Forwarded

Yesterday night, I learnt a BIG lesson in ethical leadership, when Mumbai's Heart Stopped Dancing. In the vibrant heart of Maximum City: Mumbai, during the joyous nights of Navratri when the city traditionally loses itself in the rhythmic celebration of Garba, something extraordinary happened. The music stopped. The dancers stood still. A wave of silence swept across the city's festive venues.

Ratan Tata, the titan of Indian industry, had passed away, and Mumbai chose to pause its celebrations - a gesture so profound in its spontaneity that it speaks volumes about what true leadership means.

This wasn't just the passing of a business leader; this was the loss of a man who embodied the soul of ethical leadership. Consider the contrast: When Steve Jobs, undeniably a visionary, passed away, America continued its regular rhythm. But when Ratan Tata departed, Mumbai's millions voluntarily halted their celebrations.

The difference lies not in their achievements, but in how they touched the hearts of common people.

What makes this gesture so remarkable is its authenticity. It wasn't mandated by any authority or prompted by official declarations. It was the pure, unprompted response of a population that recognized true greatness - not in wealth or power, but in character and compassion.

In an era where billionaires compete to host the most extravagant weddings and corporate success is measured in the grandeur of celebrations, this moment offers a profound lesson. True legacy isn't built on the parties you throw, but on the lives you touch. It's not measured in the applause you command, but in the tears you inspire when you're gone.
Ratan Tata's legacy wasn't just about building a business empire; it was about building trust, fostering dignity, and maintaining unwavering ethical standards. He showed that greatness isn't about being the richest or the most powerful - it's about being the most human. His leadership style wasn't about commanding attention but about earning respect through consistent actions that put people first.

To today's leaders who measure success in headlines and hashtags, this moment serves as a powerful reminder: When the music stops, will people pause to remember you? Will they feel the loss not of your wealth or position, but of your presence as a human being who made their world better?

The true measure of a leader isn't in the grandeur of the celebrations they host, but in the sincerity of the silence that falls when they depart. It's not about the parties thrown in your honor, but about the moments when people voluntarily stop their own celebrations to honor your memory.

This spontaneous tribute to Ratan Tata reminds us that real leadership transcends balance sheets and boardrooms. It lives in the hearts of people who may never have met you but whose lives were touched by your values, your decisions, and your way of being.

In a world increasingly driven by spectacle and show, this moment stands as a testament to what truly matters: not the noise we make while present, but the silence we inspire when gone. Not the celebrations we host, but the respect we earn. Not the wealth we accumulate, but the legacy of goodness we leave behind.
For aspiring leaders, this is perhaps the most important lesson: Aim not to be remembered for your parties, but to be mourned for your principles. Strive not to be celebrated for your success, but to be remembered for your service. Work not to be the richest in the room, but to be the most respected in people's hearts.

Because when the final measure is taken, true greatness isn't counted in the millions spent on celebrations, but in the millions of hearts that pause to remember a life well-lived in service of others. RIP RATAN TATA @followers @highlight The Unknown Planet

Beautifully

It is worth reading about this great leader and his humility.

He struggled in the Harvard environment in the 1970s. Ended up donating $50 mil to the institution.

Was honored by Prince Charles with an award. On the day of the ceremony he cancelled the event since his pet dog was sick.

He was humiliated by Ford declining to buy out Tata Motors. 20 years later Tata motors bought out Jaguar Land Rover from Ford.

Lots of anecdotes and eulogy on the web.

Naki,
Are YOU celebrating a " rich capitalist"? It's true a great businessman has passed, and an admirable scion of a rich house.. but you usually deride those people as "oligarchs"

Shit head. Does this sound like an oligarch to you? Fh@#%$&g parasite.

Do you even have some tiny bit of human compassion? One atom? Read this if you have the courage. I know you will dismiss it.

____________________________

Beautiful anecdote..

When Indian billionaire Ratanji Tata was asked by the radio presenter in a telephone interview:
Sir, what do you remember when you got the happiest in life?

Ratanji Tata said:
I have gone through four stages of happiness in life, and I finally understood the meaning of true happiness.

