Tata Sons: Alignment before authority

A chairman can win a vote. He cannot lead against the people who own the company.

This article was first published in Forbes India on September 29, 2026; https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/column/tata-sons-alignment-before-authority/2998854/1

On September 17, the board of Tata Sons voted to give N. Chandrasekaran another five years as chairman. Four directors said yes. One said no. The one was Noel Tata, who chairs the Tata Trusts that own about two-thirds of the company. Five weeks earlier Chandra had said he would not seek another term. The board asked him to reconsider, and he agreed.

A four to one vote usually settles a matter. This one did not. The Trusts say the resolution is void, and they are preparing to go to court.

Why one vote stopped a board

The Articles of Association of Tata Sons give the Trusts more than a shareholding. They allow the Trusts to nominate one-third of the directors. And they require that any decision needing a board majority also carry the affirmative vote of a majority of those nominee directors.

The Trusts have two nominees on the board today. Noel Tata voted against the reappointment. Venu Srinivasan, the other nominee, voted for it. One out of two, the Trusts argue, is not a majority, so the resolution fails. Tata Sons argues that a one-one split is exactly the tie that the chairman’s casting vote exists to break. That is now the legal question.

It need not have arisen. The Trusts had three nominee directors until Vijay Singh stepped down in September 2025, and the third seat has been empty since. With three votes there would have been a majority one way or the other. With two, the owner was able to deadlock itself.

A structure that assumed agreement

This is what happens when an ownership structure is designed for harmony. The Articles give the Trusts a veto in the boardroom. They say nothing about what happens when the Trusts cannot agree among themselves. There is a casting vote for a divided board and no tie-breaker for a divided owner.

And the owner here is not a person. It is a board of trustees, and it has been split for a year. The seat that is empty today became empty because the trustees could not agree on renewing Vijay Singh. Mehli Mistry left weeks later. A day before the Tata Sons board met this month, one of the Trusts wrote to Venu Srinivasan asking him not to vote on the proposed listing of Tata Sons. He declined, saying his duty as a director was to the company. That is a fair reading of company law. It is also the moment the owner’s two voices became public.

Tata is not unusual in this. Most Indian promoter structures run on veto rights, reserved matters and unwritten understandings. They work while everyone wants the same thing. Very few of them say what to do when the owners are divided, which is the only time they are needed.

Office without a mandate

Chandra now holds the office without the owner’s backing. He may be right in law and still find that he cannot use his authority. The decisions that matter at Tata are long ones. A semiconductor plant. An aircraft order. A large acquisition. A dividend policy, which is also what funds the Trusts’ hospitals and universities. None of them can ride on a contested resolution. Executives will hedge. Every future decision carries the same question mark, because if one appointment can be declared void, so can the next.

Nor does the argument stay in the boardroom. It has already reached the regulator, the courts and the front pages, where narrow legal questions get answered and the direction of a group does not. The Trusts will pay for that too. Their grants depend on the profits of the companies below them.

Memory cuts both ways

The Tata Group knows this story. Cyrus Mistry became chairman in 2012. What he thought the Group needed and what the Trusts wanted were never reconciled. The difference simmered for four years, ended in his removal in 2016 and was followed by nearly five years in court. Whatever one’s view of the merits, the Group paid in reputation, in management attention and in time.

Institutional memory is one of Tata’s greatest strengths. It tells people how to act when there is no rulebook. But it is also a record of what not to repeat. Only the configuration has changed. In 2016, the board and the owner were aligned and the chairman was not. In 2026, the board and the chairman are aligned and the owner is not. The result is the same. A chairman without the alignment of his owners cannot lead, however capable he is and however valid his appointment.

The group level is still opaque

Writing on the Mistry episode in 2017, I had observed that “while Tata group companies individually are recognized for good governance and transparency, the organization at group level turns out to be quite opaque.” Nine years on, the fault line has not moved.

It shows in how this dispute is being fought. Questions have now been raised in the press about a business arrangement involving the chairman’s family and a company connected to one of the Trusts’ nominees, and whether the board was told about it. The facts may well be explained. What is telling is the route. In a listed company, a relationship of that kind is declared, examined by independent directors and disclosed. Here it arrives through a leak in the middle of a fight. The Reserve Bank has told Tata Sons to list. That will not settle who runs the Group, but it will end this particular kind of secrecy.

