Monday, August 26, 2013

India's philanthropy long preceded America



Jamsetji Tata established his philanthropic foundation in India before even that of Carnegie.

This is a discovery made while exploring High Net Worth Philanthropy in India. In this blog interview first published in The Clockwork Muse, I explain how I got interested by philanthropy in India, its dimensions – social, cultural and religious and whether there are differences from Western notions of giving.


1. Please tell us a bit about how you got interested in High-net worth giving in India?

 Like many Protestants I knew very little about traditions of giving other than the one in which I grew up – church collections on Sundays, occasional street day appeals and organized charity appeals for the likes of Oxfam, Red Cross and Save the Children.  Somehow I formed the impression that it was the West alone that provided relief and succour to the developing world.  I never read or heard discussions about indigenous traditions of charity or philanthropy other than my own – even in my early days as a professional fundraiser.

Around 2005 I was working for a firm of international fundraising consultants and through them met Major General Surat Sandhu, who had recently retired from Help Age India to become a fundraising consultant. Sometime later, knowing that I was visiting India, he invited me to give a workshop to some Indian fundraisers. For the first time I began to understand a little bit about NGOs and philanthropy in India. As time went on I became more a more struck by the scale and prevalence of philanthropy in India.

More recently when I was considering the focus of my research for the Ph.D. I wanted to do.  I was reading the extensive press coverage generated by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett’s first visit to India to promote the Giving Pledge. There was a great deal of discussion by Indian HNWIs themselves about their practice of philanthropy. I had never seen that in the West!  It seemed to me here was a fruitful area for further research.  Especially, of course,  because Ph.D. research is supposed to cover topics that haven’t been researched before. The sad fact is there has been almost no academic research on any aspect of Indian philanthropy.

 2. What is your background and experience ?

 As I mentioned briefly above, I am a fundraising consultant. I also train fundraisers. I began my career as an actor, then an arts administrator, then I became a fundraiser first in the arts and then in higher education – universities.

3. What have you uncovered so far about giving behaviors in the subcontinent?

 It’s hard to give a simple answer. The subcontinent is a complex mix of religions, castes, ethnic traditions, geographies, histories, politics and social class. All of these are reflected in one way or another in giving behaviors. However once again I would like to reiterate that there is, or are, strong traditions of giving.

4. Any surprises?

 No surprises other than the initial surprise that philanthropy and giving are so much a part of Indian culture.

 5. What is unique about Indian philanthropy, as compared to western notions of giving?

 I wouldn’t necessary claim that there is anything unique about Indian philanthropy, in comparison to Western philanthropy. One thing to remember is that Western philanthropy grew from traditions that were introduced from the East. The first endowed universities and hospitals in Europe were the result of Medieval Knights returning from the Islamic territories of the Middle East where they had been introduced to the tradition of Islamic philanthropy and waqf.

US philanthropy is an infant in comparison to the traditions of the Middle East and Asia having been imported from Europe in the 19th century.

6. Noam Chomsky said recently in an interview that most Indians are indifferent to others’ suffering? Do you agree with this, purely from a philanthropic perspective

I have great respect for Noam Chomsky as an intellectual and a great liberal. I don’t think the reported comment was particularly profound. He made an interesting observation about the reaction of someone else – Aruna Roy. And he tried to generalize it through his own sensibilities. I think he missed the mark and I hope that it isn’t held against him.

 7. What is the role of philanthropy in a society such as India? How does this intersect with the state’s responsibility?

 There is much debate about the role of philanthropy in societies around the world. The philanthropic sector is sometimes called the third sector to distinguish it from the state sector and the business sector. There are some things that can be achieved by philanthropy which cannot be achieved either through the state or by business. There are also some things that can be done in partnerships of all three – the state, business and philanthropy. Of these, I suppose it would be fair to say, philanthropy has the most freedom to innovate and take risks. Certainly this appears to be a growing trend both in the West and in India.


8. How do you foresee the understanding of philanthropy growing in India, going beyond Corporate Social Responsibility? The field is pretty nascent in India, is that right?

 As I have said already philanthropy is far from nascent in India. In fact, in comparison, it is American philanthropy that is nascent! There is much confusion about corporate social responsibility not just in India but all over the world. Corporate social responsibility and corporate philanthropy are not synonymous. In India the debate about corporate social responsibility has been renewed as a result of the government making it mandatory for some companies. However the definition of corporate social responsibility is still far from determined.

You may be alluding to the fact that there is a strong tradition of philanthropy within the business classes and industrial dynasties of India. There is in the public mind some confusion between corporate philanthropy, family philanthropy and CSR because of this. Similar confusion may even exist amongst those business families themselves.


9. Any concluding thoughts.

 A strong motivation for my undertaking this research into philanthropy in India is a belief that the world should recognize that there is much more to philanthropy than there is contained in Western philanthropy. Until now, 90% if not more, of the research that has been published has been published either by American or British scholars about American, British and Western European philanthropy. I was lucky enough to spend some time in the Middle East and was introduced to Islamic philanthropy. That began my curiosity and interest into other traditions of philanthropy.

India is remarkable because within one country there are so many different traditions. I think the world has a lot to learn from India.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Philanthropy gets a Buffetting

“It’s time for a new operating system. Not a 2.0 or a 3.0, but something built from the ground up. New code”.  With these words Peter Buffett started a controversy worth taking notice of.  

In an opinion piece in the New York Times he questioned the effectiveness of philanthropy, including some examples of mistakes of his own that led to his change of view.



Quick to respond were Matt Bishop and Michael Green the authors of Philanthrocapitalism.  The solution to Buffet's issues is already here, they say.  Its name is surprise, surprise, “Philanthrocapitalism”. My own reading of what Buffett says is different from Bishop and Green.  I do, however, agree with them (and Buffett) on the importance of philanthropic money being used as risk capital, and of achieving systemic change.

Two contributors from Forbes were next off the rank. Howard Husock drew historical parallels between Buffett and two of his American predecessors – John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Henry Ford II. All three argues Husock were wrong to doubt the system that gave them each their untold wealth. 

Tom Watson, on the other hand applauds Buffet  - agreeing with one of his main points and disagreeing with another. The disagreement is on the data on which Buffet’s argument appears to be based.  His agreement too is that philanthropy ought to provide risk capital.

Phil Buchanan from the Center for Effective Philanthropy also takes Buffett to task but he doesn’t spare any of Bishop and Green, Husock or Watson either. Not surprisingly for the President of an organization dedicated to researching how to make philanthropy more effective his conclusion Buchanan approves the overall debate. “We need to ask the big questions,” he says.

Some of the big questions Buffett has asked are
  • Aren't the figures who are leading philanthropy also  leaders (or former leaders) of the very system that contributed the inequity now being redressed?
  • Are business principles and capitalism really the solutions?
  • Do  existing models of philanthropy take sufficient regard of different cultures, geography or societal norms?

What you might wonder does Buffett’s  famous father have to say about the debate? Well he is all in favour (or 'favor' maybe) says Peter on Huff Live.  Adding, "I grew up in a family with both parents being very much around equality, humanism, how can we make this world a better place for all ... I kind of grew up in this environment of social change and saying things out loud.”

By the way, if you're looking forsome music to round this discussion off you can listen to Peter Buffett’s latest song “Already Flown