The first stage was to accumulate wealth and resources.

But at this stage I didn't get the happiness I wanted.

Then came the second stage of collecting valuables and items.

But I realized that the effect of this thing is also temporary and the luster of precious things does not last long.

Then came the third phase of getting a big project.

That was when I had 95% of the diesel supply in India and Africa.
I was also the owner of the largest steel factory in India and Asia.
But even here I did not get the happiness that I had imagined.

The fourth step was when a friend of mine asked me to buy wheelchairs for some disabled children. About 200 children.
At the behest of the friend, I immediately bought the wheelchairs.

But the friend insisted that I go with him and hand over the wheelchairs to the children. I got ready and went with him.

There I gave these children the wheel chairs with my own hands. I saw a strange glow of happiness on the faces of these children. I saw them all sitting in wheelchairs, moving around and having fun.

It was as if they had reached a picnic spot, where they were sharing a winning gift.

I felt real happiness inside me.
When I decided to leave, one of the kids grabbed my leg. I tried to slowly release my legs, but the child looked at my face and held my legs tight.

I leaned over and asked the child: do you need anything else?

The answer this kid gave me not only shocked me but also completely changed my outlook towards life

This child said:
"I want to remember your face so that when I meet you in heaven, I can recognize you and thank you once again....!!"

This is a challenge to ALL Americans, and particularly Republicans.

Why can't you people, a tiny 4% of the world population, not show some basic human empathy and stop this stupid self obsessed greed?

Your ultra capitalist greed has done enough damage to humanity.

The Right wing values are no longer aligned to human dignity.

Unless he took affirmative actions to destroy the cast system in India and try to provide means for people to engage in and achieve meaningful political voice, including office, he was an oligarch.

Out billionaires and millionaires are well known for charity donations both locally and nationally. The U.S. citizen give more to charity then any other citizens in raw money given.

A cynic would say he was trying to buy some goodwill for permission on the dollar for the optics of it, to keep reformers off his back. Either way, good things were done.

However, that does not mean he was not an oligarch.

The Tata family have NEVER been linked to any political party or politician in over 70 years.

Their family trusts are dedicated to philanthropy.

The Parsee community is not known for huge families with lots of kids in each generation.

Some in the Tata family, like Ratan, had no kids. Others were adopted.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Unless he took affirmative actions to destroy the cast system in India and try to provide means for people to engage in and achieve meaningful political voice, including office, he was an oligarch.

Out billionaires and millionaires are well known for charity donations both locally and nationally. The U.S. citizen give more to charity then any other citizens in raw money given.

A cynic would say he was trying to buy some goodwill for permission on the dollar for the optics of it, to keep reformers off his back. Either way, good things were done.

However, that does not mean he was not an oligarch.

Nakihunter,

Thank you very much for this beautiful and timely message. It goes right to the centre of everything that that moving right now in the world. I am very grateful for your post and for being a person who "gets it".

My wife is in Portugal for a few weeks with a girlfriend. I am sending this report to her, and to a couple of other friends who are also independent thinkers and will greatly appreciate it.

I remember the story about what the Indian people in Mumbai did when that big hotel was hit and by terrorists a few years ago. If I remember correctly they held a quiet candle light vigil for Canadians and others who were in the hotel during the attack. I believe the vigil lasted without interruption for a week or two. Amazing people!

Well done, India. Brian

Thanks Brian. Glad to be able to connect yo people with positive messages.

Yes the Mumbai terror attack in 2008 was in the Taj hotel, which was owned by Tata group

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Canada:
Nakihunter,

Thank you very much for this beautiful and timely message. It goes right to the centre of everything that that moving right now in the world. I am very grateful for your post and for being a person who "gets it".

My wife is in Portugal for a few weeks with a girlfriend. I am sending this report to her, and to a couple of other friends who are also independent thinkers and will greatly appreciate it.

I remember the story about what the Indian people in Mumbai did when that big hotel was hit and by terrorists a few years ago. If I remember correctly they held a quiet candle light vigil for Canadians and others who were in the hotel during the attack. I believe the vigil lasted without interruption for a week or two. Amazing people!