What has to happen now

A court can decide whose reading of the Articles is correct. It cannot make an owner and a board agree. Only they can do that, and both of them know what the alternative costs.

The Trusts need to settle their own position first, fill the seat they have left empty, and say plainly what they expect of Tata Sons over the next five years. The board and the chairman need a mandate the owner has signed, not only a resolution that has been passed. Both need to write down what a nominee director is for, and what happens when the nominees disagree, so that the next split does not become the next crisis.

The Tata Group remembers how to stand by its people in a crisis. It must now remember what it cost the last time its owner and its chairman parted ways. The price will be higher this time, and it will be paid in public. The courts can tell Tata who is right. Only alignment can decide who leads.

Tata Group’s next chairman: The next chapter must come before the next leader

This article was first published in Forbes India on August 12, 2026; https://www.forbesindia.com/article/upfront/column/tata-groups-next-chairman-the-next-chapter-must-come-before-the-next-leader/2997016/1

Succession is often treated as a question of finding the next person. In large family businesses and business groups, the more important question is what the institution will need from its next leader. That answer changes with time. A leader who is right for one phase may not necessarily be the person best equipped to lead the next.

N. Chandrasekaran’s decision not to seek another term as chairman of Tata Sons offers an opportunity to ask that question of one of India’s most important business groups. This article is not about assessing the circumstances of Chandra’s decision or speculating about the individuals who may succeed him. It is about what Tata should look for in its next chairman, why alignment among its key stakeholders will be critical, and why the succession process should begin immediately if the Group wants a smooth transfer of leadership. 

Chandra was the right leader for his chapter

It is important to judge a leader in the context in which he takes charge. When Chandrasekaran became chairman of Tata Sons in 2017, the Group was emerging from a deeply difficult leadership episode following the removal of Cyrus Mistry. Tata Group needed stability, credibility, institutional continuity, and transparency in governance. Chandra brought decades of experience from within the Tata ecosystem, particularly through his leadership of TCS. He was a professional manager immersed in the Tata way. 

The Tata Group that Chandra leads today is very different from the Group of 2017. Its ambitions now extend across semiconductors, electronics manufacturing, aviation, electric mobility and other new businesses, alongside established businesses in technology, automobiles, steel and consumer products. Its global footprint is larger and its investments are increasingly capital intensive. Technology, geopolitics, global supply chains and changing regulations are becoming central to the Group’s strategic choices. The leadership requirements of the next phase are therefore likely to be different.

First decide what the next Tata should look like

This is where succession processes often go wrong. We begin by asking who should lead. Who is available? Who is trusted? Who knows the organisation? Those questions matter, but they should come later.

The first question should be: What does Tata need to accomplish in its next chapter?

Where should the Group place its largest bets? How much capital should go into new businesses? Which businesses need acceleration and which need greater discipline? How should Tata Sons balance the autonomy of its operating companies with the need for strategic coherence? What should the relationship between Tata Sons, the Tata Trusts and the operating companies look like in the years ahead?

These are not simply questions for the incoming chairman. They are questions for the institution and its stakeholders.

The events surrounding Chandra’s reappointment make this especially important. His statement indicates that the Tata Trusts and the Tata Sons Nomination and Remuneration Committee and Board had recommended his extension. The proposal nevertheless did not receive unanimous Board support and remained unresolved for six months. Chandra has now chosen not to offer himself for reappointment. The larger lesson is not about one individual or one disagreement. It is about alignment.

A capable chairman can find it difficult to lead when the key stakeholders do not have a shared understanding of the institution’s direction. The next chairman should therefore not inherit an unresolved debate about the future. 

What will the next chairman need?

The next chairman will need strong strategic judgement. Tata is too large and diverse for growth to mean pursuing every opportunity. Someone will have to make choices about where capital and management attention can create enduring value.

Capital allocation will be equally important. Tata’s ambitions in new industries require patience and significant investment. The next chairman will have to balance the desire to build businesses of the future with financial discipline and a clear understanding of the returns such investments can eventually generate.

