4 min readOct 3, 2026 06:40 AM IST First published on: Oct 3, 2026 at 06:40 AM ISTBy Naval Burjor GhiaraEvery strawman anyone can find is being raised up and struck down as the commentariat tries to take a position against the one man whose just interests have been unfairly compromised by a disparate cabal that is making common cause. Their real agenda: Prise Tata Sons out of the hands of a member of the founding family. This must stop. Tata Trusts owns two-thirds of Tata Sons. How can any board defy a majority owner and act against their express wishes? This is not how capitalism works. In a Kafkaesque moment, I even heard a legal maven opine on national TV that Noel Tata should stick to running the Tata Trusts and leave the commercial interests of Tata Sons in the hands of a “professional who owes it to India to run Tatas”. I have five blunt responses:AdvertisementIt doesn’t matter if the majority owner of Tata Sons is a (bunch of) charitable trusts or a Martian or a Bawa — he has the numbers and what he says should go. Second, the so-called independent vote of the board, far from being a victory of corporate governance, is its defeat — basically, the board of two independent and two professional directors who own zero or close to nil shares voted against a two-thirds owner and carried the day against him.Third, Noel Tata can and should revamp the board of Tata Sons and change the Articles of Association that made this attempted coup possible. Why not? The argument that Tatas are a national institution so Noel cannot protect the legitimate interest of the founding family is hogwash. If the governance structure of Tata Sons has outlived its purpose or utility, it should be changed by the majority owner.Fourth, the idea that the present chairman must be a corporate magician with a Midas touch because he is chairman, Tatas is not self-validating. His record must be examined on objective criteria. And no, just because he is an incumbent professional does not automatically mean he is the best person for the job. Tata Sons must make the case that he is, and they haven’t done it so far.AdvertisementFifth, the idea that an unlisted Tata Sons presents a systemic risk to the Indian economy or India’s global image is laughable.Even if the Reserve Bank’s claim that IL&FS and Tata Sons are comparable on asset size turns out to be verifiably true (there are huge grey areas), the two are as different as chalk and cheese: IL&FS ran Rs 91,000 crore of debt against a tiny sliver of equity. Tata Sons has zero borrowings. And a net profit close to Rs 30,000 crore. So, Tata Sons could pay off debt as large as IL&FS’s Rs 90,000-odd crore in three years or less.But still, the wise old men and women who cannot make a coherent case for it need to “save Tata Sons for India”. By forcing an intellectually vapid and indefensible public listing.The closest comparable case is that of the Danish Pharma giant Novo Nordisk in 2025, which saw a controlling foundation override its own commercial entity’s board. In October 2025, chair Helge Lund and six independent directors stepped down after disagreeing with the Novo Nordisk Foundation over the scale of the board overhaul. The foundation wanted a broader reshuffle, and the board favoured a gradual approach. At the November 14, 2025 EGM, the foundation used its voting majority to approve a completely new set of independent directors and installed its own chair, Lars Rebien Sørensen. This shows what a controlling foundation looks like when it acts openly.The writer is an independent technology strategy consultant and new tech adviser