MR. RATAN N. TATA WELCOMING DR. HENRY KISSINGER,
THE ELEVENTH SIR DORAB TATA MEMORIAL LECTURER

Distinguished guests, ladies and
gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure to welcome you this evening to the Sir Dorab Tata Memorial Lecture. These

lectures were initiated in 1960 by
Mr. J. R. D. Tata with a view to
invite distinguished persons who

were leaders in their own field with
a view to constructively contribute
to the audiences in India and to

Excerpts from the Preface of the Chairman of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust
to the published lecture of the first Sir Dorab Tata Memorial Lecturer, Sir Oliver Franks

On the birth centenary of Sir Dorabji Tata, born on the 27th August 1859, the Trustees of the multi-purpose Trust conceived by him before his death in 1932, considered that a memorial lectureship would be a particularly fitting form of commemoration. Sir Dorab made a notable contribution to industrial development in the country. He carried to a successful completion the bold and farsighted projects planned and initiated by his father, J. N. Tata, one of the most remarkable Indians of the 19th century. Sir Dorab's main interest lay in industry, finance and public affairs, and the Trustees' intention has been to invite for the memorial lectureships, eminent persons whose lectures would help to widen horizons and provide the intellectual stimulus so necessary for a developing country.

We all know him for many things. Just to highlight some of his several great achievements — he was the Professor on the Faculty at Harvard, he then was the Assistant to the President of the United States for National Security and the Secretary of State in President Nixon's administration. What Dr. Kissinger, perhaps, is most noted for is the fact that he rewrote the American foreign policy in opening up China and also for having brought the Vietnam War to a peaceful end through negotiations. He received the Nobel Prize for Peace and he has also received the highest civil honour in the United States, the Medal of Liberty.

Dr. Kissinger had for many years been requested by Mr. J. R. D. Tata to come here to Bombay to deliver this Lecture and, for a variety of reasons, most of which related to his busy schedule, he was unable to do so. It, therefore, gives us great pleasure that finally his schedule and his willingness to keep a promise made to Mr. J. R. D. Tata brings him here today, to be

with us and to share with us
what I hope will be a very, very
interesting lecture this evening.

(Right) Mr. S. A. Sabavala (standing) announcing that there will be a live telecast of Dr. Henry Kissinger's lecture in the Upper Foyer for people unable to get seats in the Auditorium.

Behind Dr. Henry Kissinger can be seen Ambassador William Clark.

4

[L]

DR. HENRY KISSINGER
DELIVERING THE ELEVENTH SIR DORAB TATA MEMORIAL LECTURE
on 'International Policy After The Cold War' — March 20, 1995

It is a great honour for me to speak on this occasion and my only regret is that Jeh Tata could not be here. I have met many remarkable men in my life. I have never met anyone more distinguished and more remarkable than Jeh Tata.

And perhaps deep down one of the reasons why my visit was always delayed was the conviction all of us carried with us that he was indestructible. He'd always be there and it is really hard to get used to the idea that he is not physically

present. But on the other hand all of us who knew him know that he is here and he is said to have told his associates that he will be watching them which was a slight threat and a major promise. So I would like to thank Ratan Tata,

5

whose friendship now carries on in another generation, for his introduction and for this opportunity for me to see and learn something about India at this dramatic stage of its history.

In reflecting about what I should talk to this audience it seems to me that it would be most appropriate if I talk to you not with remarks tailored for India but with my analysis of the international situation as I see it, especially the position of my own country, the United States.

The world right now is undergoing an unprecedented period of transition. Every major country is facing an unprecedented environment.

In the 19th century, the countries of Europe had the optimum scale for the balance between the then existing technology, and the capabilities of Governments to organise their societies. Having a head start in technology it gained a huge advantage over the rest of the world. But the scale of European countries now is too small for current realities. On the other hand, in trying to form a united Europe, they come up against the realities of their history which has taught them to be competitors, and of their cultures which are not necessarily homogenous. So Europe, whatever its future, will be absorbed for a considerable period in organising itself internally, torn between the necessity of cohesion and the reality that as it expands the diverse elements will become greater and greater. So that the outcome of the cumulative role that Europe may play is yet to be determined.

Russia, dominated for nearly a century by communism, is trying to deal with a collapse of two of its traditions — the communist tradition

and the imperial tradition. Russia has been expanding for 400 years in all directions. It has never been within its contemporary borders. For the first time since Peter the Great, Russia having been obliged to traditionalism for its various republics has now to decide whether to become a national state or whether to resume its traditional pattern.