The Group will also need a genuinely global leader. Tata today operates in businesses shaped by technology, geopolitics, global supply chains and cross-border regulation. Understanding one industry will not be enough. The chairman will need to understand how different businesses fit into the larger portfolio and when the Group should act as a group rather than as a collection of companies.

There is another quality that may be even more important: knowing when to intervene and when to step back. Tata’s operating companies have strong professional leaders. The chairman should provide direction without centralising every decision. The ability to empower leaders while maintaining Group-level coherence is a significant leadership challenge.

And then there is continuity. The Tata Group has survived for more than 150 years because it has evolved without losing the values that give the institution its identity. In my earlier writing on Tata, I have argued that institutional memory is a strategic asset. It is not simply a record of what happened in the past. It shapes how people behave when there is no rulebook and when decisions have to be made under pressure.

The next chairman should understand that memory without becoming imprisoned by it. Continuity should provide the foundation for change, not become an argument against it.

The search should begin now

The Group has roughly six months before Chandra’s current term ends. That is useful transition time. It should not, however, become six more months of uncertainty.

Once the mandate is clear, the search for the successor should begin immediately, at a war footing. So that there is enough time for a meaningful handover. The incoming chairman should have an opportunity to work alongside Chandra, understand the Group’s strategic priorities, build relationships with key stakeholders and absorb the institutional knowledge that cannot be transferred through board papers. It is important for Chandra too to facilitate a smooth transition. One measure of a successful leader is not only what he achieves during his tenure, but how well he prepares the institution for the person who follows. 

The Tata Group now has an opportunity to make this transition a demonstration of good governance. It should use the remaining months not merely to find a person, but to clarify the direction, define the mandate and prepare the institution.

The next chairman should not be chosen simply to succeed Chandra. The person should be chosen to lead the Tata Group that comes after Chandra.

How Not To Destroy A Dynasty: Masterclass From The House Of Gucci

This article was first published in the Family Business United, June 29, 2026; https://www.familybusinessunited.com/post/how-not-to-destroy-a-dynasty-masterclass-from-the-house-of-gucci

Twenty-five years ago, in Singapore, I bought a Gucci canvas cross-body bag with money saved from overtime. It was a modest indulgence, earned through hard work, from a brand I knew was considered good. That bag has travelled to work and on holidays, and remains a favourite to this day, mainly for it’s appropriate size.

Then came Sara Gay Forden's The House of Gucci, and the bag in my cupboard quietly changed its meaning. All at once it felt invaluable, a small piece of a history far larger and far sadder than one could have imagined. The history of Gucci is a tragedy of a very particular kind, the kind that should make every business family stop and think.

On the morning of 27 March 1995, a well-dressed man climbed the steps of a building on Via Palestro in Milan and was shot three times in the back and once in the head. He was Maurizio Gucci, forty-six years old, the last of his family to lead the house that carried his name. The man who fired the gun had been hired for the job. The woman who arranged it, as the courts would later establish, was Patrizia Reggiani, Maurizio's former wife and the mother of his two daughters. She had once been the fiercest champion of his rise. In 1998 she was convicted and sentenced to twenty-nine years. The Italian press called her the “Black Widow”.

And yet the murder is not what lingers once the book is closed. What lingers is something quieter and far heavier. The brand survives today. It thrives. It is worth billions. Only, the family that created it doesn’t own it. Three generations built the house, and the third generation lost it. By the time the assassin arrived on Via Palestro, the company had already slipped out of Gucci hands.

Forden tells the story of one family. The lessons belong to every family that owns a business. There is an old saying that every business family secretly dreads, shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations. The Gucci saga is perhaps the most beautifully dressed proof that the saying is real. It is a pattern that repeats across families, across centuries, across continents. A pattern, unlike a curse, can be understood and broken, if only we are willing to study how it forms.

Why most dynasties fade by the third generation

Research across the world shows that only about a third of family businesses make it into the second generation, and barely one in ten survives into the third. Those numbers frighten every founder who reads them. They are not, however, handed down by fate. Family firms seldom die because the world has stopped wanting what they make. Customers were still queuing outside Gucci's Fifth Avenue stores even while the family was tearing itself apart in the courts. One observer noticed something telling, that the more sensational the headlines grew, the more shoppers walked in to buy. Family firms often die or family loses control of the firm because the family loses the ability to own itself and to govern itself.

