Bharat Rakshak

Ravi-ji,

You are getting the wrong point..No one's saying that there is NO philanthrophy being done by Indian business groups..The question is of scale...I repeatwhat I posted earlier, from the Bain report:

1. US spends 2.2% of its GDP on philanthrophy, India 0.6%
2. Only 10% of India's "philanthrpohy" comes from individuals and corporations, for the US the number is 75%. this is the most impressive number - for India, most "charity" is done by the govt and overseas donor agencies..

The above points encapsulate the differences in scale..

At a different level, the top 50 American philathrphists here..

http://www.businessweek.com/interactive ... _2008.html

the important point to note is how much of the wealth is being pledged - for a whole range of people there, a very signifcant proportion of their wealth, upto 90-100% is being pledged out...Again, that is the approach one is talking about...What % of Mukesh Ambani's wealth is used for philathrophy? What % indeed is the same for the Bajaj or the Birla families? Really, barring the Tatas and Azim Premji (and GM Rao I am told), cant think of similar scale by anyone in India...

About religious trusts, I am not an expert byfar, but I think all public religious trusts are tax-exempt.....I remember a couple of friends in office saying that their Tirupati donations can be used for tax breaks...Might be wrong though..

Shyam-ji, it is very important to look at philanthrophy as a professionally run initiative..That is the only way you can scale up and manage large sums of endowments and complex projects...And professional management cannot come free..The Bill Gates foundation in India has Ashok Alexander as its head (ex-Mckinsey India head)...I think in India CRY started the trend when they hired Ingrid Srinath (IIM, Cal alumna) as their head some years ago...A batchmate of mine who went to IRMA for his post grad had interesting stories on how philathrophic orgs are managed - the good and the bad Net net, it is a sine qua non to have professionals...


That is true..But that is also the way how the endowment can be made self-sustaining...Also, remember, these guys are still passionate about their work - so Warren Buffet doesnt want to sell-off his stake in Berkshire and go..So bequathing the paper to a foundation is a win-win - doesnt dilute executive control for the entrepreneur and creates an anuity revenue stream for the endowment..

One point about the ability of the firm to "expand"...The becqueathal of a person's stake to an endowment does not take away anything from the firm's ability to leverage its balance-sheet, expertise etc to expand...And given that these endowmnets are controlled by the entrepreneur himself, even executive control is not an issue..The way I see it, the only thing that changes is that dividend (and share buy-back) income streams accrue to the endowment rather than to the individual..And by legacy, this income stream is "denied" to the individual's progeny....

But then, if the actual funds to philanthropy is only to the extent of the returns - and the core wealth is not given away, there seems to be some inconsistency in claiming that 90% of wealth has been given away. Also, if Bill Gates and Buffet's announcements have already taken effect - why is it that they still appear in the rich lists ? Obviously the technical ownership of the bulk of their stock has not changed hands.

Where did Bain get those %s?? from his/some one else's musharaff I am sure.
if the hindu "religious trusts" grow large they would be taken over by the govt.

The management of all major hindu religious trusts are taken over by the govt. Are the TTD funds from individuals/institutions? Who controls the money? The govt. Who does it come from? The general public but in records it will go as going from govt.

The needs of a growing country and a developed country are different.
Many of the trust in US are set up for tax benefits. and because there is an estate tax.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Just because some western guy tries to patronise, we dont need to fall for it.

This is a classical way in which the rich try to escape the estate tax in west so that they can bequeath their wealth to children.

Many of the trusts are for that exquisite purpose. Some do gooders will give the money to charity but make sure the control must remain with them and their children.

^^^the technical ownsership has shifted..For example, Berkshire Hathway...My BBG tells me that the largest shareholder in the compnay now is Gates Foundation (8.14%), while Warren Buffet owns 4.73%...

