Suhel Seth's tweetstorm against The Economist is beyond snarky

His spat on Twitter with the publication's India correspondent over an article on Ratan Tata transformed into a tweet-size critique of foreign media reporting on India

Ratan Tata and Cyrus Mistry are not the only known faces fighting it out thanks to the Tata Sons boardroom battle. The fresh outbreak in the shooting war came when marketing consultant Suhel Seth got into a heated exchange with the India correspondent from The Economist, Stanley Pignal. 

The cause? An article from The Economist, which said Ratan Tata was largely to blame for the fiasco. 

The article argued that the Tata conglomerate's reputation for good governance had been "shredded owing to a brutal fight for control between Ratan Tata, the group’s 78-year-old patriarch, and Cyrus Mistry, his successor", and advised Tata to "get a grip".

Seth's response to the article was acerbic, to say the least. "The Economist is sadly always economical with the truth and the dolt of a writer has always had an agenda," Seth tweeted. Pignal, in response, asked Seth over Twitter whether the latter was a paid advisor to any of the parties involved in the Tata-Mistry spat.








Seth's next response was explosive. Stating that he was not someone who would "sell his soul", Seth advised Pignal to try such questions with someone the latter could 'bully'. He did not stop there, and, with his ire provoked, took aim at the publication at large. "The goddamn @TheEconomist has always followed an anti-India agenda with purpose! STANLEY Pingal is their rep. Bloody joke!" Seth tweeted. Apparently, Seth does not think much of a certain section of journalists. Calling them "colonial journos", Seth said that they "abuse everything from the air to our people to our values and believe we must run scared". 

Don't tick off Seth

If there is one thing that the tweets which followed prove, its that it is not wise to tick off Seth, and a slighted Seth is likely to pursue you with prejudice. 

Drawing on India's colonial past, Seth sought to remind Pignal that it was the year 2016, and not 1942. Seth added that no one took the likes Pignal seriously in this country. As for the article, Seth called it "biased". 








Pignal, for his part, seems to have had kept his temper at check. He followed up Seth's tweets by asking the latter whether he was confirming that he had not been paid by the Tatas, Ratan Tata or any other party involved in the boardroom battle. Seth answered that indeed, he was not serving any of those involved in any professional capacity, albeit with more intemperate words. 

Pignal tried once more to get an answer out of Seth, stating that his previous question had been ambiguously worded. To this, Seth answered: "I am on no payroll unlike you."

Do not call Seth a PR manager

Seth clarified that he was involved in the field of marketing and not PR. Suhel is the managing partner of Counselage, a strategic brand marketing consultancy. Finally, Seth explained that he did not manage the website in question and that any claim on it stating that he was engaged in PR for the Tatas was an "error". Seth also called, not for the first time, Pignal a "dolt" as the exchange ended.



We won't judge. Either way, being a journalist has its own professional hazards, and so does making allegations against Seth.