John Ward, who did as much as anyone to build the modern study of family business, argued that the long life of a family firm is a matter of discipline. Families that endure plan their succession early, while there is still time to do it gracefully. They keep the roles of family, owner and manager from blurring into one. They put their governance in place during the years of calm, long before any storm arrives. Forden's book is, in effect, a long record of what happens when a gifted family does none of this. Read as a warning, it becomes one of the finest masterclasses imaginable in how to destroy a dynasty. So let us turn it the other way around, and read each act of ruin as a lesson in how to keep one alive.

First, the rise, because every fall begins with a gift

Guccio Gucci opened his house in Florence in 1921, a small leather-goods shop on a quiet street. The origin story has since become legend. As a young man he had worked as a porter and lift-boy at the Savoy Hotel in London, where he watched the monogrammed luggage of the wealthy pass through the lobby and resolved to make something just as fine for his own countrymen. He did exactly that. His craftsmanship in saddlery and luggage became the family's first and finest inheritance. In time he brought his sons into the firm, and after the war he divided the company among three of them, Aldo, Vasco and Rodolfo.

Here was familiness in its purest form, that special bundle of strengths a family brings to its firm when shared identity, trust and complementary talent come together into something no outsider can copy. Aldo was the engine. A marketing genius, he carried Gucci across the Atlantic and built a glittering empire that reached across America, Europe and Asia. He understood, better than anyone else in the family, that people did not buy a Gucci bag for the leather. They bought it for the feeling of carrying it. He pushed the family into perfume and into watches over his brothers' objections. And he gave them the image that should have become their constitution. “My family is the train”, he liked to say. “I am the engine. Without the train the engine is nothing, and without the engine the train does not move.” It is a lovely picture of how much they needed one another. The sorrow of the story is that the train forgot that it needed an engine.

Lesson one: the trap of dividing ownership equally

When Vasco died of cancer in 1974, leaving no children, Aldo and Rodolfo bought out his widow's stake and emerged as equal partners, fifty per cent each. On paper it looked like elegant symmetry. In practice it laid down a fault line that ran through everything that followed. The two halves were identical in size. Behind them lay contributions that were perceived very differently. Aldo had built the American business and much of the global one. Rodolfo, a former actor, had put in far less according to Aldo’s family, and he held precisely the same half. Aldo felt the imbalance keenly. Quietly, he began to steer profits into the perfume company, where he and his sons held the larger share, so that Rodolfo saw only a thin slice of the returns.

Resentment crept in from every side. Rodolfo blamed Aldo's restless expansion for the thin profits. Aldo's sons seethed that their uncle drew an equal half from an empire their father had built. Everyone felt cheated. No one felt heard. This is one of the oldest traps in family business, and one of the most misread. Equal and fair are two very different things. When a passive owner holds the same stake as the one who creates the value, the paperwork may call it just while every family dinner says otherwise. Scholars of socioemotional wealth remind us that families guard much more than money. They guard their pride, and their sense of having mattered. Wound that, and no dividend will ever heal it. The Guccis never built any way to revisit who owned what, and why. In Forden's telling, that frozen fifty-fifty shaped all that came after.

Lesson two: a next generation with no real role will create a destructive one

Few figures in the saga are as moving as Paolo Gucci. He was talented and restless, and by every account he was treated abominably. Working under his father Aldo, who was authoritarian and certain of his own genius, Paolo was handed a title and given no authority. “I was not allowed to do anything”, he complained. When he tried to start a line under his own name, the family that had stifled him closed ranks against him as one body. Aldo, who quarrelled endlessly with Rodolfo, instantly joined hands with him to crush the boy.

What does a cornered son do? Paolo handed evidence of his father's tax evasion to the American authorities. Aldo, the architect of the entire empire, was convicted and sent to prison. A son put his own father behind bars. Read that line again, slowly, and let its full weight settle on you. It is hard not to feel a flash of anger at Paolo, and just as hard to hold on to it. Who had made him this way? A family that gave him a famous surname and no room to be himself, a family that treated his hunger for dignity as an act of betrayal. The lesson is plain and unforgiving. The next generation will find a role in the business one way or another. The only choice a family really has is whether to give that role to them openly, or to force them to seize it in anger. Talent that is denied an honest outlet does not simply disappear. It festers, and then it turns.