Typically, the ownsership will shift to the endowment..In certain cases, Bill Gates for example (not Buffet though), the Endowment itself will be headed by Gates himself...dont know wht you mean by "core wealth", but barring exercising shareholding control over the company, the entrepreneur does not get any cash flows from the asset any more...Importantly, Gates' kids are not going to be able to divide up his stake in MS between themselves, or sell off the stock...at best, they can have a role similar to that of Gates, ie, be on the board of the Foundation to exercise shareholder control over MS...Not dissimilar to the model adopted by the Tatas, or Premji now...

If 90% odd of Bill Gates' $50 Bn+ wealth is in the hands of these endowments, why does Forbes continue to count the full amount in Bill Gates' name? His personal wealth, post the transfer, should show $5 Bn.

How many times have you seen an Indian billionare say Azim Premji, Tatas who have done more than their fair share, went into other countries and frothed their mouths in this fashion??

The excessive attention which was paid to Ambani's home or these idiotic statements are simple propaganda.

Tch tch...The approach to denigrate in the face of all facts is astounding...Picking up your favourite "Bajaj"...Bajaj Auto's top shareholdings from BBG:

Bajaj Holdings: 31.49%, Jamnalal Sons: 8.97%, JayaHind Invest: 3.54%, Mah Scooters: 2.34%, Genesis Indian Invest: 1.64%, Bajaj Devashram: 1.55%................Of course, most of these too are "trusts", not charitable by any measure...What do you think they were set-up for, barring estate planning and tax planning?

BTW, Mukesh A spent >1 billion on that home - what is the size of his endowment if one wants to know?

Why dont you pick on Jobs/ Oracle/Bush's/Google/Queedom's riches??

Well I can say with confidence that DA-IICT the university alone costed atleast more than 300 crore in 2000 , forget his rest. But I never saw him tom-tom even in his own university (now handled by Anil after the split.)

I dont think Forbes makes its methodology very clear...But all of Bill Gates' donations are to the Bill Gates Foundation, which he is the Chairman of...I guess Forbes adds that in on that basis as "personal" wealth...I think they would need to for consistency, as lots of companies are owned through trusts, esp in Asia (also in the US) - charitable or not...

the difference between (say) a Jamnalal Sons trust and a Bill Gates Foundation would be on objective, legacy and access to cash flows...

A lot of hearsay in that $1 Bn figure, that is typical of Indian DDM. The actual figure is supposed to be nowhere close.

You didnt know that the economist, the hindu are the most truthful of the newspapers. I will get you figures from them.


The gossip column of TOIlet has more truths than them.

What chance do I have? Warren Buffet is doin that job

About the so-called ambani uni - is that philanthrophy or another business stream? What are the fees charged? What is the endowment created?

Lets just say that the four years I was there, our fees wasnt even enough to cover the prof's salary and maintanance expenses, forget the initial funding.
It was over budget for construction as well.

And on top of it, none of the students even wanted to go reliance infocomm when infy and co came to campus

You didnt even know that such a university existed. Then there was a nirma university which was around that area.

All these tom-tommers of the west dont even know their musharaff's when speaking about India.

When compared to say Tatas, Birlas they didnt do much. But remember the previous phase of Dhirubhai was more than even the 2nd generation of Rockerfellers. The first gen was the robber rockerfeller phase. They will transform slowly.

That does raise some suspicions ! Bill Gates is genuinely one of the heroes of the past few decades - and maybe he should talk to Forbes about dropping his endowment from inclusion in rich list - so more billionaires around the world can take take this seriously AND take inspiration.

^^^Not sure if Bill Gates (or Buffet) take these lists all that seriously...But really, his foundation is there - he has publicly bequathed his money to the Foundation, and the info is public! Here's the financial position of the Foundation..

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annualre ... ition.aspx

So dont think he has anything to answer for in terms of (lack of) transparency..

Aayyooo!

Seems Bill Gates $56 Bn current wealth is after subtracting $30 Bn he's given to the Bill & Melinda Foundation...so he has already given away 33%+ of this wealth - and he has publicly pledged to give all away in due course. Certainly difficult to find philanthropy on this scale anywhere else in the world !

But does not make sense to force the pace on any such standards in India - India will create its own examples eventually over the next 50 - 75 years.

