Archive

I’ve known RNT for 31 years and worked with him since 1992.

I say absolute objectivity is a myth; no biographer operates without a perspective. The real question is whether RNT’s legacy was analyzed or amplified. But that does not diminish that Mathew’s work is an extremely detailed and significant body that might have otherwise remained scattered.

Historically, Tata biographies were designed as admirations, as in JN Tata’s. There would be no Tata Group without Dorab Tata, yet his contribution is lost in public memory, as JRD had other ideas. JRD assigned his own to an insider, ensuring admiration.

Mathew’s biography of RNT stands apart independent of corporate influence. In his judgment, Mathew praised RNT, yet he also criticized him—most notably for failing in his core duty: personally involving himself in selecting his successor. Equating independent admiration with sycophancy risks revealing more about the reviewer than the subject or the biographer.
- Raghu Kale
- 31-Mar-2025

The review, is an utter disappointment. Iyer made bald assertions that the book “veers towards hagiography” and cites Nano as an instance.
Iyer plagiarised (“Many… buff”) from the book (criticisms of the project) as the reviewer’s analysis. It was the author who gave a balanced view of the project.
Iyer then concludes saying: ‘Another example, perhaps, of the old adage: "Operation successful, but patient dead!”’
Reviewer missed the heart of Ratan’s philosophy—according societal need no less importance than commercial goals (as Henry Kissinger asserts in the book and Nano was conceived for the middle class). Iyer, did the author deal with the project “dismissively”? The Nano was so impressive that even the critical Western press wrote, there was ““Nano Effect” on the rest of world’s vehicle industry’ and the Smithsonian hailed it as a ‘design achievement’ (New York Times) and the Financial Times said, it made Ratan ‘a latter-day Henry Ford.’ Will Iyer term them the hagiographic West?
- Gusti Noria
- 30-Mar-2025

Iyer unusually echoes the arguments of another ( admittedly Varun Sood’s review in Mint: October 28, 2024) that the biography of Ratan Tata was not authorised because it was not approved—a gravely flawed stance.
Sood was obviously ignorant of the difference between authorised and approved. He has not obviously read the celebrated biographies (Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, authored by Walter Isaacson) to understand that independent biographies, recognised for their objectivity, are never approved by the subject. Never mind that Sood concealed that he and Sundeep Khanna had co-authored a biography of another Indian business leader. In quick succession, Khanna (an ex-editor of Mint) wrote another review in the same newspaper (like Sood he hid information on the co-authored biography). He also falsely claimed that the book did not give access to notes.
The title of the review is itself falsely attributed to the author—the source is Tata lifer, Krishnakumar. Iyer’s review is flawed.
- Sai Kalaga
- 26-Mar-2025