Lesson three: keep the family, the owners and the managers in clear view

Many years ago, Renato Tagiuri and John Davis gave us the three-circle model, a simple and powerful way of seeing a family business as three overlapping groups, the family, the owners and the managers. One person may sit inside all three circles at once. The circles still remain distinct, and a family gets into trouble the moment it forgets which is which. The House of Gucci shows what happens when the circles fold into one another and no one can tell them apart any more.

Think of Patrizia Reggiani, long before she plotted a murder. In the early years she was genuinely good for Maurizio. She gave a timid young man the courage to stand up to a domineering father. “I knew he was weak”, she said, “but I was not weak. I pushed him so hard that he became president of Gucci.” Over time, though, her ambition found no proper home, and so it spilled into interference. She held no formal position in the company, yet she tried to run it through her husband, feeding his grievances against his uncle and his cousins, and measuring respect by who was offered champagne first at a party. Her appetite was unmistakable. She once said that she would rather “weep in a Rolls-Royce than be happy on a bicycle.” 

Most business families wrestle with similar questions. What is the rightful place of the son-in-law, the daughter-in-law, the person who marries into the family and the firm? Shutting them out is rarely the healthy answer. What works is clarity, with them and with everyone, about where ownership ends and management begins, and about how a marriage relates to both. A family that leaves these lines undrawn ends up negotiating its most intimate relationships through resentment. And resentment, as Gucci shows us, can turn deadly.

Lesson four: why control without grooming is a trap

Rodolfo loved his only son, and he failed him in the most ordinary way a loving father can. He never let him grow up. As one of Maurizio's associates put it, “Rodolfo gave him the castle and not the money to maintain it.” Rodolfo held on to every decision, trusted his son with almost nothing, and prepared no one to follow him. On his deathbed he confided his fear that money and power would change his boy. They did, for the simple reason that the boy had never been allowed to practise being a man.

So, when Maurizio finally took control, he held the largest single block of shares in the company and very little experience of running it. His vision was brilliant. He dreamed of a global luxury house with professional management, modern design and sophisticated marketing, which is more or less the company that non-family professionals would later build on the ruins he left behind. A vision, though, has to be carried out, and owning a company teaches a person nothing about running one. 

Maurizio managed, in the unsparing words of his own advisers, “by intuition”. He was charming and mercurial, a child in a sweet shop who wanted everything at once and understood almost nothing about cash flow. Within a few years a company that had been earning sixty million dollars was losing sixty million. “Intuition”, one adviser observed, “will carry you while business is good and will desert you the moment business turns bad.” 

Here is the lesson every owning family should write upon its heart. Ownership is something a family passes down to its children. The skill to run a great company is something each generation has to build for itself, or buy in honestly from people who already have it. To know what you are good at, and to bring in fine professionals for everything else, is one of the highest forms of stewardship a family can practise. Maurizio came to it too late, and he came to it on borrowed money.

Lesson five: build the rules of the family before the quarrels begin

Through the 1980s, Gucci became famous for its lawsuits rather than its loafers. There were criminal complaints over forged signatures, with civil suits piled on top of them. An eighty-year-old patriarch had his office boxed up and emptied overnight. Brother was set against brother, and cousin against cousin. In all of this there was no family constitution, no family council, no shareholders' agreement worth the name, and, most damaging of all, no neutral person to whom a dispute could be carried before it reached a courtroom.

It is hard not to compare this with the Cartiers, whose story has appeared in these pages before. As far back as 1906, old Alfred Cartier wrote a dispute-resolution clause into the firm's founding documents. If his sons ever fell out, the matter would go to a named arbiter. The Cartiers kept a family council at a time when most families kept only their quarrels. They were not spared every grief. They were spared the spectacle of destroying one another in public. The Guccis had built no such structure, and so every disagreement had only two places to go, into silence or into court. Families reach for litigation when they have built nothing better to reach for. A constitution, a family council, a forum where grievances can be aired and settled inside the family, the habit of mediation in place of a lawsuit, these are the load-bearing walls of a dynasty. They have to be raised in the sunshine, because no one can raise them in the middle of a storm.

