A Call to Action: Why We Need a Citizen-First Approach

Recently, unseasonal rains flooded the city of Bengalaru. Visuals of privileged citizens living in upscale independent bungalows, riding tractors to get away from their inundated spaces, as their luxury cars lay submerged in the water, flooded our phones. Delhi is choking. As I write this, there are alarming newspaper reports of the rise in pollution levels in Pune where I live, and how complacency is sure to lead to a catastrophe. It’s glaring that if Sarkaar has to tackle this, it can do so only with the support of Samaaj.

We are aware that climate change or saving water or a city’s poor infrastructure are not other people’s problems. Nor are they the lookout of only the Sarkaar. To effect a change we, the Samaaj, need to shed our laxity, roll up our sleeves and take action. This is the earnest appeal that author and philanthropist, Rohini Nilekani makes in her book, ‘Samaaj Sarkaar Bazaar: a citizen-first approach’.

As citizens, we are so used to the secondary status accorded to us by those we elect to power that not only have we become cynical, we are also conditioned to believe that action on our part is either insignificant, or too onerous or futile. But the pandemic proved otherwise. During the migrant exodus forced by the sudden nationwide lockdown, we witnessed the opening of doors and hearts. Strangers came out in large numbers to help the migrants, leveraging technology for good. Such incidents have convinced the author that it is possible for a strong, resilient and active Samaaj to play the most important role keeping the other two–Sarkaar and Bazaar–accountable to public interest, notwithstanding the fact that the past century has seen Sarkar and Bazaar accumulate vast powers. Rohini also acknowledges that while the digital age has “enhanced the opportunity for mass civic engagement, it has also made empty clicktivism an easy replacement for true action.” Her optimism stems from her vast experience—more than 30 years in civil society and philanthropy.

The book is a compilation of Rohini’s articles, interviews, and speeches, and has been self-published under a Creative Commons license that enables people to download it freely, read and share it forward, and further the discourse on the roles of Society, State and Markets. Rohini concedes that “with a subject like this which encompasses all human interplay, there is a high likelihood of generalization, oversimplification, reduction and the exclusion of vital historical trends”. She emphasises that she writes as a concerned citizen and not as a scholar.

In the introduction, Rohini narrates a heart-rending account of losing dear friends to a horrendous car accident on the Bangalore-Chennai highway, which took their unborn daughter and orphaned their three-year-old son. This unnecessary loss created a searing impact on her and moved her enough to want to do something to improve road safety, which led in 1992 to the launch of a public charitable trust called Nagarik, with the tagline, ‘For Safer Roads’. This experience taught her many early lessons. With the founding of Arghyam and Pratham Books, and her involvement in several other philanthropic institutions, Rohini gained tremendous learning.

I confess that when I began reading the book, my hard-boiled cynicism refused to yield to the optimism and can-do approach in the book. As I read further, the earnestness, the conviction that is born out of hands-on experience, the author’s trailblazing initiatives, the concrete results, the significant changes brought about thereof, and the never-say-die spirit that remains intact despite reality checks and setbacks, began making a slow but sure dent in my obstinate stance that the author’s vision was utopian. Therein probably lies the problem with Samaaj. We have forgotten to dream. Very few of us are driven to act. By settling for our subordinate status as citizens, and probably intimidated by the effort required to drive a change, we have begun to perceive the achievable as a pipe dream.

Rohini knows that her views are idealistic, but she asserts that “we can move inexorably towards the magnificent goal with a feeling of hope and belief that all our actions, however small, like little drops of water – will eventually create the ocean”.

By working on our trust deficit aided by civil society organisations, by creating more safe spaces for people to talk across their divides, by creating mechanisms for the three sectors to work together, by taking that one step forward, we can move towards “ever greater inclusion, ever more dignity, choice and freedom”. What’s more, it can be done in a way that is balanced, sustainable and deeply human.

Archana Pai Kulkarni is the Books Editor at SheThePeople. The views expressed are the author’s own.

