The venerable Tata Trusts is embroiled in a messy internal fight that threatens the reputation of its carefully and consciously cultivated name over the years. This issue centers around a bitter boardroom and governance conflict at the heart of India’s largest conglomerate, erupting, as it does, a year after Ratan Tata’s passing. The latest developments have exposed deep divisions among the Trustees over Board-control, decision-making and Tata Sons’ future forcing a rarely seen government intervention due to the group’s economic significance in the national economy. At stake is how Tata Trusts which owns 66% of Tata Sons should exercise its superintendence over the latter, a crucial lever for controlling the Tata hegemon. There are already governance tensions about the Trusts’ right to approve large capital allocations by Tata Sons and whether Tata Sons should be listed on the stock market, a move some consider key for transparency and modern governance. The RBI-mandated deadline for Tata Sons’ stock market listing has just lapsed, adding further uncertainty to the storyline. The prolonged rift and abrupt ouster of late Cyrus Mistry, the earlier Chairman of Tata Sons have drawn direct government attention, with Union ministers meeting Tata leaders in an effort to stabilise the governance issues within the group. Analysts fear that the breakdown in trust between board factions threatens not only corporate stability but also Tata’s charitable mission and India’s industrial landscape. The imbroglio highlights a lack of clear succession planning after Ratan Tata’s death, with Noel Tata’s leadership seen as more peripheral and less unifying. This vacuum has enabled factional rivalries to come to the fore. There is consensus that governance standards and protocols inside Tata Trusts and between the Trusts and Tata Sons must be urgently reviewed to ensure future stability and greater focus. In summary, the Tata Trusts imbroglio is a high-stakes power struggle over control, transparency and governance within the group’s founding Trusts, made acute by Ratan Tata’s absence ending in the removal of a key trustee and prompting calls for far-reaching governance reforms within the Trust.
The Supreme Court of India in Orion Conmerx Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025 INSC 1271) delivered a landmark judgment on October 30, 2025, settling a long-standing insurance dispute arising from a fire that gutted Orion’s industrial unit in September 2010. The insurer had repudiated Orion’s ₹3.30 crore claim alleging that the fire was not “accidental” and further disputed the extent and nature of losses including coverage of furniture, fixtures and fittings (FFF). The Supreme Court found that, in the absence of fraud or willful instigation by the insured, the specific cause of a fire is immaterial; what matters is whether the loss and event are established as accidental. The Court criticised the insurer’s surveyor for disregarding comprehensive business records and using arbitrary valuations for damaged stock. The Court found this approach both “flawed” and “perverse.” The adjudication restored all heads of loss, including FFF, based on policy language and business documentation. The insurer’s appeal was dismissed, and Orion’s allowed, directing full payment of the claimed sum of ₹3,30,93,678/- with simple interest of 6% per annum calculated from three months after the incident until actual payment. The judgment reaffirmed once again that insurers should restore the insured to their prior position – not multiply hardship through unjust denial – reinforcing key principles of indemnity and fair claims settlement. This decision once again underscores that insurers cannot avoid liability for accidental fires unless fraud or active complicity is proven and sets a precedent for interpreting business records and policy terms commercially and sensibly in such claims.
Just the other day Javier Milei, the President of Argentina made it to the headlines. His right-wing political party made a strong showing in the midterm polls. Milei political style was a subject of discussion in these columns some time back. Milei is an “anarcho-capitalist.” The Argentine President has been as famous for his economic policies as his eccentricities. Milei’s signature austerity measures seem to have succeeded in lowering his country’s runaway inflation. The annual inflation rate dropped to an unbelievable 31.80%, down more than 200% a year earlier! Milei gutted a number of social service measures alienating working- and middle-class voters who helped Milei to capture power in the first place. Milei is a self-described right-wing libertarian and economic radical, famous for his “chainsaw” approach to government spending. He has imposed sweeping austerity, slashing subsidies, downsizing government, deregulating markets, and repealing rent controls. He achieved rapid inflation reduction and a fragile fiscal surplus, drawing cautious praise from some economists, investors and international observers though the cost has been steep layoffs of public workers and increased cost of living. He cleverly embraced close ties with the US and Donald Trump in particular, whose administration provided significant financial backing to Milei on the condition that his reforms kept momentum already gained. Milei is one politician who has expressed his support to Donald Trump in no uncertain words. The latter on his part has promised (thereby influencing Argentine voters) that he is not averse to support the Argentine population if Milei wins the upcoming elections he would look at supporting Argentina with more economic succor.