Well done, India. Brian

The United States gives more money and resources to humanitarian efforts than any other country.

The US also causes a lot more harm through selling firearms, military equipment, starting wars etc.

Eisenhower was a real visionary when he warned of the military industry.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
The US also causes a lot more harm through selling firearms, military equipment, starting wars etc.

Eisenhower was a real visionary when he warned of the military industry.

Don't give any responsibility to the buyers of those firearms and military equipment whatever you do.

I certainly oppose the Iraq war, but Sadaam wasn't going to win any Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon.

The market is being developed and grown.

After the collapse of the Soviet union, wars were few and arms industry was very dull.

The Kwait war was deliberately provoked to start a big war.

Sadam was the check on Iran. So Iran played a genius con game and duped the US into toppling Sadaam.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
The US also causes a lot more harm through selling firearms, military equipment, starting wars etc.

Eisenhower was a real visionary when he warned of the military industry.

Don't give any responsibility to the buyers of those firearms and military equipment whatever you do.

I certainly oppose the Iraq war, but Sadaam wasn't going to win any Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon.

quote:

Some in the Tata family, like Ratan, had no kids.

Had he…and had he devoted real time to their development…he would have gotten to the fourth stage of happiness much sooner.

Good parents and those devoid of children…certainly view the world through different lens.

I admire Ratan Tata for many reasons. He does seem a good man and certainly a smart and visionary person. But I tend to agree with Joshua on his assessment of oligarchy.

He can be a good man.

Unless he took steps to break the cast system and provide equal opportunity to engage in politics across India’s population. He is an oligarch.

You seem to have expertise in how to dismantle a social systems that has evolved for 4000 years. A system that has withstood the challenges of the British empire and Indian political experiments. A Feudal system that predates Capitalism by 2000 years and has actually transcended capitalism and globalisation.

People need to stop this ignorant BS and really do some research.

The Caste system in its current corrupt and fragmented form was initially a system of social organisation and division of labour - very similar to the British having trade based names like, Butcher, Baker, Barber, Carpenter, Smith, Wright, Miller, Mason, etc.

I find it incorrigible that one person is expected to overturn such a system.

Look at the US, the oppression of blacks and minorities continues for 250 years. Who is the ONE person that can change that? Donald Trump?

BTW, The Tata family belong to the Parsee community. They are Zoroastrian by faith. Their heritage goes back to Iran where they were persecuted and fled to India centuries ago.

THEY ARE NOT part of the Hindu Caste system.

The Parsees are an amazing community and highly respected for their contributions to industry, commerce, arts, science, social causes, philanthropy etc.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He can be a good man.

Unless he took steps to break the cast system and provide equal opportunity to engage in politics across India’s population. He is an oligarch.

And we have imperfectly fought to remove and replace those systems of oppression.

We fought a war for it.

We passed can Amendment to ensure a basic level of citizenship across all the states protected by the Fed Courts.


We have passed laws and prosecute those w due process given who violate those laws that seek to subject people.

Are we perfect? No.

However, we have as a nation through law and individual sacrifice moved to remove those barriers to folks engaging equally in politics, the economy, and civil rights.

This guy did none of those things.

Bill Gates gives a lot of money away too. Good for both of them.

Oligarchy is a specific thing. Every democracy is subject to slipping into it. That was the center of the turmoil in Rome. The Conservatives in the Senate sought to maintain oligarchical control. Powerful individuals on both sides sought to use that turmoil for personal power.

Tell us what steps did this gentleman take with his great power afforded by his massive wealth to see the cast system in India asunder? What policies, legislation, litigants did he support to make India’s political arena and economy open to equal participation?

I do not hate India. I do not hate you. I agree he was a good man. However, you have not demonstrated that he sought to destroy, limit, or minimize the oligarchical structure of India.

Naki, an oligarch is a member of a small group of people who rule a country.

It’s also used for an extremely wealthy individual who has outsized political influence.

Mr. Tata certainly qualifies for oligarch status as you typically use the term (extremely wealthy person with outsized political influence.)