A Job For The One Percent:The elite must help build better cities, in public interest and in their own interest

The recent Bengaluru floods washed up the dirty linen of mismanagement and corruption on the shores of a crumbling city infrastructure. Yet, no matter how quickly various governments build out physical public services, especially in urban India, the demand for it outstrips the supply. Be it roads and transport, electricity and water supply, hospitals, or universities.

There are simply not enough budgeted funds to provide and sustain adequate functional physical infrastructure at a per capita annual income of around $2,000 and a tax-GDP ratio of around 11%.

It is very different when it comes to the public digital infrastructure. India has among the most sophisticated and widely accessed open, public digital goods and services in the world. Whether it is broadband, smartphones, or UPI, we have made enormous progress in creating new opportunities for all. How can we achieve the same for better physical access to mobility, housing, energy, health etc?

The elites of the samaaj and the bazaar have successfully created a thin slice of high-quality private infrastructure on top of this inadequate public infrastructure. And we continue to build that out at breakneck speed.

● Think of the high-tech facilities at our high-performing companies.
● Or the incredibly fancy malls in Delhi and Mumbai.
● Think of the luxe cars, private jets and gated mansions of the ultra-rich (full disclosure – I am an UHNI, and my home and cars are also somewhat fancy).
● So far, in India, not many seem to begrudge the wealthy their lifestyle and possessions.
● The majority remain optimistic about their own upward mobility.

Yet, we have recently seen that this is not a sustainable option even for the wealthy. While the pandemic created a new leveller, the Bengaluru flooding provided the most graphic example. The local ultra-rich could not escape a common fateand cumulatively lost hundreds of crores.

This winter, sophisticated air filters will barely protect the most privileged in Delhi from the air pollution. Nor will expensive sedans and office buses smoothen the rocky rides on our potholed roads for the upper classes.

● Have the elite reached the end of our gilded private pier?
● Can private goods be sustainably built on a precarious public foundation?
● Or is there something that we the elite can do so that the base on which our private goods and services are built can be stronger, not just for us but for all?

They say much is asked of those to whom much is given. Plus, as the elite of east Bengaluru painfully experienced, we cannot merely be consumers of good governance, we have to co-create it. If we point one finger at the government, are three fingers pointing back at ourselves?

● Have we built our sprawling corporate campuses on flood plains?
● Did we build or rent our homes using ecological prudence and after a thorough legal check?
● Or have we shrugged our shoulders once too often?

The good news is that we can easily take back some agency. There are so many opportunities.

● We can invest in the excellent thinktanks around India that conduct research and provide data and analytics for improved urban governance.
● We can donate to civic institutions working on water, climate change and disaster prevention and management, because these intertwine our fates ever more closely.
● We can also support the many other civil society organisations working closely with local, state and Union governments to help implement the delivery of public goods and services, or to innovate on more inclusive urbanisation, including on dignified housing.
● Fully 42% of Mumbai lives in its slums and fast-growing cities like Bengaluru have similar numbers.

Radically, we can support more transparent taxation, so that the government can spend more on physical infrastructure and safety nets. It is time to shed the cynicism about the wastage of our tax rupees. The prospects in this country for ample wealth creation by a limited few are rather staggering. There is a strategic and a moral imperative to balance out this opportunity.

● The 2021 Niti Aayog report states that 65% of the 7,933 Indian urban settlements do not even have a master plan.
● India has one civil servant for 24,000 people while the UK has one for every 131 people.
● We can help bridge this vast gap of human resources by lending our time or by paying to increase state capacity.
● Like some highly successful corporate professionals, we can offer our time and talent to the different state policy outfits.
● Like some foundations have, we can fund project management units in government departments or pay for fellowships to support legislators at every level.

This is an urgent opportunity but also just enlightened self-interest. Effective public infrastructure creates the secure foundation for everyone to build on top according to needs, capacities and desires.

Like it or not, floods, pandemics and air pollution put everyone in the same boat, even if some of us are in the upper deck private cabins. We will have to row together to steer away from the rising waters. Life jackets are under the seat. But the oars are right on top.