The reckoning, and a bitter irony

The end arrived quietly, in a lawyer's office, with the stroke of a pen. Worn down by the family wars, Maurizio first joined hands with the Bahrain-based investment house Investcorp to buy out his relatives. It was the first time an outsider had ever held a meaningful block of the family's shares. Then, drowning in losses he could not manage, he sold his own remaining half. On 23 September 1993, in the offices of a Swiss bank in Lugano, surrounded by lawyers and financiers, Maurizio Gucci signed away the last of the family's stake. After more than seventy years, not one Gucci owned any part of Gucci. Eighteen months later he was dead.

Here lies the cruellest irony of the whole story. Once the feuding owners were gone, the professionals turned a near-bankrupt company, within a decade, into one of the most valuable luxury brands on earth, its sales climbing from a few hundred million dollars into the billions. Everything Maurizio had dreamed of came true. The global house, the professional management, the modern marketing, all of it arrived. It simply arrived for strangers, while the family watched from outside the gates. The craftsmanship of the first generation, the genius of the second and the dream of the third all lived on. The family that had carried them was simply no longer there. That is the true shape of shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves. The wealth does not always vanish into thin air. Sometimes it just moves quietly out of the hands of the family that built it.

What the bag came to mean

Let me come back to that Gucci bag, bought in Singapore a quarter of a century ago with overtime money. For twenty-five years it was simply a beautiful thing, hard-earned and much loved. Since reading Forden's book, I cannot pick it up without thinking of the family whose name it carries. The bag has outlasted the family's ownership of the very company that made it. There is something almost unbearably poignant in that. A canvas cross-body bag, in a cupboard in India, has held on to its Gucci for longer, in a sense, than the Guccis themselves did.

Strip away the murder, the courtrooms and the couture, and the book leaves a business family with a handful of quiet instructions. Divide ownership in a way that feels fair to those who build the value, and be willing to revisit it as contributions change over the years. Give your children a genuine role in good time, before their talent curdles into resentment. Keep the family, the owners and the managers in clear view, and decide with open eyes where the people who marry in will stand. Earn the right to manage the business, or hand that task to those who have earned it. And raise your governance, your council and your means of settling disputes while the days are still calm, because none of it can be raised once the quarrels begin.

Guccio Gucci began with a craftsman's pride and a porter's eye for beauty. His grandsons inherited the genius and never learnt the grace of sharing it. The bags still sell. The name still shines. The family is simply no longer in the room where the decisions are made. Every dynasty would do well to keep that warning close.

A great family business is rarely destroyed in a single dramatic moment. It is undone slowly, across ordinary years, each time a family allows pride to win over governance. The House of Gucci shows us where that road ends. The ending of our own story is still ours to write.

Udaipur: A Dream in Every Detail

I recently returned from Udaipur, and even now, the city’s magic feels like it’s lingering in my heart. Known as the City of Lakes, Udaipur is a harmonious blend of romance, culture, and history. Its beauty unfolds slowly, like a story you don’t want to end. From tranquil lakes to grand palaces, from delicious food to enchanting music, Udaipur is a symphony of unforgettable experiences.

Adding to this unforgettable journey was a meeting with Maharaj Kumar Sahib Dr. Lakshyaraj Singh Ji Mewar of Udaipur. A gracious host and a remarkable individual, Lakshyaraj Ji welcomed us warmly, and our conversations spanned a range of meaningful topics—from family enterprises to philanthropy, from education in schools to advancing gender equality. For our next generation, it was a unique opportunity to meet and connect with the 77th generation scion of the Mewar dynasty—a living symbol of Udaipur’s rich history and legacy.

A Cup of Chai Under the Moonlight

One of my most cherished memories is of sipping chai by the lake. Now, you should know I’m quite picky when it comes to tea made outside. But in Udaipur? Every cup was perfection—smooth, comforting, and made exactly how I like it (after a few instructions, of course). Imagine this: a warm cup in hand, the moonlight shimmering on the water, and majestic palaces standing tall around you. It wasn’t just tea—it was pure magic.

