Pushpa Sundar 
A lot has been said about Ratan Tata after his recent death. He has been described as a man with keen business acumen, a humane person and a great philanthropist. But nowhere have his views on philanthropy been referenced, though he had definite ideas on how the rich and their trusts or foundations should use their money.
I had the privilege of interviewing him soon after he took over the reins of the Tata Trusts, for Sampradaan of which I was a founder director. The interview was published on July 2, 1996 in the first issue of Sampradaan’s newsletter. I believe it has abiding relevance even today.
§
The name ‘Tata’ is synonymous with modern philanthropy in India. Sir Jamshedji, his two sons Sir Dorab and Sir Ratan, and JRD have pioneered and exemplified the concept of constructive philanthropy, of using private wealth to strike at the root of human suffering and poverty. Hence as the present head of the Tata group and as the doyen of the business community, Mr. Ratan Tata’s views on philanthropy are of particular interest. Some excerpts from an interview with him…
Mr. Tata, what is your vision of philanthropy in general, and Tata philanthropy in particular? Is it in any way different from that of your predecessors?
Our business philosophy remains very much the same as that articulated by my illustrious forebears, i.e., to create wealth for the nation and to create more employment for people so that they have better access to education and health. But we think more about being good corporate citizens – about participating in the development of the communities where we are located.
When did the concept of good corporate citizenship become important to the Tatas?
The concept is not new to the Tatas. Our ancestors and companies, besides undertaking important projects, were also working for the betterment of the community where they were located. The ideals were those of corporate citizenship, but the terminology was different. As for how we differ… Earlier there was more of charity in its elemental form of helping individuals facing a crisis. I tend to lay emphasis on self-help. While we always have a niche for individuals in distress (and while we could always be human on that ground), I am keen to channel more meaningful amounts towards programs which have an element of self-help to put people on their feet. I want to discourage the sort of practice that existed in the past, of making handouts which were a glorified form of alms, because for some, the kind of money we used to give is no longer meaningful in the context of today’s prices and costs. We want people to know that money will only be available if they are willing to use that money for gainful activity to help them stand on their own feet.
Is there any field or cause in which you have a special interest, just as JRD had in population control?
JRD was very right in championing the cause of population control… But my own particular interest is in education, not so much formal and conventional education as vocational education and skills creation.
What would you say is your own particular contribution to the Tata philanthropy?
I don’t know that I have made any particular contribution, other than to bring about the self-help focus to our work. I have also tried to streamline the working of our Trusts to make for bigger impact. We are giving more meaningful amounts to a smaller number of grantees, rather than frittering away our resources in several small grants for unconnected purposes. We are also developing a better programme focus. We are simultaneously trying to bring the professional approach of our companies into our Trust. I think we have a responsibility to see that the funds are well utilised.
Also read: Ratan Tata Had the Curiosity of a Child and the Catholicity of a Researcher Committed to the Nation
Do you think there is a role for private philanthropy even where government is the dominant actor on the socio-economic front?
I believe philanthropy is not about giving money only—it means giving yourself, your time, talent, anything. To be philanthropic you have to care, and you have to want to make a contribution with no expectations of a quid pro quo, in terms of profits, business returns, image or whatever. It is more a question of saying you wish to give and not to take, or to give more than you take. It has to be embodied in a feeling that since you have enough for yourself you have an additional responsibility to uplift the levels of living of those that are less privileged around you, or to make a contribution to the development of a particular region or class of people… In this sense of doing something for others there is always a role for private philanthropy, whatever the government does or does not do.
Do you think the younger generation of businessmen and industrialists are as philanthropically minded as the older generation, or do you think there is less interest in philanthropy today, perhaps because religion, which prompted charitable giving in the past, has become less influential in action?
It is difficult to generalise in this regard; some are very motivated and others are indifferent. Those who are interested are probably still very motivated by religion or at least some secular ethic.
What is your own motivation? What prompts you to give time for your Trusts and other charitable organisations?
I don’t give as much time as I should or would like to. As to what drives me…I am already living a comfortable life and feel making more money or building a larger empire is less satisfying than the thought that one has brought happiness to someone or made a difference to the life of a community or generation. This desire to make a difference is not necessarily limited to one’s own community or country. Recently I was in Namibia and I felt the Tatas should do something for the people of that region in Africa, who have been exploited for hundreds of years, though the Tatas will gain nothing from a business venture there.
Can government do anything to motivate the corporate world to be more philanthropic? Will more tax incentives help?
It is true that many Trusts are formed because of tax breaks. But to be motivated by tax breaks would be philanthropy for the wrong reasons. It would amount to hypocrisy. Either one cares or one does not. Just giving money is not enough. One has to interpret philanthropy in the widest sense. Being a good corporate citizen means more than giving money or charity as in times past. One must also consider it in the light of what is morally right or wrong. For instance, a company may donate a large sum for charity and yet discharge toxic effluents into a river or stream near its unit, putting the health of the local community at risk. That is like the mafia donating money to a philanthropic cause and thinking it absolves them of their guilt or responsibility.
Such people either do not understand fully the implications of their actions or if they do, they don’t care. Some try to buy the authorities so that they can carry on. I find this totally objectionable. If it happened in a Tata company, I would ask them to stop operations until the issue was resolved.
I am of the view that philanthropy has to come from within; no government can tell you what to do. A law may institutionalize philanthropy, choose whichever model you want to create, but it should be done for the right reasons. Otherwise, the money is just money; it may go for the right causes, but I would be concerned about such philanthropy.
Pushpa Sundar is an ex-IAS officer, and a writer.