Originally posted by: TotalBetty
So the answer to the question is, No, you didn't read the article either?
Anyway he became the CEO in 1991 so he was 54 not 24, but he did work there before that
And all that things the article accuse (it's vaguely written and not very clear. It's like they're so desperate to find something negative) if they're true, happened during the British period and the 1980s, long before he assumed power...
I assume this online mag is communist leaning although it calls itself liberal
Cz it quotes Karls Marx "Capital comes into the world “ dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” and says It’s a description that could very well apply to the origins of the Tata.
Does that apply to Indian actors who become very successful businessman too because that's what business is, capitalism...
You know even if they did not do any business, only earned money via acting. BW used to be (don't know if it still happens today) supported and funded by underworld and their blood money. So their wealth is tainted too
P.S Even if nobody read the article, what you wrote in your posts revealed your intention.
But I give you the benefit of doubt that attacking him in his obituary (who does that?) thread was not your intention
comment:
p_commentcount