The moon itself was a star of the trip. Every night, it rose over the city with an effortless grace, lighting up the clear skies and reflecting off the tranquil lakes below. Its beauty was almost hypnotic, making every evening feel like an ode to quiet wonder.

And then there were the flowers. Bright, vibrant, and blooming everywhere, they added splashes of color to every corner of the city. Whether cascading over walls or lining pathways, their beauty was a reminder of nature’s quiet ability to charm.

Sunsets, Reflections, and Palaces

If Udaipur’s nights are enchanting, its evenings are nothing short of breathtaking. The sunsets here are some of the most stunning I’ve ever seen. The sky transforms into a canvas of gold, orange, and pink, casting its hues over the city and its lakes. Watching the sun dip behind the Aravalli Hills, with its colors spilling across the water, was a sight I’ll never forget.

And then there are the palaces—grandeur personified. Built centuries ago, without the technology or machinery we rely on today, these architectural marvels are stories etched in stone. The intricate carvings, the sprawling courtyards, the attention to every detail—each palace whispers tales of royalty and vision.

The lakes, too, play their part. They don’t just surround the palaces—they become a part of their beauty. Whether in the soft glow of morning, the blazing light of day, or the fading hues of sunset, the lakes reflect the palaces in a way that feels like a work of art in constant motion.

Savoring the Flavors of Udaipur

Food in Udaipur is an adventure in itself, and for someone with a Marwari palate, it was an absolute delight. From ghee-rich daal baati churma to flavorful kair sangri, lehsan ki sabzi, and even papad ki sabzi, every meal felt like a warm embrace of tradition.

And yet, even something as simple as Maggi became special here. On a cool day, steaming noodles, I found joy in the simplicity of the moment.

Sukhadia Circle, with its small shops serving everything from chaat to sweets, was another highlight. And for fine dining with a view, places like Amrai and Darikhana at Jag Mandir combined delicious food with unforgettable settings. Eating by the lake, with palaces glowing in the distance, is an experience that elevates every bite.

Rajasthan in Rhythm

Udaipur’s cultural heartbeat comes alive in its folk dances and music. Watching Ghoomar, with its flowing skirts and graceful circles, is an unforgettable sight. The vibrant costumes and rhythmic movements create a spellbinding visual treat.

Dhola Maaru, a hauntingly beautiful ballad of love, struck a deep chord. Even without understanding every word, the melody felt universal, carrying emotions that transcend language.

What made these performances even more magical was the setting. Whether by a tranquil lakeside or within the historic courtyards of a palace, the atmosphere added layers of depth to every note and movement. It wasn’t just entertainment—it was immersion into Rajasthan’s living traditions.

Lakes and Legacy

The man-made lakes of Udaipur are a marvel of both beauty and ingenuity. Built centuries ago to meet the water needs of this arid city, they are lifelines disguised as romance. Whether it’s the iconic Lake Pichola, with its serene waters mirroring the palaces, or the picturesque Fateh Sagar Lake, framed by rolling hills, each one adds to Udaipur’s timeless allure.

The museums in Udaipur are equally captivating. The City Palace Museum offers an intimate glimpse into the lives of the maharajas, with its intricate designs and rich history. The Vintage Car Museum is a treasure trove of rare automobiles, each one telling its own story of elegance and style. And the Crystal Gallery? It’s beyond words—chandeliers and artifacts so exquisite they feel almost otherworldly.

A City That Stays with You

Udaipur isn’t just a place you visit; it’s a place you feel. Its lakes, palaces, food, and music weave a story that stays with you long after you leave. Meeting Lakshyaraj Ji added another layer to this journey—a chance to connect with the legacy of the Mewar dynasty and reflect on the values that continue to shape this historic city.

As I left, I realized that Udaipur isn’t just a destination—it’s a reminder of how deeply art, culture, and history can touch our lives.

India’s cherished “joint families” system is under threat. What can be done to preserve its values?

 This article was originally published in Family Capital, January 24, 2024;

https://www.famcap.com/2024/01/indias-cherished-joint-families-system-is-under-threat-what-can-be-done-to-preserve-its-values/

In India's business world, the Marwari community is a formidable force. A part of its success is often attributed to the system of “joint families", which has created many great business dynasties. But the system is in decline, leading to concerns that its advantages may be irreplaceable and thus pose challenges to the business dominance of communities like the Marwaris.