China has never previously conducted global foreign policy. It never really believed in a society of sovereign states. China was conceived as a middle kingdom and, when the first British Ambassador appeared in China at the end of the 18th century, he was treated as a tributary, as a vassal who had come to pay homage to the Emperor. It was, therefore, extraordinarily shocking to China to find itself under assault throughout the 19th and a good part of the 20th century from those whom it had always considered as vassals/barbarians and to have to choose between preserving its culture and perhaps remaining with and modernising it. Though China has now made astounding progress, it nevertheless has to adjust emotionally to living in a society of equals on the basis of sovereign respect.

Japan has also had a complex history which does not always prepare it for the present. For four hundred years it had cut itself off entirely from the rest of the world. When it re-entered the world, it decided to imitate the imperialism of the European powers and this special characteristic of Japanese society, which is to think of itself as unique, as a family with special characteristics in a potentially hostile world, a society immune by design almost to the persuasion of others moving at its own pace was strengthened rather than weakened by its modern history. At the end of

World War II, Japan became an economic superpower. But it stayed out of international politics under the protection of the United States.

So all countries have had to face a unique world. During the Cold War, the two superpowers, more or less, kept in check the most extreme forms of national self-assertion within their respective areas of control. These restraints are falling away. And so while some American Presidents have spoken of a new world order, as if it had already arrived, we are in fact witnessing the first pangs of an international system yet to be constructed. The United States is militarily the most powerful country in the world today. And for the foreseeable future there is no country on the horizon likely to be able to match it. At the same time the issues to which military force are relevant are diminishing. There are fewer and fewer problems that concern the United States where one can say the use of American military force offers a road to their solution. So one should not confuse the superpower status of the United States militarily with hegemony politically. On security matters, the United States is important, may be central, to the peace of the world. But the issues that affect security militarily are diminishing. And the use of modern weapons makes them more and more problematic. So the United States faces a need to reassess its traditional approaches.

When I came to India during the Cold War, I was usually asked about the role of the United States in that conflict and the conviction of some of my interlocutors seemed to be that this was a comfortable role for the United States. The fact of the matter is, if you read what Franklin Roosevelt was saying during World War II, we really would have liked to play the role that Pandit Nehru played. He would have liked to be non-aligned between Britain and the

6

LC

Soviet Union. And much of what was written in America during World War II described the British with their usual concern for balance of power and the Soviets, with America at the side, acting as a mediator. Now this did not happen.

And the United States found itself propelled into the Cold War. And one has to look at America as a historic phenomena. America is the only major country of the world whose history can be dated from a very precise day. It is the only major country in the world that is populated almost entirely by immigrants who have turned their backs on their mother countries. It is the only major country in the world that has never been invaded; indeed, has never had a powerful neighbour. It is the only major country of the world that didn't have a foreign policy for a 150 years. It prided itself on isolationism. When America became involved in foreign affairs, it was always on

behalf of some huge cause, perceived to be a huge cause, and precisely because it was populated by people who had turned their backs on their mother country, there was a way of looking down on the European style of diplomacy.

I have sometimes argued that until fairly recently the American approach to foreign policy oscillated between dealing with it as a subdivision of psychiatry or as a subdivision of theology. The psychiatrists thought relations amongst States were like relations amongst people, and that one could personalise it and one could need it to establish the fundamentals of human relationships.

The theologians tended to believe that all international politics was a struggle between good and evil. And when you faced evil there were two possibilities. One to destroy it totally and the second to convert it. And

so you had both tendencies usually going on simultaneously. For example, President Reagan called the Soviet Empire, publicly, an evil empire, built on lies. In the same month he wrote a letter to Brezhnev based on the proposition that if the two could only get together they would be able to settle all the issues. When America entered World War I, it declared that the German Emperor was an obstacle to world peace. The German Emperor had been in office for 39 years at that point. It had never occurred to anyone that he was personally a problem. When he was considered a little strange, Winston Churchill said about him, he wanted nothing out of life except the victories of Napoleon without having to fight his battles. But that was different from the American approach. The same was true in World War II with better reasons. But what was also interesting in World War II is that when Russia supported Britain,

7

Winston Churchill said: 'If Hitler invaded hell, I would find something good to say about the devil' which was not exactly a vote of confidence in Stalin. But the American attitude was to make of Stalin the humane, well-meaning, jovial ally, on the basis of whom peace could be preserved. And what Franklin Roosevelt had in mind was the big four. The United States, Britain, China and the Soviet Union, who would police the world and would together enforce peace everywhere, without American troops — incidentally that job was left for the British. So this was the American attitude in 1945.

