It is easier to manage social charity with a couple of focused priorities. Why does it need to be different in the case of a more diversified philanthropic organisation like the Tata Trusts?
The reason for our existence is to enhance the quality of life of the people we reach out to. To realise our vision, we have to look beyond contributing mainly to ease personal hardship. You may have a kidney problem that requires dialysis and you cannot afford that, so we subsidise or pay for it. We have been doing that and will continue to provide such personal assistance — I think we are giving five times as much as we used to for such causes — but the needs are huge and finding genuine NGOs and project collaborators who work well in these spheres is getting ever more difficult.
Yes, we should be sensitive when it comes to funding the treatment of someone with, say, cancer, but the time has come for us to also be concerned with more meaningful ways of channelling funds for, say, cancer research or the development of a malaria vaccine. We should be aiming to replicate what has happened in the United States, where large amounts of resources are pumped into research.
The question is: can we fund a research project that aims to eliminate or control a certain disease and, therefore, has the potential to benefit a larger number of people, or should we stick with helping individuals suffering from that disease? We believe we can make a greater difference through large projects that serve mankind.
Nutrition is a subject that provides an example of the point I’m making. You cannot just look at combatting malnutrition in children; you have to bring the mother into the ambit. How do you do that? The government has large amounts of money that they expend in providing iron tablets. A tender goes out and the cheapest tablets are procured. This is given to the mother, who has to walk a few miles to get them. Other supplements are similarly sourced and they may or may not get to the people they are supposedly for. It’s not going to work.
How do we solve delivery problems? Can we for example embed these supplements in staple foods such as rice, wheat and salt? Can we get state governments to endorse the programme? Instead of putting money into tablets, can they mandate that all rice and bread that is produced be iron-fortified?
We are making some big guesses on such issues and, to the pleasant surprise of many of us, we are getting support from state governments that are willing to do this and have the budget for it. We are sharing the technology with them and they have asked us to monitor the projects, which we are happy to do. These are projects that can be replicated across the country; what you have to ensure is that they are executed effectively.
The level of intervention by the Trusts while overseeing the projects it funds has increased. What’s the reason?
It’s crazy if, in projects where you have 50 NGOs doing things, each in their own way, we just keep funding them. If the project is important enough, we need to get involved with the NGO, or we may do it with another foundation. We need to have our face in there; our knowledge of what’s happening on the ground is going to increase if we do that, rather than merely concentrate on the funding.
In the old days, one trust would go out and solicitate NGOs who were doing good work and offer them funds. Another trust would be waiting for people to come to them and apply for funds, which they would then make available. We had different ways of doing things. Now we are trying to integrate that; not deprive the trusts of their autonomy but saying, “Let’s get together and see what can lead to the greatest gains.”
There is a view that the Trusts should spread their wings to geographies other than India, simply because the Tata group has become a global corporation. What’s your view on this?
Much of what we do here can be done in other countries, but would that be right when you have not exhausted all means to satisfy the demand in India? A quick answer is yes. We should always be open to change here because the suffering of humankind is similar and heart wrenching, whether it be in Africa or India. There are regulatory problems in going that way, but we should be asking ourselves the question. We will cross that bridge when we come to it but I think we should be willing to play our role of trying to make a difference to the quality of life, wherever possible.
Do you subscribe to the view that philanthropy is inherently personal, even when it comes to professional funding institutions?
No, I would not describe philanthropy in that manner. Philanthropy starts with the donor, which may lead you to say it’s personal. Somebody’s wife dies of leukaemia and he decides to establish a hospital to treat the disease; somebody loses a child in a car accident and decides to set up an institute for road safety. Traditionally, philanthropy may get started due to some personal hardship or personal vision, but philanthropy in its true sense is not personal; it is humanity-based. It’s about the sensitivity you have to all the hardships that people face.
What advice do you have for young philanthropists?
I don’t want to address that; I don’t think I can. What holds true is that we want to be enhancing the quality of life of the less privileged, not just by giving grants but by eventually serving their needs.
What are the priority issues that you think India should address?
I have always felt that India suffers from having an environment that is inherently unequal. If I could sum it up in one phrase, I’d say my greatest desire as an Indian is to be proud of my country because it is an equal-opportunity nation. We have had a woman prime minister but that was an exception to the rule. If you have the ability to study, work and rise on the basis of merit and not on the basis of who you are or how well connected you are, that would make me very happy for our country.
What we are going through now in terms of religious differences and inequalities, that’s included in what I’m saying. We have for political reasons carved out the country according to caste, religion and communal groups. This may help some people at election time, but they don’t help in creating a unified country. We are now Maharashtrians, Punjabis and Tamilians rather than Indians. The day we all become Indians again, that’s when the country will be strong.
