In the late 1990s, as militancy peaked in Assam, Ratan Tata, then chairman of the Tata Group, found himself at the center of a major crisis. Assam Chief Minister Prafulla Kumar Mahanta had accused Ratan Tata Tea, one of the largest tea companies operating in the state, of colluding with the banned militant group United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). The allegations, combined with leaked telephone tapes, escalated tensions between the Tata Group and the Assam government.
During this period, Assam was gripped by violent militancy, with businesses being targeted for extortion by ULFA. Many tea companies, operating under threat of violence, allegedly paid protection money. However, Tata Tea maintained that it refused to succumb to these demands. Despite this stance, the Assam government launched an investigation into the company’s alleged ties with the militants, claiming that funding extremists amounted to an “anti-national act.”
Adding fuel to the fire was the “Tata Tapes” controversy. In October 1997, a series of leaked telephone conversations involving Nusli Wadia, Keshub Mahindra, Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw, and Ratan Tata were published, suggesting that the Tatas were seeking government intervention to resolve their issues with the Assam administration. The tapes also hinted that Tata executives may have known the whereabouts of Brojen Gogoi, a senior Tata Tea executive wanted by the police for allegedly aiding ULFA.
The crisis deepened when Tata Tea was found to have financed medical treatment for Pranati Deka, an ULFA member. The company claimed it was unaware of Deka’s identity, asserting that the payment was part of a healthcare initiative for Assam residents. Several Tata Tea officials, including SS Dogra and Krishna Kumar, faced interrogation, and Dogra was even arrested.
Ratan Tata moved swiftly to manage the crisis. He met with Assam Chief Minister Mahanta in Delhi and assembled a crisis management team, which included prominent lawyers like Ram Jethmalani and Arun Jaitley, along with businessman Nusli Wadia. Tata maintained that the company’s actions were solely for social welfare purposes and denied any financial ties to militants.
Despite the controversy, Ratan Tata and the Tata Group emerged with their reputation intact, successfully navigating one of the most challenging periods in the company’s history. Their firm stance against the allegations and continued commitment to social welfare in Assam ultimately allowed them to weather the storm.