Then the Cold War came about because of the American disillusionment with Soviet conduct. And then America adopted the characteristic attitude, namely, that it was facing evil, that it had to be resisted, attacked: occasionally, in America a small opposition said they now had to be converted. But if you read, for example, the articles on containment that were written in that period they have one curious aspect. They say that if the Soviet Union is contained and prevented from expanding, the bargaining situation will change. And on some magic day, negotiations could take place. Yet none of these articles ever described what the negotiations would be about. What would we do on the magic day that the Soviet Union came to us and said, 'We have seen the light, we would now want to negotiate.' Now there was always some disagreement between us and the British who never took such a high moral position having lived in a complex world on a day to day basis and not being astounded by the vagaries of human motivation. And there were several attempts by Britain to see whether negotiations could be started earlier than we thought advisable. And yet when all is said and done, the containment policy did achieve its objectives. And almost everything that was predicted

more or less came to pass. That is also true. And some of it came to pass in the administration of President Reagan, who everybody said could not possibly succeed in foreign policy.

Now the United States faces this situation. We don't have a clear cut ideological enemy. We don't face a clear cut strategic threat. We are militarily certainly the most secure country in the world. We are probably the single strongest economic country. But in relation to most of the issues that concern the world, we are not the only superpower. In a world in which a crisis in Mexico can produce a crisis or can contribute to the crisis of the Governments in which new nations are coming into being everywhere, in many parts of the world, and adjustments have to be found for all the situations that I have described, America does not yet have a clear cut operating philosophy. We are still torn between the idea that we have arrived, to tell the whole world how it should organise itself internally. And on the other hand, there is a temptation to return to traditional isolationism. On the one hand, there is a world in which a trader in Singapore can bring down a British Bank. On the other hand, we live in democratic systems in which every political leader has an incentive to maximise for his own public, the unilateral benefits to his own society of individual actions. And so you should not assume that the United States has some master plan on the basis of which it organises the world. The United States is undergoing a serious domestic debate. Recently there was some dispute between Senator Dole and President Clinton at one conference that I attended, about unilateralism against multilateralism on the issue, should the UN tell us what our objectives are or should we define our own national interest. In the real world it does not happen

in such a clear cut way because no nation can act completely independently. Nor can one make one's action totally dependent on an international consensus. But we have to navigate internally in the United States, and we will for the next few years on these issues. It is further complicated by the fact that, when I started my career in international politics, the leading group in America was the north-east establishment — New York and Boston, and to some extent Washington — people who are emotionally linked at least to Europe had played a certain international role.

Now the political power in the United States is in the west and in the south-west — parts of the United States that have no particular emotional tie to any part of the world. In the far west they may look to Asia, not to this part of Asia but to north-east Asia — Japan and China. And so an educational process is going on in their minds. To give you an example of this kind of isolationalism, during the Cold War, I once spoke in Omaha, Nebraska, about the Cold War, and in the question period somebody got up and said: 'This is all very interesting and you speak of a danger to the United States. This may be true in Washington but what would anyone want from us here in Omaha.'

The headquarters of this strategic air command is in Omaha and was five miles down the road. The first city that would have been attacked in a war was certainly Omaha. But that fact had not penetrated the consciousness of these people. So this is where America is today.

What should it want? How should it organise itself? The generation of the '60s of the Vietnam war talk of multilateral solutions. The realities of the American politics drive it towards more national approaches. If you see, for example, the problem in

8

[L]

relation to Russia, the late '60s and early '70s generation looks at it as a problem of conversion. They think it is within our power to make Russian leaders democratic. I have an American acquaintance who believes that there is no such thing as an English *accent*. He thinks the English put this on to intimidate the American. And if you can only catch an Englishman unaware like waking him up at four in the morning, he will talk like a normal human being. This is very much the American attitude towards Russia — of some Americans. And therefore a great emphasis is placed on the personality of Yeltsin and many policies are shaped in an attempt to accord help to Yeltsin.

The opposite view which I share is that the problem of survival of a foreign leader is his problem. I also believe that in dealing with foreign policy it is best to deal with the foreign actions of a society and leave its internal evolution as much as possible to its own decision. So from that point of view my approach and the approach of those who agree with me is this. What we want from Russia is not a particular leader but

that they stay within their national borders, something that they have not done for 400 years. And since St. Petersburg is closer to New York than to Vladivostok, and since Vladivostok is closer to Seattle than to Moscow, my friends and I believe that the Russians should not feel claustrophobic if they are asked to stay within the borders of a country that has eleven time zones. So I see no need for any conflict between the United States and Russia if Russia does not attempt to re-acquire all the republics that they have recently been obliged to liberate. If they do, I think the fatality of Russian history will repeat itself. The fatality of Russian history has been over extensions. Once they acquired a territory occupied by foreign people they felt less secure rather than more secure and felt they needed new territory to protect the last conquest. And from that point of view I look at Chechnya as a colonial war, the only difference being that that colony is at the border of Russia.

I believe that American-Russian relations will prosper if Russia can adapt itself to its new geographic conditions. Its previous policies are

somewhat understandable, if one considers the flat territory and the invasions it suffered. But with 20,000 nuclear weapons, Russia does not have to worry about people marching into its territory.