The writer is Chairperson, Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies Foundation. Her recent book is ‘Samaaj, Sarkaar, Bazaar: A Citizen First Approach’

Grand Tamasha: ‘No govt can do without civil society in a developing nation’

“Governments need civil society organisations to serve as mirrors; they need them to reach the first mile… they need all the risk-taking capital. No government can do without that in a developing country like ours which is so highly aspirational,” Nilekani told Milan Vaishnav, host of the Grand Tamasha podcast. Grand Tamasha is a co-production of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, DC-based think tank, and the Hindustan Times.

Nilekani was speaking about her latest book, Samaaj, Sarkaar, Bazaar (Society, State, and Markets): A Citizen-First Approach, which encapsulates many of the lessons the author has learned over three decades working in the civil society and philanthropic sectors.

Nilekani, wife of Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani, oversees an influential private foundation and helped found several successful non-profits, including water non-profit Arghyam and Pratham Books. To encourage readers to learn from her hits and misses, Nilekani has made the book freely available for download at https://www.samaajsarkaarbazaar.in/.

Vaishnav asked Nilekani about the state of philanthropy in India today, to which Nilekani said: “Countries allow such runaway wealth creation only if that wealth is going to being deployed for the larger good. Otherwise, why would any state or society allow this? Wealth comes with a great responsibility and extreme wealth comes with extreme responsibility.”

The Nilekanis are signatories of “The Giving Pledge,” a campaign started by billionaire CEOs Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to encourage extremely wealthy individuals to contribute a majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes. “Wealthy Indians are being generous, but I think not generous enough,” Nilekani said, adding that she hopes they give away more and faster.

One of Nilekani’s biggest philanthropic priorities is improving the quality of urban governance, especially in her home city of Bengaluru. “We saw tremendous flooding in East Bangalore this year and you saw all the memes going around the world of these rich homes inundated,” with feet of standing water, remarked Nilekani. “I think there is a growing recognition that you can’t have a very thin slice of high-quality private infrastructure on a mass public infrastructure that is broken… the elite can no longer secede from participating in solution-ing for the larger public.”

In the book, Nilekani opens up about the challenge of carving out her own identity, given the immense public attention her husband often receives. After stepping back from Infosys, Nandan Nilekani served as head of the Unique Identification Authority of India, the Union government agency that oversees the Aadhaar project. Referring to her husband, Nilekani noted that he has gone on record that he has learned from his wife “how to always keep the human dimension of things at the very centre of the work to remind ourselves why we are doing what we are doing”.

Rohini Nilekani is Changing Philanthropy

Of India’s many prominent business couples, few can match the Nilekanis in their uniqueness. Nandan Nilekani is now a business legend, for his role in building Infosys (with N R Narayana Murthy and his co-founders) and for rescuing it a few years ago when he came back to set the company right. But unlike most well-known business people, he has found success in many other fields. I doubt if anyone else could have rolled out Aadhaar as quickly and as successfully as he did. He remains one of India’s leading public intellectuals and is every government’s go-to guy for technological solutions.

Perhaps because he has so many other achievements, Mr Nilekani’s philanthropy goes largely unnoticed. Nearly two decades ago when he was already a multi-millionaire, I asked him why he kept giving so much of his money away. His answer has stayed with me.

He had made so much money, he said, not because he was necessarily better than everybody else. He happened to be in the right sector at the right time. It was the conditions that prevailed in India and in Indian society at that time, he explained, that had benefited him. So, he had a duty to try to improve things for society as a whole so that (a) more people had opportunities and (b) India became a better place.

His was not an unusual view, he continued. In the US, for instance, many of the families that made vast fortunes in the early part of the 20th century (the Rockefellers, the Fords, the Mellons) had felt an obligation to put something back into society. Bill Gates was trying to do the same thing.

In a country like India, where there was so much inequality, everyone who made money, he believed, had a moral obligation to give some of it away.

Many of Nandan’s views were influenced by his wife Rohini, a former journalist (disclosure: We were colleagues in many news organisations in the last century!) who discovered that she too was now a multi-millionaire. When Infosys was starting out, the founders were desperately short of funds. So Rohini put every penny she had saved into the company. It was not a lot of money but such was the success of Infosys that her stake is now worth hundreds of crores.

