‘Raising funds is a thankless task’

Civil Society Reviews

Philanthropy has a special buzz among the ultra-rich. If net worth matters, so does how much is given away. But who to give to and for what? Should it be an instinctive decision or a calibrated one?

These are vexing concerns. Entire teams in large foundations work on vetting proposals, checking out NGOs and then holding them to account. But then there are also big donors who believe it makes practical sense to cut a cheque and forget about it.

Few people understand the giving scene as well as Pushpa Sundar, having been in the thick of it for many decades. She last ran Sampradaan Indian Centre for Philanthropy, an organization that connected donors and recipients. She was also in the Ford Foundation and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI). Before that she was in the IAS.

Sundar’s many roles uniquely placed her to understand how philanthropy can rise above mere charity and make a difference in terms of development.

Now in retirement, she has shared some of those insights in an easy-flowing autobiography detailing her personal ‘journey from the IAS to philanthropy’. Raising funds is a “thankless task”, she says, even as oversight is needed to ensure money goes to the deserving and is well-used.

 

Q: You are one of the frontrunners in understanding philanthropy and, in a sense, a precursor to what we see as corporate social responsibility (CSR) now.

Well, my interest in philanthropy came out of an interest in funding. I was always interested in NGOs. Back then I was with the Ford Foundation and they gave grants for three years at a time. And if successful, they removed it for a while. It’s not an infinite source of funding. The grantees would ask me, Where should we go once this is over, what should we do?

So, I started exploring what and where the other sources of funding for social sector work were. My interest was in funding for social change and social sector organizations. That’s really what led me to philanthropy, plus the fact that I was myself working in international philanthropy so I was aware of all the developments in America and elsewhere.

 

Q: What is the line between philanthropy and charity and philanthropy and CSR? Or is the difference largely manufactured?

To the layperson there is no difference between charity and philanthropy. The two terms are used interchangeably. But I make a distinction between charity and philanthropy. Charity is something impulsive. You give because something strikes an empathetic chord with you and you want to give something.

But it is not a thought-out decision with the purpose of making long-term change. That is philanthropy — when you plan for long-term change with your money and you give it consciously and not just for temporary alleviation. 

 

Q: Philanthropic organizations want assessments and results. Do you think expectations need to be more nuanced?

Definitely. In charity, as I said, there is no expectation, no after-thought. But because philanthropy is a conscious decision in order to bring about some positive social change, you do have certain expectations. If these expectations are excessive, then that’s wrong because you are giving in order to help somebody bring about social change.

If that organization is unable, despite its best efforts, to achieve what you expected out of it then I think that’s not on. This is the big difference. The philanthropist and the organization that has received funding have to work together towards the desired end. And only then can you really blame the person and say he hasn’t done what I wanted. Both have to work together. 

 

Q: NGOs complain they spend so much time justifying every penny. Do you think there could be a little reorientation? 

See, I have been on both sides. When I was in the Ford Foundation I was making grants, and when I started Sampradaan Indian Centre for Philanthropy, I was on the other side, seeking grants. I have seen both sides of the equation.

In the Ford Foundation you worked with the grantee to achieve a consensus on what would be achieved. You met them frequently. You discussed their progress. But at the end you reviewed it.

In philanthropy, at first it was very liberal, you just gave and forgot. Then came philanthropic capitalism, where, you know, business criteria began to come into assessing philanthropy.

 

Q: You mean impact investment?

That’s right. You looked at metrics. Calculations. In many ways, the end goal, which was to bring about some social change, was lost sight of in this sort of nitty-gritty — how much has gone into administration — without really looking at whether it has achieved substantial results.

Now there is a trend back to the earlier system. People are saying, No, this is not the way to approach philanthropy, we should give a certain amount of freedom to the person to whom money has been given. Broadly, if you work together, then you reach, if not 100 percent, at least 80 percent of the target you wanted.

 

Q: There have been recent examples of extremely wealthy generous donors like Melinda Gates and MacKenzie Scott upturning the method of giving completely. Do you think more can be achieved with that approach?

I think that’s going to the other extreme, human nature being what it is. There can be some grantees who are not genuinely motivated, who receive the money, and then become irresponsible. A certain degree of checks and balances is necessary.

It should not kill the initiative and the spirit behind the work. If that is being maintained I think it’s fine. But, you know, there have been, even in the NGO sector, several instances of money being misused.

 

Q: People join the government because they like to make a difference. In retrospect, do you think you would have been able to do more had you stayed in government?

Well, it's always nice to be able to look into the future and you know, think what if....

Since the past few years, I have been doing mock interviews for a coaching institute  which prepares aspirants for the IAS and other civil services. I chair a panel of people, and this is everybody’s standard reply that they want to serve society.

As if you cannot serve society in any other line. Yes, to some extent, you have the power and some resources in government.  Setting up Sampradaan was so hard for one single person. You have more help if you are in government.

The other side of the coin is there is no guarantee that the service will use your background, your talent, your previous expertise. You are moved around from place to place depending on the exigencies of the service.

I ask this particularly to engineers, doctors and MBAs who want to get into the IAS. Their number is increasing by the year. There is no thorough study of how much of their expertise has been used in government service. It’s basically a generalist service. You might be in one post today, and then be doing something totally different. 

Should there be some kind of specialization in government service where doctors are kept in the health sector and so on. I think for administrative reform you need some thorough studies of what has happened to the utilization of the people who get into the service and their backgrounds.   

 

Q: Today, NGOs find it tough to raise funds.  What advice would you give them?

Fundraising is a very difficult job, no doubt, whether it’s the government or an NGO or any other organization. It’s a very thankless task.  That’s a fact.

There have been attempts to teach people how to fundraise. There was a South Asian fundraising group which used to organize training workshops. Several others have also held fundraising workshops. In Sampradaan we did case studies of how different organizations raised money.

On the other hand, being approached by fund seekers can be so irritating sometimes. People wanting donations can become aggressive and intrude on your privacy with whining messaging. There are organizations that are on my blacklist because they cross the boundary.

 

Q: Writing your autobiography is always a big decision. What motivated you?

Several people I knew were writing their autobiographies and so that set me thinking, why not me? Of course, the one big thing that comes up with writing an autobiography is: How much to reveal and how much to conceal, especially about oneself. So that was a decision that one had to make. But I decided that whatever I would say would be the honest truth.