Being an oligarch in and of itself doesn’t make you good or bad. It’s what you do with it that judges you.

Mr. Tata certainly showed good traits. But you don’t get 95% control of an industry in a nation like India just by being a good businessman without extra political influence.

He was an oligarch. Just not an evil one, at least from what you have shared here.

I’ve seen Tata vehicles in Africa. I was unaware that it was essentially a one man run company.

You are using an old right wing play book of "define and discredit."

You have done no research on Ratsn Tata. You know nothing of his commitment to social causes. You know nothing of the Tata family contributing to some of the most difficult regions to live and work in.

The tribal belt owes its industrial infrastructure to the Tatas. They have built cities and industrial institutions among feudal dysfunction. The millions of tribals who have been educated and employed because of the Tatas is a Global phenomenon and example.

People like the Tatas serve and build to change the system. They develop other leaders. They actually develop and inspire a cultural revolution. Right wing mindset will never understand that.

You still have ignored the definition of oligarch.

He may be a servant leader, but he still was an oligarch.

He was very rich. He used his wealth to improve his company’s business including political capital.

Again, he’s a good man. You are the one who seems to equate oligarch with evil. I’m not.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
You are using an old right wing play book of "define and discredit."

You have done no research on Ratsn Tata. You know nothing of his commitment to social causes. You know nothing of the Tata family contributing to some of the most difficult regions to live and work in.

The tribal belt owes its industrial infrastructure to the Tatas. They have built cities and industrial institutions among feudal dysfunction. The millions of tribals who have been educated and employed because of the Tatas is a Global phenomenon and example.

People like the Tatas serve and build to change the system. They develop other leaders. They actually develop and inspire a cultural revolution. Right wing mindset will never understand that.

I do not have to know him. I accept what you say about him, but it is your argument to make. You are not making it.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
You are using an old right wing play book of "define and discredit."

You have done no research on Ratsn Tata. You know nothing of his commitment to social causes. You know nothing of the Tata family contributing to some of the most difficult regions to live and work in.

The tribal belt owes its industrial infrastructure to the Tatas. They have built cities and industrial institutions among feudal dysfunction. The millions of tribals who have been educated and employed because of the Tatas is a Global phenomenon and example.

People like the Tatas serve and build to change the system. They develop other leaders. They actually develop and inspire a cultural revolution. Right wing mindset will never understand that.

Hey, haven't we heard from a certain economic refugee that India has always been the greats country in the world.

It's funny that THIS post does exactly what they define as a ring wing play.

Like humor, irony and projection are foreign concepts to some people.

Question for naki, are gates, buffet, bozos, Zuckerberg, and Larry page oligarchs or philanthropist? Bith, right.. but you are the selfstyled arbiter of righteousness

Poor little naki

I am beginning to think he used the term oligarchy so knowing what it means.

This is a simple definition that focuses more on the economic concentration of power.

Many oligarchic societies where political power is in the hands of the economic elite (e.g., the major producers/investors in the economy)


This definition of oligarchy goes back to Aristotle, who roperty have the government in their hands; democracy, the ‹ he men of property are the rulers. ... Whenever men rule by ligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is democracy"

As it relates to US:

Pluralists led by Robert Dahl at Yale responded by granting that American democracy had plenty of inequality built into it. Some actors and institutions were unusually powerful, but always in ways that were competitive and crosscutting. Pluralists argued that the linkages mapped by elite theorists did not amount to cohesion. Although various strands of elites constituted influential minorities, no pernicious or consensual political thread could be shown to run through them. There were powerful Republicans with the expected laissez faire proclivities, but there were also influential Democrats who paid homage to or were even evangelizers for the latter-day social gospel agenda. The conclusion was that American democracy had elites, but no coherent elite agenda.

Typical right wing BS to discredit and tarnish something honourable.

The definition of oligarch also includes political power, control & dominance.

India has oligarchs like Ambani and Adani. Their business practices are very dubious. They have a very corrupt alliance with the ruling party and the Prime Minister.

The Tatas are not part of the political elite.