When Nandan was still running Infosys, Rohini began a series of philanthropic initiatives and today she is one of the country’s leading philanthropists. Indian businesspeople can be generous: The Tatas have done more for India than any other business family. But all too often, many businessmen confuse philanthropy with charity.

They give some of their money away at least partly because they feel they ought to thank God for their good fortune. In few Western countries will you find very many churches that are paid for by wealthy industrialists. In India, on the other hand, nearly every business family has built temples or spent money financing religious pursuits.

While Rohini Nilekani has written and spoke about her attitude to philanthropy, it has been hard, till now, to find her views encapsulated in a single volume. With the publication of Samaaj, Sarkaar, Bazaar that gap has now been filled. The book is a collection of essays, articles and speeches and its contents offer a fascinating glimpse into the worldview that motivates her (and presumably, Nandan’s) philanthropy.

Rohini was born into a middle-class Maharashtrian family, which valued education over money. Her grandfather was a Gandhian and the family followed his lead in regarding wealth as not being a huge achievement. That may explain why, even when the millions came rolling in after the success of Infosys, her concern was less with enjoying the money than with seeing how she could use it to help society.

To give away that kind of money, you must have an overarching vision. Her book sets out the broad contours of that vision. Her favourite expression is Samaaj, Sarkaar, Bazaar (“I am certainly not claiming to have invented the phrase”, she writes, “but I am perhaps guilty of overusing it!”) and it captures what is central to her philosophy.

She thinks that samaaj or society is the foundational sector and everything flows from the strength of that samaaj. By itself, this is not an unusual view; it is, in fact, the basis of what we call civil society organisations. But, Rohini argues, no society can succeed unless there is a balance between the three sectors. Unlike many activists in civil society organisations, she does not view the market as the enemy or treat capitalism as the source of all evil. She accepts that technology and business can create wealth and can make things better for society. And she suggests that civil society organisations that always see their roles in opposition to the state may be making a mistake. Very little can happen in India in the long term without the involvement of the government. (Not the prime minister or the chief minister but governments at the village and local level.)

The problem with maintaining the balance is that the market can lead to exploitation and inequality. The government can turn to tyranny. The role of samaaj, therefore, is to keep a check on both, the excesses of business and the incipient despotism of the state.

It is a much wider view of philanthropy than endowing hospitals and building temples (though these have their place too). She suggests that Indian philanthropists must work to strengthen society so that the market and the government (which don’t need philanthropy) work in the interests of the citizens. She writes: “It is an especially opportune time for business and civil society to act more creatively from their own, unrecognised common ground….We can together ensure that this country’s solemn promise to itself — to secure liberty and justice, social, economic and political — for all its citizens will be met, and met in abundance.”

As a mission statement, this is bold in its scope but Rohini’s activities over 30 years of philanthropy have shown us that it can be done . As she says, “Indian philanthropy does not take enough risks. However, it cannot achieve its potential without risk-taking… It is time to look at our society as a whole and for the philanthropic sector to step up and to get into more important areas such as access to justice.”

Will that happen? The Nilekanis have taken risks. I am not sure how many others will. But as Rohini quotes Swami Vivekananda as saying “take risks in your life. If you win, you can lead. If you lose, you can guide.”

It’s a useful maxim for all philanthropists and business people to live by.

Plotting Impact Beyond Simple Metrics

By Natasha Joshi | For NGOs, impact comes in different forms and to track the cycles of social change work, we must think across the tangibility and the speed of emergence of change.

Figures walking in front of an arrow pointing upward

A few months back, we received an internal letter from the founder of an NGO, reflecting on the relationship between funders and founders in the development sector. An anecdote about impact leaped out, in which the community was asked what had changed as a result of the organization’s intervention. The founder had expected the community to talk about the NGO’s flagship program—targeted at improving livelihoods and income—but in village after village, the community partners explained that, “The fear has gone. We are no longer afraid.”

How does one measure fear or its absence? How does one measure something priceless?

