In his review of Thomas Mathew’s book ("A learning curve,” Books, Parsiana, March 7-20, 2025) Dr Venkat Iyer unusually echoes the arguments of another (Varun Sood’s review in Mint, October 28, 2024) that the biography of RatanTata was not authorized because it was not approved — a gravely flawed stance. Sood was obviously unaware of the difference between authorized and approved. It is apparent that he has not read the celebrated biographies of Steve Jobs and Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson to understand that independent biographies, recognized for their objectivity, are never approved by the subject.
SAI KALAGA
sagar1998.backup@gmail.com
The review of Ratan Tata: A Life by Thomas Mathew ("A learning curve,” Books, Parsiana, March 7-20, 2025) by Dr Venkat Iyer is a disappointment. The reviewer has made bald assertions that the book "veers towards hagiography” and cites the Nano as an instance. He has plagiarized sections from the book and criticisms of the project as part of the reviewer’s analysis.
The author has given a balanced view of the Nano project. But Iyer concludes, "Another example, perhaps, of the old adage: ‘Operation successful, but patient dead!’”
The reviewer has missed the heart of Ratan Tata’s philosophy — according no less importance to societal needs than to commercial goals. As Nobel Peace Prize winner and scholar turned diplomat Henry Kissinger asserts in the book, the Nano was conceived for the middle class. Did the author deal with the project "dismissively?” The Nano was so impressive that even the critical Western press wrote that there was no "Nano Effect” on the rest of the world’s vehicle industry. The Smithsonian Institute hailed it as a "design achievement” (New York Times) while the Financial Times wrote it made Ratan "a latter-day Henry Ford.” Should they be termed the hagiographic West?
GUSTI NORIA
Hyderabad
gustinoria@hotmail.com
Regarding the review of Ratan Tata: A Life by Thomas Mathew ("A learning curve,” Books, Parsiana, March 7-20, 2025), I would like to say that I have known Ratan Tata for 31 years and worked with him since 1992. I feel that absolute objectivity is a myth; no biographer operates without a perspective. The real question is whether Tata’s legacy was analyzed or amplified. But that does not diminish the fact that Mathew’s work is an extremely detailed and significant body that might have otherwise remained scattered.
Historically Tata biographies were designed to be laudatory. There would be no Tata Group without Dorab Tata, yet his contribution is lost to public memory. J. R. D. Tata assigned his own biography to an insider, ensuring admiration. Mathew’s biography of Ratan stands apart, independent of corporate influence. Mathew praised Ratan, but he also criticized him, most notably for failing in his core duty: personally selecting his successor. Equating independent admiration with sycophancy carries the risk of revealing more about the reviewer than the subject or the biographer.
RAGHU KALE
raghunathkale@gmail.com
Dr Venkat Iyer responds:
This is a combined response to all the three letters. An overarching observation I would make is that the views of the commentators on Ratan Tata are markedly different from mine, which should not be a matter of surprise given that, as individuals with different perspectives, experiences and sources of information, we frequently tend to differ in our assessments of others.
As regards the comment from Gusti Noria, his allegation of plagiarism is, to put it mildly, laughable given that I have very clearly indicated that I am using a quotation from the book — a standard practice in reviews. As for his extravagant praise for the Nano car, he is of course entitled to his view, but a pertinent question that can be asked is: how did the Nano fare in the market, and where is it now?
Raghu Kale may have known Ratan Tata for a long time and his perspective is clearly colored by that acquaintance, which is entirely understandable. But to suggest that others should not form a different opinion, especially about a work which has been put out in the public domain, is neither fair nor reasonable.