That one billion figure is based on the market value of the land. Actual spending by Mukesh is closer to around $300 million. When you consider that, that's his only house, it compares very well to what folks like Larry Ellison, who is worth much less than him, spend on their many properties

I agree with Arjun on this point. You can't compare US standards with those of India.

Think of it this way. After how many generations of affluence, the type of which the world has probably never seen (in terms of breadth of affluence) before, has this philanthropy habit come in? Contrast that with Mukesh Bhai. It's useful to remember that Mukesh (and his brother) were born in a one-room chawl in Mumbai when Ambani senior was just starting out.

Indians are only now coming out of abject poverty that the country was plunged into for about 1000 years. And Mukesh Ambani's generation is probably the first after a millennium which has seen a horizontal growth of prosperity across different sections of society. You'll need some more generations to go through that experience before you can expect the type of philanthropy shown by a Gates or Buffet, IMO.

Another point to note. Tata Sons is majority owned by charitable institutions. So profits made there go to charity. And a lot of IT czars like Premji have spent a lot of money for education, wouldn't that be part of charity?

Interestingly, the other day, while driving to work I caught an interview with Bill and Melinda Gates on BBC when they were on a visit to Bihar. Some uppity reporter from Desh bought up this comparison. They both specifically pointed to the private investment in education being seen in India.

Amit,

Philanthrophy cannot be "forced", it is a question of inner calling..But the template setup by the likes of Gates and Buffet (and even before, by the Rockefellers and Oppenheimers) is great..And if they are on an evangelisation mission to India on this, more power to them! There isnt a need to denigrate that effort (or indeed the individuals) or invent "glories" in India on that topic...

BTW, pvt investment in education in india is largely a business opportunity, an offshoot of failed govt interventions in the sector..Not philathrophy - though Premji and Tatas are an exception - they have great templates on philanthrophies in India..

Somnath I'm a Jhonny come lately in this discussion. As a result my comment is only wrt why Indians don't match US in philanthropy. Even though I am firmly in the open source camp I hold Bill Gates in high regard.

sorry to butt in,
who is denigrating any efforts or individuals. you started the issue by using words like 'denigrating' 'glorius India' when there was none. Now it has taken a life of its own.
Please read the article-

Where we are bad at, is the creating publicity and making use of media to use so called philantrophy for selfish/destructive purposes.

Most of the official US/UK aid go their own consultancies as fees, but well they are "philantrophy".

"We will not allow you to buy the 100Rs blanket in the local market, we will get only the latest blanket of 4000Rs from my home location and oh the consultancy charges are extra. We also have to make surveys for the consultancy to gain more knowledge so as to use it.

See you idiots we are spending 15000Rs on charity and you misers, what do you do??

viewtopic.php?p=1056703#p1056703

Reposting what Indians have done for charities from the article - I am just posting it. I sincerely hope no one says that I am denigrating non Indians or talking about glorius India.

1) Karna- Mahabharat epic
2) J N Tata
3) G D Birla
4) Jamanlal Bajaj
5) Dayal Singh Majithia
6) Local people funding Swami Vivekananda trip to other countries like usa.
7) local poeple funding the wrestlers and weight lifters from remote parts of Orissa and Manipur.
8 ) Ekal Vidalayas educating more than 1 million children in 35000 villages
9) Satya Sai initiatives about water supply to over 731 villages later extended to include chennai metroploitan city with population of few millions.
10) Ramakrishna Mission runs around 200 hospitals serving nearly one crore people annually mostly in rural areas. It also runs around 1,200 educational institutions serving more than 3.5 lakh students of which more than 1.25 lakh are in rural areas.
11) Nadars engaged in business in Tamil Nadu have funded hundreds of educational institutions and hospitals and so the Marwaris/Chettiars/Katchis/Bhoras all over India.
The above you can count as 12, 13, 14, 15, etc

12) A lot of our education, healthcare, arts, literature and spirituality efforts/ventures have been fully financed by businessmen who are even shy to talk about it.
one cannot put a number to it.