The story provoked us to consider what assumptions might be constraining how we think about impact. Compared with domains like manufacturing, in which the relationship between inputs and outputs is relatively direct and causal, ascertaining the impact of social programs is tricky (which makes it all the more important to learn from our partners). After all, societal problems exist within systems, which are not static but inherently reflexive: The very act of intervention changes the system, which, in turn, requires interventions to change. However, development sector measurement and evaluation approaches often don’t reflect this reality: Most often evaluations are sequenced to come in at the end of a program, as opposed to evolving with the program. Implementation to evaluation is usually a straight line, while social change work goes in cycles. And evaluations typically focus on metrics without fully appreciating the second or third order effects a change in those metrics might have on adjacent variables.

This is why traditional evaluation (in which expert judges determine the value of an intervention) is giving way—as Emily Gates described at a recent webinar hosted by CECAN—to a new thinking, in which the evaluator is a co-learner who is developing value. As Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies (RNP) has gotten more interested in trying to best understand and articulate the impact (and learning) of all our grants, we started asking our partners to share how they see the impact of their work. How did they think a philanthropy should judge its own performance?

Our partners work in many different fields—climate action, biodiversity and conservation, gender, civic engagement, justice, media, and youth engagement among others—and across rural, urban, and tribal geographies, with annual operating budgets ranging from $50,000 to $10-15 million and with teams both lean and large. By taking feedback—via an online survey—from this broad range of organizations, we tried to get a comprehensive sense of what the sector as a whole thinks and needs.

When we started to analyze the impact data that around 80 organizations shared with us, we realized that in reporting results as “impact,” our partners were making a variety of unstated assumptions, as well as treating certain other things as axiomatic. To make sense of it all, we took a step back and broke down what lay underneath. After first reading and discussing all the feedback that came in—and writing a reflection note to get our own thoughts and reactions down—we worked to categorize our grantee processes, outputs, and outcomes by Engagement, Collaborations, Concrete Actions, and Policy Change, after which two broad axes began to emerge, as the framework below plots:

Impact is a spectrum: Along the Y-axis, efforts that result in clear policy change are considered tangible outcomes, while the ecosystem collaborations an NGO would forge—in order to get to the policy change—are taken to be intangible. By the same token, the X-axis plots the results reported by NGOs across a continuum of fast and slow emerging, from quick wins to, well, slower wins. Countable actions like vaccinations or children enrolled would be plotted under concrete actions, whereas any progress made towards shifting policies or increasing the network of actors that care about the NGO’s cause come under results that are slowly emerging.

What became clear from sorting through the data was that most organizations (if not all) operate in all four quadrants at once, and there is no hierarchy of actions or results. Concrete results are no less important or “strategic” than policy pushes: “Countable” results add tangible value to individuals who are being supported on the ground. Field actions also birth insight and innovation that eventually makes it to policy. In the same way, while engagement—under which we have results like “number of report downloads,” “number of website/video views,” and “frequency with which a network convenes”—can feel ephemeral, consistent engagement is a desirable fast emerging pre-requisite for longer-term deeper collaboration (which is plotted under slow emerging).

For example, one of our partners in the justice space undertakes concrete actions, providing free legal aid to children in conflict with the law. However, they also collaborate with network organizations that interface with children around other issues; they drive engagement around their work through a series of online and offline outreach events and collaterals (and by engaging volunteers); and, finally, owing to the trust, relationships, and insights built in the field, they are in a position to advocate for reforms to the Juvenile Justice Act (reforms that stand to impact many thousands of children).

Given the two axes exist as continuums, and an organization’s work slides up and down and side to side along these axes, it is centrally important to look at how metrics and indicators speak to one another across the breadth of the organization’s work, instead of focusing on a single isolated metric.