So this is the challenge of American-Russian relationship. I have mentioned China which has made extraordinary economic progress and without whose co-operation it is difficult to conceive of stability in Asia and certainly in north-east Asia. It will be occupied with its economic progression for the next twenty years. But if it continues at its present rate it will certainly emerge as an extraordinary superpower.

And the relations of Asian nations to each other — I put India apart for the moment — Japan, China, Russia, Korea are more similar to the relations of the 19th century Europe to each other than of 20th century Europe. They deal with each other competitively — not just economically but strategically. And if one asks their leaders who is the greatest threat to them, they would almost certainly always name each

9

other and not some distant country. So in relation to that part of the world the United States is in a position very similar to that of Britain towards Europe in the 19th century, except we have never conducted such a foreign policy. And we would have to learn it as we go along and this will become even more complex because it is unlikely that Japan will continue to nestle under an American security umbrella in the decades ahead. Under the shock of defeat this was one way to achieve economic recovery. But with the end of the Cold War, it is not likely that Japan will view its national interests always identically with those of the United States. For America, Korea is a friendly but distant country. For Japan, it is a direct decisive neighbour. America does not have to worry for itself about two or three nuclear weapons in North Korea and can afford to make an agreement which freezes the development at that point. For Japan, this is a totally different issue, both because of proximity and because of status. Therefore I expect Japan first to develop its military forces, as it already is, having the third largest military budget in the world, and secondly conducting a more autonomous, not unfriendly, foreign policy.

I haven't yet mentioned India because I wanted you to understand how I approach foreign policy. In the period that is ahead of us, where there is no over-arching tension, the only way nations can co-operate is by developing a concept of their national interest that takes into account the national interest of other countries. During the period of the Cold War it obviously served India's interest to be non-aligned. When I started out in Government as an Adviser to President Kennedy and during the Berlin crisis of 1961, he always hoped that India would support our position. And I always said, it cannot possibly be that India runs a major risk for a European

capital with which it never had any connection, when the Soviet Union is so close by. And India, from my point of view, quite correctly took a non-aligned position on that issue even though it made some of our people unhappy.

So I always had considerable understanding for non-alignment, as long as you did not ask us to practise it. But during the Cold War it was, of course, always the situation that India and the United States had different perspectives on many of the issues. And the American relations with some of your neighbours truly aggravated it. Now in the present day world, India continues the road on which it is now, if it can sustain the growth rate it has — in which the official statistics may actually be low because of the difficulty of acquiring statistics on many parts of the agricultural economy — then without any question, it will become one of the major players in the world.

The question is what will it play? What will be the policy it will pursue? I tend to look at things, at policy issues, as history. And the Indian tradition in the modern period is different from that of other colonial countries at this end. I would argue that British foreign policy east of Suez was not made in London but in New Delhi and that the officials in New Delhi defined the strategy of the British Empire from the point of view of Indian security. The various lines, the Durand Line, the MacMohan Line, the various outposts, Singapore, the Gulf States were really conceived in the view of the strategists of that period for the protection of India. In terms of immediate British interests as European power, they were secondary and they were executed by a local civil service, so that Indian Foreign Policy does not begin in a vacuum and the Indian concern is there about security in the Indian ocean, more in the Bay of Bengal.

I see no possibility of clashes with the United States, especially if it does not take an imperialist direction which is practically inconceivable to me. So on many issues I can see that there may be many similarities. For example, if we look at the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli conflict I think is decreasing in its ability to produce an international crisis. It can still produce huge local suffering but it is no longer the central factor. I believe the central factor from Algiers to Iran is the conflict between the fundamentalists and moderate secularism in the Islamic world. In this the United States has a stake, Europe has a stake, Russia has a stake, and India, because of its geographic proximity, undoubtedly has a view, and the view that in the long run does not need to be hostile to the United States.

Of course, it would be absurd to argue that we shall always look at things identically. But we can look at them understandingly. I am struck by the fact of the ease of communications between Indians and Americans, and yet how few organisations exist that promote intellectual and political dialogue between our two countries.

Between Europe and the United States, between Japan and the United States, there are groups that meet regularly, while in the business world the contacts are increasing. In this sort of issue that I have discussed here there is too little context. There are too few Americans who really follow events in India and it is all the more remarkable because India, it may turn out, will help answer this question of what you need first — economic development or political development. When you try to do both simultaneously, it usually becomes unmanageable. But if India continues on the progress that it is making, it will be clear that as a functioning democracy that has absorbed several trenches of

10

Government, nationally and in its
States, with all the tensions that exist
in a society of so many
communities, it is in the end the
political cohesion of India that
contributes to its economic and
therefore its foreign policy
prospects. So I do not believe that
we need ideological conformity. I do
not favour periodic pronouncements
on the domestic affairs of other
countries as a vehicle of

American foreign policy. I do believe
that we can work on harmonising
our purposes and pursuing many of
them jointly. The Prime Minister of
Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, once told
me of what he claims to be a
Chinese proverb.