The “joint families” concept is based on the idea of living together of and shared business responsibilities among grandfather, father, sons, their sons, and other family members or close relatives.

Marwaris, which originally come from Marwar, a region of western Rajasthan state- has given rise to great family business dynasties such as the Birlas, the Mittals, and the Agarwals.

The resources created by joint families, including the pooling of financial resources, collective decision-making, and shared responsibilities, have provided a robust foundation for entrepreneurship in India.

The joint family system facilitated a collaborative approach to business, where the collective wisdom of the family contributed to strategic decision-making and sustainable growth.

Assessing the impact of joint family disintegration on businesses remains elusive and largely anecdotal. Hence, there is a pressing need to investigate the mechanisms that fostered familial cohesion and identifying critical factors that facilitated harmonious coexistence among family members.

By gaining insights into these dynamics, contemporary families may incorporate pertinent traits to preserve the advantages of a diversified resource pool while upholding individuality and freedom.

Basant Hetamsaria, the head of the Hetamsaria family, shares a compelling narrative of the organic evolution of their joint family in Ramgarh, in the state of Jharkhand. From a small family of three, the family expanded to 30 members across four generations, diversifying economic pursuits while remaining tightly united. His unexpected role as the family head at a young age underscores the indispensable need for a universal head.

"In the familial framework, I emphasize the pivotal role of a universal head—a unifying force offering direction and leadership, even within collective decision-making. The essence of prudence, fairness, and transparency in our decision-making cannot be overstated. We must strike a delicate balance between authority and respect, endorsing an informal code of conduct that nurtures mutual respect and consideration among us, the family members," says Basant.

The challenges of decision imposition and the necessity for transparency underscore the importance of a unified approach within joint families. “Every adult and youth in the family must have a voice, preventing unnecessary controversies and promoting a harmonious environment. Furthermore, ensuring suitable opportunities for education and employment aligned with individual abilities is crucial for the collective well-being of the joint family,” says Basant.

Strong family values, including familiarity, love, affection, harmony, and cooperation, are essential for the success of joint families. Basant's insights highlight the need for an adaptable family dynamic that can navigate changing environments, ensuring the continued relevance and resilience of joint families.

However, the disintegration of joint families, which was considered one of the strengths of business families in India, poses certain challenges for contemporary business families, such as communication and bonding. Despite the array of communication tools available, such as instant phone calls, WhatsApp, and emails, the absence of physical proximity can lead to communication and personal challenges.

Face-to-face interactions in joint families foster a deeper understanding of individual strengths, preferences, and challenges, which is often difficult to achieve through virtual means. The nuances of non-verbal communication and the daily interactions that build personal bonds are diminished when family members are geographically dispersed.

“In today's era, the concept of joint families may be considered unconventional, and a more open and liberal model should be explored as a potential sustainable family solution amidst the challenges of modern relationships, increasing tensions, growing distances between spouses, and fractured relationships,” says Basant.

Perhaps, establishing a structured leadership model within the family, designating a family leader who plays a pivotal role in providing direction, fostering transparency, and ensuring fair decision-making would help the business families, despite not being in a joint family system.

This leader should embody the qualities of prudence, fairness, and transparency, striking a delicate balance between authority and respect. This structured approach would help maintain a cohesive family unit and facilitates effective decision-making.

Similarly, a culture of collaborative decision-making where the opinions and perspectives of every family member, both adults and youth, are valued, should be encouraged.

Families should develop a framework that ensures active participation from all members, preventing unnecessary controversies and promoting a harmonious environment. By integrating diverse viewpoints, families can tap into the collective wisdom of individual talents, similar to the collaborative approach seen in joint family systems.

The success of many business families that were joint families, lies in their unique ability to create a rich resources basket, fostering collaboration, and providing a robust foundation for entrepreneurial endeavours.

Basant Hetamsaria's insights underscore the importance of a universal head, prudence, fairness, transparency, and commitment in maintaining the resilience of joint families.

Despite the challenges posed by modernity and the disintegration of joint families, its principles continue to be of relevance. It offers valuable lessons for contemporary business families. Incorporating what joint families offered in a modern setting would retain entrepreneuring families and their rich resources basket.