people should do what they believe is the right thing to do. However, usually that's also the most difficult thing to do. And it's the riskiest thing to do, but if they believe in something, they should pursue it. And they should, like I said earlier, try to make a difference. Not a difference that's disruptive or negative, but a constructive difference.

One other thing I would like to add, which sounds political, but it's not. We as a country, or the citizens of a country, need to get back the pride that we should have that we are Indians. Not that we're Punjabis or Parsis or Tamils, but that we're Indians first. That we have a country that we belong to and that we should be proud of. We seem to be losing that somewhere.

Why? 

I think there are many reasons for that, but I think that can be won back to a sense of pride. We shouldn't have that sense of pride every time we go to war or have a conflict or get attacked by terrorists. It should be there all the time.

And to my mind, Modi's working on that, and he has been working on it.

He has, absolutely. And he has built a vision of a unified India. People may disagree with that, but I think that that's what the country needs at this point in time. It needs everybody to rally around the direction that the leaders are giving us. So, one hopes that the young of tomorrow will be driven by that to some extent.

At your sprightly age, you still have multifarious hobbies. From tinkering and driving cars, to flying planes, to reading, to architecture. Do you think in many ways this cross-functionality shaped you?

That's for someone else to say.

But what do you feel?

I think you can't just have one interest. You need to be able to jump. So, I think I've been fortunate in having those interests. I failed in some ways when I retired. I said I would relearn the piano. I haven't done that.

But you used to play the piano at one time? 

Long, long ago. And I actually started relearning the piano. I got a very able piano teacher to come and teach me. But other things overtook my ability to be consistent. And on the piano, I had one real problem. I found I couldn't relate my left hand to doing something different from my right hand. It became a frustrating issue. And I think that sort of waned my urge to do what would give me many hours of joy.

When you look back at this life, biggest achievement in your mind? What would you define as your biggest achievement? 

I really wouldn't be able to define that. There have been many moments which make one feel a sense of great satisfaction. And there have been a few times when it's almost despair.

So then I would ask you, which was your most despaired moment as it were?

That's an easier one to answer. Because I've always felt the greatest despair I had was when Tata's decided to put Central India Mills, which is what Jamshedji started, into liquidation. For, if I recall at that time, it was Rs 50 lakh. I thought this was a very unTata-like move. But it was done. And many people went out of work. I saw the misery that it caused. Blue-collar workers got taken care of by the government. But the officers of the company really suffered. And that remained in my heart as something that was a moment of despair.

Mr. Tata, you've sat on international boards, you continue to. You've been feted by governments, nations, admired a lot. Who do you admire?

Two people that, apart from JRD whom I have mentioned, who I admire greatly and sort of oscillate between being a family member and a mentor and a businessman I admire. Two people not connected with me have been inspirational to me and have had a profound impression on what I've done and how I've done it have been Dr. Amar Bose who developed Bose Speakers, the Bose Corporation. He and I enjoyed a friendship that was very close and was very personal because he opened his company to me. We spent hours and hours together and discussed various things. In fact, I knew more about the Bose Corporation than most people might have done. The other person is a person called Henry Schacht who was the chairman of Cummins Engine Company where we had a joint venture with Telco. Then became the chairman of Lucent which was a telecom company that merged with Alcatel. Those two people were people that Henry continues to be today. Dr. Bose died a couple of years ago. People that have had a great influence on my career.

The one thing that you've managed to hide very successfully from people is a deep sense of wit that you possess. We saw glimpses of it when you related that street urchin story. Isn't that a very Parsi trait to have, I wouldn't say wicked, but to have titillating wit? Why have you hidden it from people?

I haven't hidden it from people. Some people bring it out. The other day, had that not been mentioned, it would never have occurred to me to allude to something that I do all the time, to speak again.

What happened with that street urchin? You were driving.

Yes.

And then?

It's not something I always use to stop and talk to them because many of them are bright young kids who just don't have a chance. They're not interested in going to school. They're interested in a job. They make more money than they would make.

If they were working.

They're just a part of India that's fascinating. It's the young India of tomorrow.

Do you think, when you look back, the appetite for risk amongst the youth in India has increased?  Earlier, we would follow traditional patterns of jobs. Now, more and more people are self-starters. 

It depends on the area. People like the street urchins, what chance do they have? They look for a job. They live day-to-day, and they sometimes skate on thin ice in terms of the law. It's a difficult thing to relate them to a middle-class family that works hard, goes to school or college, aspires to be in a company. The wants are different. The aspirations are different. But all of them put together would make a tremendously entrepreneurial India.

Sir, last two questions. Next year, and I know you don't like anniversaries, but next year, the House of Tata will turn 150. That's a significant milestone for any industrial group, especially in young, vibrant democracies like ours. What are your thoughts about that? 

I'm very happy to see that we've held together for that period of time. Many companies disintegrate in that kind of period or are just a tombstone. I think we should do everything we can to preserve it and to continue that. As I said earlier, the group may change. It may look different in the next 30 years, 50 years. But it should embody the same values and the same ethical standards that it has had. It should never forget that most of its earnings go to philanthropy, not in the pockets of founders and leaders, and that it's doing something for the common good of mankind. I think that's very satisfying if that were to happen.

Finally, how would Ratan Tata like to be remembered?

Very quickly, what I said earlier, I'd like to be remembered as a person who made a difference. Not anything more, not anything less.

That's as brief, as pithy, and as deep as it can be. Thank you, Mr. Tata, for this lovely conversation. It's very rare to get you to speak, but I'm glad you agreed. There are people who want to hear you. And I'm glad we touched upon some of the issues that we did from business to nation to the world. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Suhel. It's always a pleasure to deal with you and to interact with you. And the pleasure has been mine. Thank you.

Thank you so much.