'When there is turmoil under the
heavens, little problems are dealt
with as if they were big
problems and big problems are

not dealt with at all. When there is
order under the heavens, big
problems are reduced to little
problems and little problems need
not obsess us.'

This is the challenge that is before
the world today. It is one to which
we are all condemned to contribute
and in which I believe that the United
States and India can march a long
way together.

Mr. N. A. Palkhivala proposing a Vote of Thanks

Mr. Ratan Tata, Dr. Kissinger and
friends.

I have attended every single Sir
Dorab Tata Memorial Lecture but I
have never seen the hall so
overflowing as it is today. And it is
the first time that we have to put
not only loudspeakers but
hearing facilities outside this hall so
that people who are not in
the hall can still listen to the
lecture.

Your speech, Dr. Kissinger, has
been studded with witticisms which
we rightly expected all the time, and
perhaps the audience would like me
to recall two or three other witticisms
which are to the credit of the speaker
and which have already passed into
history.

At the time when the Israel
problem was in the forefront,
Dr. Kissinger, who himself is a Jew,

as you know, spoke about
Mrs. Golda Meir. And he said,
'Golda Meir and I are agreed upon
everything including the fact that we
do not see eye to eye.' On
Watergate, you remember that
famous incident, when the whole of
America was convulsed,
Dr. Kissinger said, 'The illegal we
do immediately, the unconstitutional
will take a little longer.' He was
asked recently what it is like to be
famous. He said, 'The advantage of
being famous is that today I can bore
people at a cocktail party and the
people will think that it is their fault.'
For want of time, I will add just one
more. Years ago when Dr. Kissinger
had open heart surgery he was
medically advised to reduce his
weight. He did reduce the weight
and had to subsist on sandwich and
muffin. And when somebody
asked him whether you think this
kind of diet is alright with you, he
said, 'Well, it is demanding
enough to be disagreeable. But it is
not swift enough to produce
dramatic results.'

Dr. Kissinger, I hope that the
very, very warm response you had
from this audience will persuade you
to come back sooner and
occasionally visit us.

You referred to Europe. Europe
is today one and that is what is called
the European Union. Only one man

foresaw that and that was
Sri Aurobindo in the year 1916
when the first World War was raging.
He wrote an essay called the United
States of Europe. When later,
Winston Churchill, used the phrase
the United States of Europe, the
world applauded him that he was
evolving a concept which had never
touched anybody else. Exactly this
very concept was talked about and
written about by Sri Aurobindo in
the year 1916. And it is heartening,
that while we have this kind of
problem today with Pakistan, when
Sri Aurobindo, who was a
clairvoyant who saw the future, said
that India and Pakistan are bound
to come together. He said in what
form they are coming together is
not relevant. It can be a federation,
a loose confederation, but whatever
form it takes, these people are bound
to come together because they are
culturally akin, racially close,
historically related, geographically
close, and the culture is just one of
the two countries. And I do hope,
Dr. Kissinger, when the time comes,
with your assistance we shall be able
to forge a kind of a confederation
which will bring these two countries
together.

Let me, on behalf of all of us
here, extend to Dr. Kissinger our
most sincere gratitude for having
enriched, though briefly, the
intellectual life of India.

11

ON HUMAN BONDS AND VALUES

Mr. Ratan Tata, Chairman, Tata Steel, delivering the 11th Michael John Memorial Lecture at Jamshedpur.

(The Eleventh Michael John Memorial Lecture was delivered by Mr. Ratan N. Tata on March 2, 1995 at Jamshedpur. Michael John was a great trade unionist and played a vital role in bringing about a unique relationship between The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited and its workers and their Union. He became President of the Tata Workers' Union in 1947 and remained in that position till his death.)

On this occasion a Medal and a Scroll were presented to Mr. Tata in recognition of his service to industry.
— Editor.)

I thought I would speak on the human bonds and values which have been the foundation of the social harmony we enjoy in Jamshedpur today. I have chosen this subject because I believe that human values around us are steadily being eroded and unless we fight vigorously to arrest their decline, the environment of peace and understanding built so energetically over the past decades could be totally destroyed almost overnight.

Let me start with my early impressions of Tata Steel when I was here in the early '60s in my first assignment in the Group. What I

saw then was a common bond between all persons in the Company, be they workers or senior managers — a bond which was built over the years on mutual trust, understanding and team spirit. This bond, I am pleased to say, has endured the test of time. Families talk proudly today of the number of their generations which had been associated with building the fortunes of this great Company. An outsider to the Steel City can immediately sense the strong cohesiveness between the Company and the surrounding community, as also the strong sense of belonging which exists. I hope each one of us will

cherish and fight to retain these emotions.

