Photograph: Sanjay Sakaria, Model: Yash GEra/Glitz Modelling Photograph of New York: Bloomberg

In 1911, Sir Frederick Upcott, chief commissioner of the Indian Railway Board in British India, said, “Do you think the Tatas propose to make steel rails to British specifications? I will eat every pound of steel rail they succeed in making!” Almost a century later, you could be forgiven for believing that the neo-colonial mindset hasn’t changed. And in the latest round of this debate — if we can call it that — feelings run just as strong. Just read the blogs about the rebuff that Orient Express Hotels (OEH) gave the Indian Hotels Company, the Taj Group of hotels — a Tata Group company — and you will see the heavy load of emotional baggage that many still carry.

On Wednesday evening, R.K. Krishna Kumar, vice-chairman of Indian Hotels, delivered his own riposte to the letter from Paul White, chief executive officer of OEH, which rejected Indian Hotels’ proposal for a strategic alliance; in it, Krishna Kumar expressed surprise at the tone and content of OEH’s letter, calling White’s description of the Taj Group “pejorative, inaccurate and libelous”. Krishna Kumar went on to demand a formal apology from OEH on its website, and added a barb of his own: that in an age of global integration, “those with a fossilised frame of mind risk being marginalised”.

On Thursday, even Commerce Minister Kamal Nath weighed in, calling OEH’s remark “ignorant”, and asked the US business counsel to reprimand the company.

This isn’t the first time that an American organisation has cast doubts about Indian companies’ abilities to manage a global business or brand; several weeks ago, Ken Gorin, chairman of the Jaguar Business Operations Council that represents Jaguar dealers in the US, told the Wall Street Journal that the American public “was not ready for ownership out of India of a luxury brand such as Jaguar”. That also happened to involve a Tata company —Tata Motors; the Tatas and Mahindra & Mahindra are front-runners in the race for acquiring the Jaguar and Land Rover brands being sold by Ford.

Reactions to Indians buying out US companies vary depending on the industry. Software companies usually face little opposition, given the global recognition for India’s computing expertise and edge. Most business-to-business (B2B) takeovers are accomplished with little difficulty, though there was some opposition in the early years. But brands are another story altogether; they are associated with a certain identity that is dependent on subjective perceptions.

Perhaps the opposition to Indian ownership of iconic brands boils down to one word — quality, which is a key consideration with branded products and services. And here, even die-hard Indian supporters acknowledge that India Inc. has a long way to go. The second concern is that of management ability. Indian management is not looked upon very favourably or rated highly, mainly because it’s feared that they don’t understand marketing very well.