Ratan Tata Passes Away - Page 9

^^^

Don’t know what discussion went on here, visiting this thread after awhile

but someone dies and you couldn’t wait to post an article that criticizes him, (nothing but negative about him) on the condolence thread on the same day and you again repost it on another thread

some might see it as an attack

Did you read the article you posted?

Originally posted by: TotalBetty

...Did you read the article you posted?

Is that a question to me (or to someone else?)

Originally posted by: Clochette

Is that a question to me (or to someone else?)

The previous poster, which is you

okay then here my reply:

It wasn't meant as an attack and it is an article about a study done about the Tata Group (not Ratan Tata as such, but the building of the group and the expansion. My goal hadn't been meant as an attack but as a portray of this famous industry conglomerate (a quite balanced one).

I don't know Ratan personally to write an obituary about him, but I wanted to honour the sheer scale of responsability he assumed since he joined the Tata Group at the age of 24 and how he became a "mega icon" of Indian industry making Tata a global business. The article also tells about the philantropic work.

I only posted this very long article once also assuming that it would get hardly read. It would have been much easier to just write some nice words and a "rest in peace" but this man deserves more, imo.

Originally posted by: Clochette

okay then here my reply:

It wasn't meant as an attack and it is an article about a study done about the Tata Group (not Ratan Tata as such, but the building of the group and the expansion. My goal hadn't been meant as an attack but as a portray of this famous industry conglomerate (a quite balanced one).

I don't know Ratan personally to write an obituary about him, but I wanted to honour the sheer scale of responsability he assumed since he joined the Tata Group at the age of 24 and how he became a "mega icon" of Indian industry making Tata a global business. The article also tells about the philantropic work.

I only posted this very long article once also assuming that it would get hardly read. It would have been much easier to just write some nice words and a "rest in peace" but this man deserves more, imo.

I think what happened here is that your original post, when you included the article, was somewhat cryptic. For someone like me who read your post for the first time, it sounded like you were alluding to the fact that everyone was celebrating a person who perhaps had skeletons in his closet and the article was going to reference those skeletons. You didn't say that explicitly but from your tone and choice of words, it did come across like you were trying to educate the public on the fact that Ratan Tata needed to be exposed on something.

I clicked the article and only skimmed through it. You mentioned that most people wouldn't even read the article. I think that's what happened. Nobody read the article. People only saw your post or other posts talking about it and assumed the worst, that you posted something inflammatory which seemed in bad taste. Having skimmed the article, I didn't see any attacks on Ratan Tata. Nothing negative or accusatory. Like you said, it was mostly about the good he's done for others which he hasn't gotten credit for. The article was actually positive but I think your post made everyone assume it wasn't and that's how the trouble started, compounded by the fact that as you predicted, nobody read the article.

This controversy was unfortunately just a series of miscommunications. I think also because people are perhaps used to you playing a contrary voice, due to your outsider position here on IF as hailing from a different country and seeing things in a different light because you don't view it from the same context (or even with the same stigma) as others do, that people were ready to assume the worst that you're taking a contrary position here too.

I think this post can help explain the situation and stop the attacks. If anyone doesn't want to read my "long essay," please just read the following in bold. The article was only meant to showcase the philanthropy work Ratan Tata did that wasn't given enough credit in the media.

Originally posted by: Clochette

okay then here my reply:

It wasn't meant as an attack and it is an article about a study done about the Tata Group (not Ratan Tata as such, but the building of the group and the expansion. My goal hadn't been meant as an attack but as a portray of this famous industry conglomerate (a quite balanced one).

I don't know Ratan personally to write an obituary about him, but I wanted to honour the sheer scale of responsability he assumed since he joined the Tata Group at the age of 24 and how he became a "mega icon" of Indian industry making Tata a global business. The article also tells about the philantropic work.

I only posted this very long article once also assuming that it would get hardly read. It would have been much easier to just write some nice words and a "rest in peace" but this man deserves more, imo.

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

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

BLUE - I want to add, that's not necessarily what I believe but going by this article you posted and the Karl Marx quote in it

Thanx for the last two reactions (and yes, I also think that my wording was bound to get misinterpreted ...the original post got deleted, btw).

And yes, I read the article (I won't post something where I don't know the content). I also worded it correctly (this time): Ratan was 24 when he joined the Group (of course not as a CEO, yet...that was 30 years later)