What I have described would not have been possible without enlightened leaders on the union and the management sides. The likes of Professor Abdul Bari and Michael John on the one hand and Mr. J.R.D. Tata on the other, understood the importance of fostering and retaining a spirit of openness and mutual respect. Dissenting views and disputes, which are common human occurrences, were handled through the participation of people in the decision-making process long before

15

this became known as one of the fundamentals of good human relations. Instead of a culture of confrontation and agitation, these leaders created a culture of caring, a concern for the community and an environment of fairness rather than kindness. The six decades of industrial peace which have been achieved in Tata Steel have become the envy of the corporate world. Across the country, and in fact in many places across the world, industrial relations have come under strain. Jamshedpur has been different, and the responsibility on all of us is to ensure that disruptive and divisive forces which thrive on creating chaos, do not take away from us the heritage of peace and understanding which is so deeply rooted in our community here.

The roots of the environment which I have described are, in my view, the core values and ethics which were established by Jamsetji Tata and upheld in our Group ever since. I personally believe that it is these values which have set Tatas apart from other business houses in the country. We must therefore protect our principles of integrity, honesty and fairness which have built the relationship of trust between us and all our stakeholders — be they employees, shareholders, the communities around us and the Government. We have always believed that we must share our wealth with those who have helped us generate it. The concept of trusteeship management by which this flow has been possible, has lasted successfully over the years.

To impose on oneself and maintain high values has not been easy. In an environment where material gains are paramount, and where short-term objectives prevail over longer-term corporate goals, success has come to be measured in terms of growth and profit alone,

where the means to meet these goals no longer matter. Power, influence and political patronage are today considered to be acceptable road maps to success. Principles, business ethics and human values no longer matter. Almost all the companies in our Group must have faced a dilemma at one time or another, in having to choose between a principled stand or the subordination of ethical conduct and values in order to achieve a business objective. The fact that we have grown while still upholding our deep-rooted values, even at the possible cost of hurting our short-term business interests has earned us enormous good will and a reputation of international standing. We must protect and perpetuate this image.

India, at the moment, is passing through a momentous phase in its economic history. The process of economic liberalisation which has been initiated by the present Government is a long overdue reprieve from the days of the 'licence-raj' and the 'command and control regime' of the past, which encouraged the creation of power centres and vested interest groups. From a closed protected market, India is moving towards a global market economy. Indian organisations will have to reorient and re-structure themselves to remain competitive in an environment where the customer will have various options from which to choose. Progressively, as national boundaries disappear, customer choice will be driven solely by attractive products of good quality at the right price — irrespective of where they are sourced. Marketing and branding will become the important decider rather than the country of origin.

Indian industries also will have to dramatically improve their labour productivity if they are to remain globally competitive. People in an organisation will need to be viewed

as assets which add value, not as mere employment numbers. Both trade unions and managers will have to play a crucial role to bring about this change. India cannot stand still while the world around us is moving ahead.

We must however accept that while the economic reforms are a major move forward, the benefits of these reforms by way of greater competition, better availability of goods and a better standard of living, will initially be available to a very small segment of our total population.

* By all estimates, the total employment in the country, both in the organised and unorganised sectors, will not exceed 50 million persons.

* The organised sector alone, which is strongly represented and protected by trade unions, would be only 15 million people.

* The growing and prosperous middle-class, which we so often talk about, is estimated to be between 150 to 200 million people.

What we must recognise, however, is that we are not a country comprising only of a workforce of 50 million people. We are also not a country of merely 150 million people. We are a country of 900 million. Further we add a net 18 million persons each year — equal to one Australia or one Malaysia. Forty per cent of our population is under the age of 16.

The greatest responsibility each one of us has to our future generations is to create an environment which will provide food, clothing, education, and finally employment for our growing young population, which will have great aspirations — fuelled by television and other modes of information.

16

These future generations will
rightfully demand a better quality of
life and a place in society. The
fulfilment of these aspirations will
need to become the true objectives
of our future national policies.

Industrial growth alone therefore
will not make our country
prosperous. Economic reforms,
focussing on industrial development,
will need to be substantially
supplemented by economic growth
in the rural areas. The answer may
lie in initiating massive investments
in public works, and/or the creation
of large agro-industries to provide
high employment levels in the rural
areas.

