Ratan Tata and the Tata Group are towering figures in India's business titans assemblage. They are widely admired for their philanthropic ventures, ethical business practices, and significant contributions to the nation's industrial growth. Ratan Tata, in particular, has garnered accolades for his vision, leadership, and the seemingly impeccable reputation he has built. However, beyond the glittering image of benevolence and innovation lies a history that often escapes public discourse—a history marked by the same corporate malpractices, exploitation, and controversies that have plagued numerous multinational conglomerates worldwide. While his death has brought out stories of the goodness in Ratan, so has it riled up the dark side that was swept under the carpet.

The Tata Group's origins are rooted in India's colonial past. Established in 1868 by Jamsetji Tata, the group was one of the earliest Indian enterprises to capitalise on the opportunities presented by British colonial rule. Tata's first major industrial venture, the Tata Steel plant in Jamshedpur, heralded the dawn of Indian industrialisation. While this is often hailed as a symbol of self-reliance and economic progress, it also raises critical questions about how the Tatas benefited from British imperial policies.

The British rulers, eager to extract resources and develop India's infrastructure for their own gains, incentivised Indian industrialists like Jamsetji Tata. In this regard, the Tatas, like many other Indian business families, played a crucial role in aiding British economic interests. The steel plant at Jamshedpur, built on land acquired from Adivasi communities (indigenous tribal populations), offers a glaring example of how industrial progress often came at the cost of indigenous livelihoods. Displacement, land acquisition under dubious conditions, and exploitation of tribal labour became recurring themes throughout the Tatas' early industrial ventures.

One of the most glaring examples of the dark side of the Tata empire is the 2006 Kalinganagar incident. Tata Steel was attempting to set up a steel plant in Odisha, a state rich in natural resources but also home to vulnerable Adivasi communities. In its zeal to promote industrialisation, the state government facilitated the acquisition of land from local Adivasi communities, often under forceful and coercive terms.

When the villagers, mostly Adivasis, resisted the forcible acquisition of their land, the state responded with brutal force. On January 2, 2006, 14 Adivasi protestors, including three women, were shot dead by the police as they protested against the displacement. The bodies of some of the deceased were later returned to their families with their palms severed, a chilling reminder of the brutal lengths to which authorities and corporations like Tata Steel would go to suppress resistance. This atrocity, however, has largely been forgotten by mainstream media, which continues to glorify Tata Steel as a hallmark of India's industrial success.

Kalinganagar stands as a symbol of how large corporations, with tacit support from the government, continue to exploit marginalised communities in the name of development. The Tatas, who are often praised for their ethical practices, played a central role in this land grab, yet their complicity in this human rights violation has largely been erased from public memory.

Labour exploitation has been another underbelly of Tata's industrial ventures, particularly in their steel and automotive sectors. While Tata Steel is celebrated as a national treasure, especially for its role in supplying steel for India's infrastructure and defence sectors, the treatment of its workers tells a different story.

In 1920, Tata Steel workers went on strike to protest poor working conditions and low wages. The colonial government, with support from the company's management, brutally crushed the strike. Though labour laws have improved since then, the issue of workers' rights within Tata's vast empire remains contentious. In many of their factories and plants, including those in Jamshedpur and Kalinganagar, workers have continued to complain about unsafe working conditions, lack of adequate compensation, and an exploitative contract labour system that denies them long-term job security.

One particularly heinous case occurred in 2012 when 1,400 contract workers employed by Tata Motors in Pune went on strike demanding better wages and permanent employment. These workers were paid significantly lower wages than their permanent counterparts and were denied basic benefits such as healthcare and pensions. Tata Motors' response was dismissive, refusing to engage with the workers' demands and instead relying on state machinery to break the strike.

While Ratan Tata's leadership is often lauded for taking the Tata Group global, with acquisitions like Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) and Corus Steel (now Tata Steel Europe), these global expansions have not been without controversy. The acquisition of Corus Steel, for example, led to widespread job cuts in the UK. In 2016, Tata Steel announced plans to sell off its UK operations due to financial losses, leaving thousands of British workers unemployed. This decision drew sharp criticism from labour unions, who accused Tata of prioritising profits over workers' welfare.

Tata's mining ventures have faced accusations of environmental degradation and human rights violations in Africa. In Mozambique, Tata Steel was involved in the extraction of coal, which led to the widespread displacement of local communities. These displaced communities were often resettled in areas with little access to water, electricity, or basic amenities. While Tata prides itself on corporate social responsibility, its actions in countries like Mozambique show a stark contrast between rhetoric and reality.

Ratan Tata, the chairman emeritus of Tata Sons, is revered as one of India's most ethical and visionary business leaders. His decision to step down as chairman of Tata Sons in 2012 was seen as an act of grace, and his philanthropic initiatives through the Tata Trusts have earned him widespread acclaim. However, his leadership of the Tata Group, particularly during the period of global expansion, was not without controversy.

The ousting of Cyrus Mistry, his successor at Tata Sons, exposed the cracks in Tata's carefully curated image. The ensuing boardroom battle raised serious questions about corporate governance within the Tata Group. In his scathing letter to the board, Mistry accused Ratan Tata of micromanaging the company even after his retirement and of making questionable decisions, particularly in the acquisition of Corus Steel, which resulted in significant financial losses for the group.

The following legal battle further tarnished the Tata Group's image as details emerged of corporate infighting, governance failures, and financial mismanagement. While Ratan Tata's personal reputation has largely remained intact, the episode revealed the extent to which his leadership had contributed to a culture of secrecy and top-down control within the group.

The Tata Group has long projected itself as a champion of environmental sustainability. Tata Motors, for instance, touts its electric vehicles as part of its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. However, the group's environmental track record, particularly in its industrial ventures, tells a different story.

In 2010, the UK's Environment Agency fined Tata Steel for excessive pollution at its plant in Port Talbot, Wales. The company was found guilty of discharging harmful pollutants into a nearby river, causing significant environmental damage. Closer to home, Tata's mining operations in states like Jharkhand and Odisha have also faced accusations of environmental degradation, including deforestation, water pollution, and the destruction of local ecosystems.

Moreover, the Tatas' plan to build a port at Dhamra in Odisha, near the ecologically sensitive Bhitarkanika National Park and Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary, home to endangered Olive Ridley turtles, sparked widespread protests from environmental groups. Despite assurances from the company that the project would not harm the turtles' habitat, independent studies showed that the port's construction and operation posed significant threats to marine life in the area.

The Tata Group's contribution to India's economic and industrial development is undeniable. However, it is essential to recognise that this success has often come at a significant human and environmental cost. From the exploitation of Adivasi lands and labour to controversial global acquisitions and questionable environmental practices, the darker chapters of the Tata story remain overshadowed by the glowing public image of the group and its leaders.

Ratan Tata, in particular, is often viewed through a lens of near-reverence. Yet, his tenure as chairman was marked by decisions that led to financial losses, labour exploitation, and environmental harm. The Kalinganagar massacre and the displacement of Indigenous communities for corporate gain are stark reminders that the Tata Group, despite its philanthropic endeavours, is not immune to the pitfalls of corporate greed and exploitation.