The post is not about Ratan Tata being a "good man" but of being a truly great leader at a GLOBAL scale.

Oligarchy is evil when it is criminal and the best example is Trump - convicted on 34 counts of fraud and other felonies. The Koch brother are criminal oligarchs with their active political engagement and ecological crimes to enrich themselves with dirty oil and polluting the country.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You still have ignored the definition of oligarch.

He may be a servant leader, but he still was an oligarch.

He was very rich. He used his wealth to improve his company’s business including political capital.

Again, he’s a good man. You are the one who seems to equate oligarch with evil. I’m not.

Really?

You call him an oligarch and say you don't have to know him or make the argument!

Did you get that from Trump's play book?

I started a post about a man who died after a life time of great achievement, dignity & service. What more argument do I need to make?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
You are using an old right wing play book of "define and discredit."

You have done no research on Ratsn Tata. You know nothing of his commitment to social causes. You know nothing of the Tata family contributing to some of the most difficult regions to live and work in.

The tribal belt owes its industrial infrastructure to the Tatas. They have built cities and industrial institutions among feudal dysfunction. The millions of tribals who have been educated and employed because of the Tatas is a Global phenomenon and example.

People like the Tatas serve and build to change the system. They develop other leaders. They actually develop and inspire a cultural revolution. Right wing mindset will never understand that.

I do not have to know him. I accept what you say about him, but it is your argument to make. You are not making it.

You are the one who asserted oligarchy on this conversation.
You inferred the U.S. could learn from Raton and not be oligarchical.

The problem is Tatam is an Oligarchic. The second problem is you have not provided anything to demonstrate he tried to reduce, the oligarchy control in India.

You are on the right track sir.

Robert Dahl came from Talcott Parsons' school of Functionalists. Parsons was the patron saint of Right wing academia going back to the 1920 and finishing in the 1970s.

This school of thought had no methodology of causal relationships but only teleological models. It was considered to be a US counter to Marxism and communism.

Along with Robert Dahl, C Wrigh Mills was a highly acclaimed academic who defined the "Power Elite". Parsons and his monopoly of power in Harvard denied CWM his due credit and denied him a Professors tenure for decades despite his internationally acclaimed works. BTW, CWM was critical of the weak methodology of Parsons.

C Wrigh Mills' "Power Elite" is a real good read - a small book of about 120 pages IIRC from 50+ years ago. It would be considered a classic in Political Science.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I am beginning to think he used the term oligarchy so knowing what it means.

This is a simple definition that focuses more on the economic concentration of power.

Many oligarchic societies where political power is in the hands of the economic elite (e.g., the major producers/investors in the economy)


This definition of oligarchy goes back to Aristotle, who roperty have the government in their hands; democracy, the ‹ he men of property are the rulers. ... Whenever men rule by ligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is democracy"

As it relates to US:

Pluralists led by Robert Dahl at Yale responded by granting that American democracy had plenty of inequality built into it. Some actors and institutions were unusually powerful, but always in ways that were competitive and crosscutting. Pluralists argued that the linkages mapped by elite theorists did not amount to cohesion. Although various strands of elites constituted influential minorities, no pernicious or consensual political thread could be shown to run through them. There were powerful Republicans with the expected laissez faire proclivities, but there were also influential Democrats who paid homage to or were even evangelizers for the latter-day social gospel agenda. The conclusion was that American democracy had elites, but no coherent elite agenda.

Are we reading the same thread and posts?

I checked my posts above.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
You are the one who asserted oligarchy on this conversation.
You inferred the U.S. could learn from Raton and not be oligarchical.

The problem is Tatam is an Oligarchic. The second problem is you have not provided anything to demonstrate he tried to reduce, the oligarchy control in India.

Yeah buddy, you started this oligarch discussion.

You really need to stop.

Here is your post verbatim:

Shit head. Does this sound like an oligarch to you? Fh@#%$&g parasite.

Do you even have some tiny bit of human compassion? One atom? Read this if you have the courage. I know you will dismiss it.


Yes, my man. He sounds like an oligarch. You have not answered my questions that would dispose of the issue.