The article is minefull of information about Indians, good to know about it. I am happy such articles are written.
The article has not mentioned about the Jains, akshaya patra schemes and many more, I am sure other sdres can add to the list.

It is good we as sdres know about ourselves and our people. It helps us to follow them easily.
A BIg BIG thing about Indian charity is that there is less or may be no undercover activities compared to many western sponsored charities.

please also include the TTD schemes, of nitya anna daana, building roads nearby, the dams by Puttaparti Saibaba and others.

As I have been saying, we have to learn propaganda from these buffoons & gates.

http://www.sankaranethralaya.org/

Until atleast 5 years ago, the above was the best eye hospital in South India nominally managed by Kanchi Sankaracharya.

http://www.sankaranethralaya.org/best-eye-hospital.html

There is belief among many people that if we don't copy what Americans do, we are not doing good. Whatever other things we do don't count.

Shankara Netralaya performs an eye surgery for $30. If we give money to professional charities, it would cost $300 in India and may be $10000 in Massa.

This is known as faking arguments and faking discussion. Instead of supporting India and Indians the discussion take a life of its own without any purpose. India does not need this kind of advice from Buffet etc.

This is a manufactured belief which is reinforced with the kind of arguments in this thread. The purpose is to show Indian decision making and its vision is below others. This is kind of slow social engineering and all kind of false arguments are thrown in to reinforce it. Anybody who has not visited US may start to believe in this false image.

Volunteer activity is highest among Indians. This is never considered when money is counted.

At least from my side, I can say without any hesitation- I am much too proud of my heritage and openly say I am from India, love to be Indian...... This happened after I left India. I have different opinion about UK/USA NOW than when I was in India. I take the good from both sides removing the obvious other aspects.
One thing I noticed is that westerners(aam admi) respect if you show respect to your country without showing disrespect to theirs which I think is right. I would do the same about my country.
Some desis think otherwise which I have some issues.

I dont want this to degenerate into a slanging match, but here are the sections from the article..

About "inventing glory"...

The point on GD Birla and Jamnalal Bajaj are patently wrong, as I have pointed out before...Their wealth was largely divvied up between various parts of the clan, with disputes continuing till date..Dont know what Rahul Bajaj has to say about the legacy, will he claim that the issue with Kushagra Bajaj was on philanthrophy?

About "denigrating" Buffet-Gates..

One doesnt know what tax treatment Gates and Buffet are subject to (dont think anyone barring the prncipals themselves would!), but if these are not unsubstantiated snide allusions to ulterior motives, then I dont know what is..

Some more (from participants in the debate)..

Just so that the facts are clear, the rich do not have to set up "charitable" trusts in order to create tax-efficient legacies for children...there are enough private bankers around the world who do precisely that, no veneer of "charity" required...Why go outside, just ask Rahul Bajaj

Some more...


If you have a POV, thats fine...There is some data that I have posted (Bain) - the numbers are quite stark..If you dont want to believe the data, thats your prerogative..State your reasons and lets move on...

From my perspective, the issue (especially) about Gates and Buffet is this - they are first generation entrepreneurs generating a fabuous amount of wealth, and are giving away bulk of that for a larger cause - its a model worth emulating, at least for me..And if they evangelise, more power to them, no need to denigrate the effort...

I firmly believe that both parties should learn from each other. Slanging match causes both to lose. There is no winner.

The article mentions that these 2 gentlemen did some good work for the Indians. He also mentions that the gentlemen did not glorify themselves unlike Buffet and Gates.Even their progeny are shy to comment on the philanthropic achievements of their forefathers. In fact you are casting aspersions on the them by your rather generous terms like "inventing glory" "glorious India" when none exists. Really pathetic attempts to paint them in a bad way. Really disgusting!!

what is your point on GD Birla and Jamanlal Bajaj? why beat around the bush. say it clearly whether the 2 Indian gentlemen did philanthropy or not. yes or no.


You dont know whether the author knows the above facts mentioned in the article to be true or not. Instead of substantiating what the author said was wrong you attribute it to snide allusions to ulterior motives and add some non sensical words like "inventing glory" "glorious India" etc. Hence you are casting aspersions on the author.