Donald Trump is convinced that, for the US to be great again, manufacturing activities should be brought back on shore. However, Fareed Zakharia, the renowned American columnist argues that it is a vision rooted in the past. Zakaria argues that the image of a rich and powerful country defined by smokestack factories is an outdated, 20th-century view. He contends that Trump’s desire to restore a bygone era of manufacturing dominance is a “mirage” that is “highly unlikely to happen” and will ultimately be costly to US. The reality of advanced industrial nations, including the U.S., is that their economies are overwhelmingly dominated by the service sector. In the U.S., services account for over 80% of nonfarm jobs, while manufacturing is less than 10%. America’s distinctive, competitive strength lies in services and intellectual property – such as software, entertainment, and financial services – areas where the U.S. runs a trade surplus with the world. Zakaria is a strong critic of using widespread tariffs to force manufacturing back, labeling them a potential “economic timebomb.” He argues that tariffs are essentially a tax on American consumers and businesses, leading to higher inflation and increased costs for goods bought by lower- and middle-income households. Historically, protectionist policies like high tariffs breed a business class focused on currying favor with government officials (seeking exemptions and protection) rather than focusing on producing the best products at the best prices. While Zakaria acknowledges the need to secure supply chains (especially from China in critical tech), he argues that a full-scale, “America First” reshoring strategy is overly isolationist and ignores US allies. He suggests that the U.S. should use its deep connections with allies like Canada, Mexico and Europe to build secure, diversified supply chains rather than attempt to “make everything here” alone, which he sees as a mistake. The manufacturing that does return is often highly automated, meaning it would create fewer blue-collar jobs relative to the massive investments. In short, Zakaria views Trump’s manufacturing push as a politically effective, but economically unsound, nationalist fantasy that risks undermining the highly competitive, service-oriented global economy that is the true source of America’s current prosperity. Well said.
The much-awaited meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping in South Korea resulted in a temporary truce between US and China rather than a fundamental reset of US-China relations focused on tactical concessions and stabilisation of tensions between the two world powers. Trump agreed to reduce tariffs on Chinese goods by 10 percentage points, with average rates dropping from 57% to 47%, in exchange for China’s renewed purchases of American soybeans, a one-year postponement of rare earth minerals export restrictions, and increased efforts on curbing fentanyl export and precursor chemicals – issues that had been top priorities for the Trump administration. The meeting produced agreements to resume agricultural trade, relax new technology barriers, and delay additional restrictions, helping both nations avoid escalation and reassuring global markets. Notably, difficult issues such as Taiwan and broader questions of technological rivalry were not substantively addressed, reflecting a focus on pragmatic, short-term stabilisation rather than structural solutions. For Xi, the outcome was seen as a strategic win, showing Beijing’s preference for incremental progress and long-term engagement, while for Trump, the concessions were framed as successes supporting core US interests. This summit was widely interpreted as a necessary pause in escalating tensions rather than the achievement of lasting breakthroughs. Both leaders walked away with concessions, but both sides remain committed to their respective strategic competitions. While Trump publicly rated the meeting a “12 out of 10,” experts caution that underlying issues – industrial policy, security, and global influence – were merely set aside, not resolved. The US and China are managing separation rather than reversing it and future negotiations will likely be needed. In the end, Xi seems to have understood the newly minted art of “letting Trump claim a win”. Smart move indeed.
Here is a recommendation for a casual read. “The Covenant of Water” is a sweeping, multi-generational and deeply immersive novel by Abraham Verghese, which follows a South Indian family from 1900 to 1977 and explores themes of inheritance, fate, and the impact of the evolving society. It has found pride of place in Oprah Winfrey’s Book Club Selection. The central narrative of the book revolves around a young girl who, after being married off at age 12, matures into the wise family matriarch known as Big Ammachi, with the story charting the evolution of her family through births, deaths (often by drowning, due to a familial “condition”), and the societal changes occurring in Kerala over decades. Big Ammachi’s character stays with the reader long after one finishes the novel. Her character is not only central to the story but would also haunt the reader long after one finishes the book. However, surprisingly the author leaves out political commentary in the storyline, though there is one character acting out this role. That is a bit surprising in a novel dealing with a social subject with Kerala as the background. The book is noted for its grandeur, emotional depth, and breadth – spanning over seven hundred pages – with meticulously detailed medical scenes influenced by Verghese’s background as a physician. The narrative deftly weaves personal tragedies, caste struggles, and the complexities of colonial India, all under the thematic umbrella of water as both a curse and a source of connection for the family. The persistence of a mysterious condition that makes family members susceptible to drowning provides the novel’s driving mystery and symbolic focus. Rich, evocative descriptions of life in Kerala, with memorable characters that feel authentic and vibrant. Compassionate portrayal of vulnerability, resilience, and the search for belonging. Medical storylines and historical references, though not always deeply explored, give the book a sense of realism and insight. Though the sheer length and number of characters and plotlines can feel overwhelming, the power of the characters and the author’s narrative style overcomes this problem effortlessly. The book sometimes moves abruptly between different storylines, which could be disorienting for some readers. Overall, “The Covenant of Water” is a memorable, moving epic – a book that captures both the grand scale and intimate details of generational family life in 20th century India, rewarding readers with its intricately woven narrative and compassionate perspective. It is especially recommended for those interested in historical fiction, family sagas, and stories at the intersection of medicine and humanity. In a society that would rather avoid talking about leprosy, this book makes this dreaded disease central to the story itself. Verghese’s medical background infuses the story with empathy and realism. Each character is vividly drawn, especially Big Ammachi, whose evolution is both heartbreaking and inspiring. The novel captures Kerala’s colonial and post-independence transitions, weaving in caste dynamics, medical advancements, and cultural shifts. The writing is poetic yet accessible, with moments of humour and profound insight. This book offers a compelling intersection of medical ethics, social structures, and personal resilience. It is not just a family saga; it is a meditation on how individuals navigate inherited burdens and societal expectations.
Thank you.
Venkat R Venkitachalam