Poor old naki....we can see right through his racist rhetoric.... Brown oligarch good, white oligarch bad.....

He is a terribly bitter racist under achiever......


.

Did you read the post before that?

You do understand the meaning of "started", don't you?

Don't you dare tell me to stop. You have no right to tell me what to do, particularly when you do not read the posts, cannot count or you are plain playing passive aggressive bully.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Yeah buddy, you started this oligarch discussion.

You really need to stop.

Here is your post verbatim:

Shit head. Does this sound like an oligarch to you? Fh@#%$&g parasite.

Do you even have some tiny bit of human compassion? One atom? Read this if you have the courage. I know you will dismiss it.


Yes, my man. He sounds like an oligarch. You have not answered my questions that would dispose of the issue.

Is your brown ass still butt hurting after the ass wopping you got.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Poor old naki....we can see right through his racist rhetoric.... Brown oligarch good, white oligarch bad.....

He is a terribly bitter racist under achiever......


.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Did you read the post before that?

You do understand the meaning of "started", don't you?

Don't you dare tell me to stop. You have no right to tell me what to do, particularly when you do not read the posts, cannot count or you are plain playing passive aggressive bully.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Yeah buddy, you started this oligarch discussion.

You really need to stop.

Here is your post verbatim:

Shit head. Does this sound like an oligarch to you? Fh@#%$&g parasite.

Do you even have some tiny bit of human compassion? One atom? Read this if you have the courage. I know you will dismiss it.


Yes, my man. He sounds like an oligarch. You have not answered my questions that would dispose of the issue.

Yes, and it is subjected by your following post.

You have implied that Taya is a man above “oligarchs” of the United States.

Nothing in any of your post have advanced your argument that he is not an oligarch.

Again, if Tata did not take action to break the cast system and attempt to provide equal access to political engagement and economic engagement, then he was an oligarch.

You lied. You falsely accused me of starting the subject of oligarch.

Cowardly right wing tactics to discredit, as usual.

You want to call him an oligarch, you prove it. Liar.

Ratan Tata is dead. He was not part of the Hindu caste system. He can't defend himself from your cowardly attacks on his hard earned reputation.

Your bigotry is obvious in condemning a culture you do not understand and know nothing about.

The only thing you have succeeded in is to sidetrack from the topic.

Buddy. It is right there in your own white. You implied he was not an oligarch by using him to contrast w American oligarchy.

Get over it.

You played. You lost.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Naki,
Are YOU celebrating a " rich capitalist"? It's true a great businessman has passed, and an admirable scion of a rich house.. but you usually deride those people as "oligarchs"

Joshua,
He's kinda right.. I used the word oligarchs first IN THIS THREAD

And that's when little naki flew off the handle about being forced to face reality .. he failed the challenge, as usual

Well, at least he is consistent

That is fair.

I would only reiterate that it is in him to make the argument that Tara was not an oligarch. The argument that Tata is an oligarch w scholarly definition has been made.

It stands to be rebutted.

I have to ask, so what if he is? Can there not be good oligarchs?

I see Naki is hissing and spitting at everyone again.
While I do not agree with a lot of people on this forum, I believe you are in the wrong here again Naki. Pretty much like when you called Smith a racist which took a lot of knuckle biting to not call you some names.
I wonder if the employees in the steel mills, would share your glowing review of the man.
Gee and a billionaire donating a whole 200 wheelchairs, fantastic stuff. Should erect a monument or something.
He didn't become a billionaire by being all soft and cuddly, certainly not in that part of the world and I am terribly afraid to say old chap, that he fits the perfect description of an oligarch, but when I read your posts about Smith i knew you were a gigantic dickhead.

The issue is using Tata as a foil to juxtapose good vs U.S. political and economic policy as evil, oligarchical.

Can an oligarchic be good? It depends.

Did he use his power and position to at least attempt to dismantle the cast system in India and provide for a more free, open opportunity in politics and the economy? If so, yes he was a good oligarch. I doubt it. It is upon Naki to make that argument.

Given India’s reputation, I am inclined more to agree with the poster immediately above me.