Tata vs. Ambani: Why Citizens Praise Tata's Good Deeds Over Ambani's Wealth

Indian citizens have a unique allegiance to the Tata family, primarily attributed to their good deeds and philanthropic efforts. On the other hand, Mukesh Ambani does not receive the same level of affection from the public. This discrepancy can be attributed to several factors, including corporate philanthropy, governance, and social impact.

Philanthropy and Public Perception

Indian common people have a sophisticated appreciation for freebies and charitable acts. When a person provides something for free or contributes significantly to society, they are often praised effusively, akin to divinity. Ratan Tata is a prime example of this. He has dedicated a large portion of his fortune to societal causes, earning him the respect and admiration of the masses. However, when it comes to returning the favor with gratitude, the public often falls short.

A recent instance highlights this tendency. When people who consider themselves fans of Ratan Tata go to purchase a car, they often prefer a foreign brand over Tata Cars. They proudly display their choice on social media as a symbol of status. At that moment, they seem to forget the benefactions of Ratan Tata. The irony is palpable.

Philanthropic Impact and Gratitude

When asked about the amount their so-called fans have donated for societal causes like Ratan Tata, the response is often a resounding 'none.' This raises a pertinent question: What is the benefit of having such fans who refuse to support the cause, even at minimal levels?

The contrast with Mukesh Ambani and his entrepreneur Dhirubhai focuses on the expectations that earning wealth through hard work should result in significant charitable contributions. Unlike the Tata family, Ambani and Birla have not widely embraced such philanthropy. The expectation remains that wealthy individuals should channel their resources back into society, and Ambani's reluctance is often criticized.

Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility

Apart from philanthropy, the corporate governance and social responsibility of the two families are often scrutinized. The image of the Tata group is closely tied to JRD Tata, a figure who exemplified leadership and ethical business practices. While Dhirubhai Ambani, though a great entrepreneur, scores significantly lower in comparison.

One notable difference is the Tata Group's approach to policy. Ratan Tata is not known for manipulating policies in his favor, unlike some other conglomerates. The Tata companies are known for being benevolent employers, often prioritizing employee welfare over profit margins. There are, of course, individual cases of harsh management, but the overall ethos of the Tata group tends to be more compassionate.

Contrast this with the practice of govt. favoritism in Mukesh Ambani's case. The accusation that Ambani benefits from crony capitalism is often levied. The Tata group operates in several countries, focusing on merit and ethical business practices, which stands in stark contrast to Ambani's exclusive operations in India due to such practices.

Furthermore, the financial contribution of the Tatas is more significant. The Tata Memorial Hospital provides medical services at reasonable rates, in contrast to the Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, which is often criticized for its high costs. The Tatas generate a considerable amount of foreign exchange, which benefits the national economy, a feat that Ambani's conglomerate is often seen as failing to accomplish.

Another area where the Tata group has been praised is their willingness to engage in business for social good purposes. They often show a lower profit motive in some ventures, which is not common among other businesses. Ratan Tata himself is known for not showing off his wealth and having a low-profile demeanor. In times of need, he has been seen personally visiting employees who have been affected by long-term illnesses, setting a personal example of ethical leadership.

While Dhirubhai Ambani was a great entrepreneur and never cheated shareholders, Mukesh Ambani has been accused of misleading his shareholders to some extent. This further compounds the perception issue, as his wealth and business practices are often seen as less ethical than the ones practiced by Ratan Tata.

In conclusion, while both families have made significant contributions to the Indian economy and society, the expectations and perceptions of the public remain skewed. The Tatas are lauded for their philanthropic efforts, ethical business practices, and corporate governance, while the Ambanis are often criticized for their perceived inaction in community development and their business dealings in the public domain.