The coming decades will be a
challenging period for the country,
and for our Company. I firmly
believe that the strength of the
common bond of which I spoke
earlier and the ingrained values in
our organisation, coupled with a
sense of national responsibility will
enable this Company and this

community to successfully overcome
our own challenges of the coming
years and retain our pre-eminence
in the India of tomorrow. But this
will not be enough. We will have a
larger more important role to play.
We will need to reach out and extend
to others the human bonds and the
values which constitute our heritage

here in Jamshedpur. We will need
to be concerned about the India
which is beyond Jamshedpur and
play our part in helping to raise the
quality of life for the millions in India
who constitute the weaker sections
of our society, so that our future
generations can be proud to belong
to a strong and prosperous India.

Mr. Ratan Tata lighting the traditional lamp near the photograph of Michael John. On his left is Mr. S. K. Benjamin, President, Tata Workers' Union, and on his right is Mr. G. Sanjeeva Reddy, President, INTUC.

Dr. Armaity S. Desai Chairperson of the University Grants Commission

DR. Armaity S. Desai, outstandingly able Director since 1982 of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, has been singled out at the highest levels of the Government of India for appointment as the Chairperson of the University Grants Commission (UGC).

When the Institute's Chairman,
Mr. J.J. Bhabha, was sounded on

the telephone about this proposed
appointment, his response was that,
while Dr. Armaity Desai and the
Institute's Governing Board and
Faculty would feel happy about
the honour conferred by
Government in her selection, there
were good grounds for doubts that
all her enthusiasm for doing a good
job and getting results would be
frustrated by the innate procedural
and other difficulties which had
bogged down the work of other
distinguished persons who had held
this position. The Education
Secretary of the Ministry of
Human Resource Development
reassured him the Ministry
itself was anxious to streamline and
revise the UGC's policies and
procedures.

The decision having been taken,
the Institute's Chairman, Mr. J.J.
Bhabha, successfully persuaded

Dr. Desai to meet the challenge of
the new posting and make a
success of her prestigious new
assignment.

Born in 1934, Dr. Armaity Desai,
after her graduation, obtained
a Diploma in Social Service
Administration in 1957 at the
very institution, the TISS, of
which she would one day become
the Director. Among the many
awards conferred on her, she is
the first recipient of the
Katherine Kendall Distinguished
Service Award for outstanding
contribution to Social Work
Education conferred by the
International Association of
Schools of Social Work, U.S.A.
She is also the recipient in June
1993 of the Professional
Achievement Citation of the
University of Chicago Alumni
Association.

17

## EXPORT EXCELLENCE AWARD TO TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Tata Consulting Engineers were awarded the All India Special Shield by the Engineering Export Promotion Council for the year 1993-94 in the 'Services Exporters Non-SSI' category. Mr. M. R. Ranga Rao, Director-in-Charge, TCE (left) received the Award from Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, (right) Union Minister of Commerce in New Delhi.

## TELCO'S DONATION OF A MOBILE MEDICAL VAN TO THE SOCIETY FOR THE ERADICATION OF LEPROSY

A 609 vehicle specially designed and equipped as a mobile medical cum propaganda van was donated by The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited to the Society for the Eradication of Leprosy (SEL). The Society functions under the SET programme — survey, education and treatment — in the 'A' Ward of Bombay city. Mr. V. M. Raval, Executive Director (Automobiles) handed over the keys of the van to Mr. W. Saldanha, Hon. Treasurer of the Society, at a simple function in Bombay.

18

## KELLOGG GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
### Visit to India of the students accompanied by Prof. Mohanbir Singh Sawhney, faculty Adviser and Assistant Professor (Marketing)

Mr. J. J. Bhabha, addressing the students from the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Bombay House. On his right is Mr. S. Ramakrishnan, Member Secretary, TAS, and on his left is Mr. V. S. Krishnan, General Manager, Corporate Planning and Finance, Telco, and Mr. J. J. Tata, Chief Executive Officer, Tata Services Limited.

(Professor Mohanbir Singh Sawhney, a former TAS Officer of the 1987 batch and who is at present Faculty Adviser and Assistant Professor (Marketing) of the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, U.S.A., accompanied a batch of 22 students to Bombay House to interact with Tata Managers as part of their Programme on Global Initiatives in Management. Kelloggs is rated high as a business school and is a part of the Northwestern University — one of the top ten universities in the United States.

During this visit Dr. Mukund Govind Rajan, a Rhodes Scholar, who joined the TAS in 1995, interviewed Professor Sawhney. An edited version of this interview is given below as it would be of interest to the readers of the Tata Review — Editor.)

**R.** You worked for little more than two years, between 1987 and 1989, as an Officer of the Tata Administrative Service (TAS).

Can you briefly recount what the experience was like?

**S.** The TAS was a fascinating experience, especially the first year and a half. It was unique in the range of opportunities and flexibility it gave one, and the tremendous access to top level management it offered.

