Philanthropic Saint?

Why it is necessary to speak about the Adivasis when we talk about Ratan Tata

- Gladson Dungdung

THE death of a human being, be it a common man or a celebrity, is always sad. Ratan Tata, the well-known industrialist, is no different in this episode. Without doubt, his demise is a sad event and a huge loss for the country. But is there any justification for his anointment by the capital-intoxicated intellectuals, politicians, business class, media and middle class as a "philanthropic saint"? The newspapers carry eulogistic columns, special reports fill the TV channels, and social media is flooded with encomia. The general view seems to be that there was no other industrialist in the country who was so humble, kind, charitable, caring and people-loving as Ratan Tata. None had his concern for the growth of the country's economy, the well-being of the employees and the improvement of the lives of the poor.

The most surprising aspect of these tributes that have been pouring in from all quarters is that they have no mention of the Adivasis. Can any account of Tata be complete without them? What, then, explains this glaring exclusion? Are there apprehensions that talking about the Adivasis would expose Tata’s real face? But without the Adivasis, could the Tatas have built such a vast business empire in the first place? Posed differently, the question is: why is it necessary to talk about the Adivasis while talking about Ratan Tata?