Krisna-ji,

Not sure if you dont relly undestand or simply refuse to...One last time...


No, the article says that they becqueathed most of their personal wealth to charity...Which is patently and evidently wrong...


There is no way any third party individual can know the tax status/liability of any individual, not unless he works for Income Tax (or IRS in the US)...Its illegal in most civilised countries for such data to be in the public domain...Therefore, to impute motives on that basis is denigration, nothing else...

Plus, as I said before, no one needs a veneer of charity to set up tax-friendly trusts, they are as old as private banking..And your favourite Rahul Bajaj or Kumar Birla would know about them as well as anyone else

Of course, in case you have some other source of data to dispute the Bain report on the relative "philanthrophy intensity" of India and US, we will be enlightened...

And yes, Acharya-ji,

Funny, but you seem to make one-line remarks and scoot...Some time back you claimed something to the tune of INR being the "free-est currency in the developing world", and I asked you for some argument/evidence for that claim..Maybe you can reinforce your beliefs and also enlighten the "unenlightened" ones like us?

What exactly did you mean by that? I notice you don't apply the same standards for Indian industrialists versus white-skinned ones - the former can be denigrated at will but not the latter ?

Can you enlighten us on the methodology that Bain used for the study?

I really wish the same for you. you simply refuse to see the facts and your own statements.


You boldly proclaim what the author did was wrong but refuse to give facts. You hide behind saying that
Are you not dishonest with yourself and everyone here.
1) How can you say then the author is wrong when you cannot back it up regarding Indians? and then with the americans?
2) how can you say the same regarding Buffet and Gates?

why do you negatively reflect on Indians and positively regarding americans when you cannot back it up. You say no one can access the tax status/liability in civilised countries. You are twisting yourself in knots.

I can collect the statements you made in the last few posts here.

I have not mentioned that they are my favorites.
These gentlemen are not my favorites in any sense other than quoting from the article. Please refrain from adding words/adjectives unnecessarily.
It detracts from the discussion.
I believe in learning from each other. We are all Indians and have a lot to learn from each other.

Krisna-ji,

which part of the statement is incomprehensible to you?

1. The shareholding pattern of Bajaj Auto (which would be a very large part of Jamnalal Bajaj's personal wealth)? Or that of any other Bajaj company? Does it show that "most of his wealth" has been donated to charity?

2. Tax status of individuals - the fact that the same is not publicly available info anywhere, therefore not tenable as an unlterior motive?

3. Or the fact that regardless of the tax status of the foundations/trusts, rick folk do not need to do any charity to save on tax?


Arjun-ji, there is no denigration of anyone...Just a factual notice that tax-efficient trusts are de regeur, in India, in US and many other countries...But there is no requirement to put a veneer of charity to get tax breaks on them...If you look at the shareholding of most of the older Indian companies, a lot of it is held through various trusts created precisely for that purpose...There is nothing illegal about it, so denigrating anyone - white, brown or black on that basis makes no sense..The likes of Gates etc are not setting up charitable trusts to get tax breaks, they can get such tax breaks through other non-charitable trusts equally well - so imputing motives on that basis is stupid..


There is no mathematical model by Bain, just a collation of data, so not sure what you mean by "methodology"...Can they be wrong? Possible, though not very likely (data integrity is at the heart of a research business)...I would be happy to be enlightened if they are...

You can make your point by simply saying that denigrating Gates and Buffet given what they have done is not on ! On the other hand I see you move towards counter-denigrating Birla and Bajaj !! I assume you think that is appropriate ? Its not just this example - your stress on trying to prove Indian industrialists as being robber-barons, your angry denunciations of one of India's top fund managers, Pradip Shah....


Your remarkable belief in Bain's quality is touching - I have personally evaluated them and used them for my efforts in the past. Surely you know that analysis is only as good as the quality of data that goes in!! Have you heard of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out ? Are you telling me the quality of field data in India is as high as it is for the US?

Can you lay out the data collection methodology that Bain adopted? Have they discussed this in their report?