During my training, I did a business planning assignment with Tata Unisys, a quality assurance assignment with Titan Watches, a marketing information assignment with Tata Telecom, a business analysis assignment with Tata Textiles, and a demand forecasting assignment with Tata Steel. After training, I was placed with Titan Watches, where I implemented the quality assurance report I had prepared during my training. A few months later, I was transferred to Tata Elxsi, and sent to Singapore to assist in its business development operations.

I think the TAS training provided one unparalleled opportunities. However, I must admit that I experienced a bit of a let-down after

I was placed. Settling down to work in one company diminished a lot of the initial excitement one experienced when joining the TAS. I also think that the salaries that used to be offered in those days were quite low. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation in saying that if I had another chance to go back in time and again choose a career in the Indian corporate world, I would still choose the TAS.

**R.** After your stint with Tatas, you moved to the US to pursue academics. What was the reason for this?

**S.** I feel that in a corporate environment, when you settle down, your learning curve falls off. The level of intellectual stimulation drops. This was one reason for my moving to the US to do a doctorate. Second, my experience as a teaching assistant in IIM, Calcutta had been very enjoyable, and I felt I might do well as a teacher. Finally, I was still young and fancy free when I moved to the US, and was willing to experiment with a new career.

On the whole, academia has lived up to my expectations. I have enjoyed both the intellectual challenge and the satisfaction of teaching.

**R.** How different was the academic and cultural environment in the US from your experience in India?

**S.** The reason I am, and in the long run will be in the US, is that one gets a few things in academia there, that one cannot find in India. The first is a very stimulating and competitive intellectual environment. Faculty appointments are characterised by a meritocracy. Second, one is able to focus one's efforts almost entirely on value-added activities. There are no infrastructural

19

Prof. Mohanbir Singh Sawhney (extreme left) with the students of the Kellogg Graduate School of Management.

problems. For example, one does not waste time in seeking a licence, or securing a gas connection, or dealing with an inefficient bureaucracy. Third, one has amazing access to information in the US.

All these features allow one to actualise one's potential. The only limit is one's own capability, creativity and imagination.

There are, of course, some potential downsides to life in the US. One might be that contact with one's friends and family is reduced. However, in my case, I now have a large number of friends and relatives in the US, so that is not an issue for me. Another downside might be the sense of being a foreigner of cultural and social discrimination in the US. I took care of that by marrying an American!

My only regret is that I have not been able to spend enough time with my parents in India. I was not able to be here when my father died. I also have a feeling of guilt about not being closer to my mother subsequent to my father's demise.

**R.** There have been some very fundamental economic changes in India over the last few years. What is the perception of these changes in the US?

**S.** I think everyone is very excited. Of course, we are hopeful that the reform process will not end in 1996. Personally, I think it will not, and I feel the changes are irreversible.

The big change that has now taken place is that India is finally in people's perceptual maps. You see, the fact is people outside don't really care about Indian democracy, or 5000 years of culture. Earlier, for instance, when compared to another emerging market, China, the calculation was quite simply that India was not as good as an investment opportunity. The lesson is that you have to market yourself as a good place to do business.

Perceptions about India are certainly changing in the US. Still, it will take a while before people become enthusiastic about doing business in India. To be sure, the image of India as a land of snake charmers and rope tricks is now something of the past. Yet, it still has an amazing bureaucratic maze, and very poor infrastructure. Another worrying aspect is the state of the environment — in Delhi, you can't breathe the air anymore!

**R.** Increasing numbers of young Indians who went abroad in pursuit of better academic and professional opportunities seem to

be returning home in the wake of the changes over the last few years. What special assets do these young people bring back to India?

**S.** I think they bring a variety of assets back to India. First, they bring their technical skills, for example, in the form of patents held by them. Second, they bring capital which can be invested; a number of them start entrepreneurial ventures. Third, they bring a special sense of giving back to their country, perhaps stemming from an earlier sense of guilt about having left the country. This makes them more patient than, say, US entrepreneurs. Finally, these young people bring with them an understanding of the culture, which foreigners lack.

**R.** Finally, turning to the Tata Group, the image of the Group of professional excellence combined with ethical business practices is highly regarded in India. From your exposure to the corporate community in the US, would you like to comment on the prevalence amongst US companies of an image such as Tatas enjoy in India?

**S.** It is not rare to find companies in the US which are excellently run and which pursue ethical business practices. It is not a big deal to be clean in the US. But it does become a big deal in India. And it is also a big deal for US companies coming to India. The last thing an established US company wants is a corrupt partner. It is for this reason that a disproportionate share of collaborations and tie-ups with US companies have gone to the Tata Group. The Tata image is thus paying big dividends now.

I think it is widely acknowledged that the Tata Group did not grow nearly as much in the past as it could have, because of its ethics. But its image of integrity and clean business practices is now paying off. You can see the companies queueing up for collaborations with Tatas.

20