Defining Distinct Forms of Impact

  1. Concrete Actions: Most nonprofits have a “community” they work with, such that activities done for/with the community can be captured as metrics of progress and impact. However, NGOs often feel the pressure to scale their work—either geographically or tactically (through partnerships or policy change)—out of a desire to see systemic change rather than “unit level” change. Many leaders, therefore, find it difficult to strike the balance between being strategic (through fundraising, building the organization, pushing partnerships, and driving advocacy), and connection to the original cause that brought them into the sector in the first place. Concrete actions are important because working alongside the community and its people is rewarding in a relational way that cannot be substituted. Tangible unit-level actions have, and will always be, central to social work because that is where the joy and conscience of this work lies.
  2. Engagement: Partners typically report engagement metrics as a sign of progress, assuming that increasing interest, awareness, and engagement bodes well for the mission. Be it website analytics, report downloads, likes/hits on digital content, increase in the size of a network, increase in the frequency of interactions between members of a network, and other similar indicators, most organizations see engagement with the larger ecosystem (or with the general public) as desirable. However, depending on the organization’s goals, lesser (but repeat) engagement can be preferable than lots of one-time use/engagement (or vice versa!). In the for-profit universe, payment is a good proxy for demand or a person’s interest in a product or idea. But in the nonprofit world, where products/services are not measured in terms of payment, should stakeholder buy-in be instead measured in terms of how much time, effort, or social capital stakeholders expend?
  3. Collaborations: Partnerships emerged as the hardest impact metric to define. Organizations reported collaborations and partnerships as positive results, but they frequently defined collaboration very differently. For some it was numeric—more members in a network, more participants on a platform, more collaborators, or the launching of more collectives—while others talked about convergence of efforts by different organizations towards the same goal. When it came to asking why partnerships and collaboration are necessary, the thing we heard the most was that the scale of the problem was too large to be taken on by any one organization. Collaborations bring diverse approaches into the mix, building a critical mass, or collective action. But while this rationale is often taken as an axiom—even while recognizing the difficulty of collectives truly collaborating—networks often end up competing, and partnerships can remain superficial and capricious (versus congruent and stable).
  4. Policy Change: Some nonprofits focus a lot more on policy change, a hard-won, but highly valued result. Understandably, policy change affects millions of people and opens up the space for social sector organizations to support the implementation of the new policy, making it a favored goal. At the same time, many organizations see themselves as allies and partners to other anchor organizations, who are taking on policy change. Nevertheless, the relationship between field implementation and policy and advocacy can be tightly linked, and organizational focus can shift between one or the other (or include both). Philanthropies too locate themselves in different ways when it comes to influencing policy. Analysis of our own partner data showed us that we tend to favor supporting organizations that aspire to or are playing the role of systems convenors.

How Might a Philanthropy Gauge Its Own Impact?

Across 80 organizations, certain points came up again and again, and as we sought to reimagine what makes for impactful action, we developed four broad ways forward that linked different forms of impact, which we mapped to the original impact quadrant.

  • Enable CSOs to sustain and grow through multi-year grants: most social sector organizations seemed to suggest that the health of civil society organizations is something philanthropies have a responsibility to foster and build. In action, this could take the form of giving more core, multi-year grants, bringing more donors into a thematic area, funding more diverse and grassroots organizations and leaders. These actions are quantifiable, moreover, and can be engineered relatively quickly.
  • Convene gatherings to build sense-making at the level of the field: Our partners shared that philanthropic organizations have a vantage that allows them to see intersections between portfolios and domains, and that can help engender thematic or geographic coherence when it comes to tackling systemic problems. Coming together drives engagement with the partner ecosystem as well as between partners, which over time can result in more collaboration and convergence. We plotted this as a fast-emerging, intangible indicator for ourselves.
  • Evaluations for learning: Formal “evaluations for learning” which results in richer perspectives and shared understandings was seen as the longer arc of a philanthropies’ work. Through evaluations for learning, partners, funders, and evaluators stand to see the system as a whole and more clearly. The value of being able to see the system together is hard to quantify (intangible) and also takes time (slow emerging) but is worth investing time and effort in.
  • Drive richer conversations on impact: The difficulty of sussing out the impact of programs has been written and talked about in many forums. In particular, the (negative) role of donor organizations in pushing a highly metric-focused approach has caused consternation among many NGOs, especially when one metric is valued more than another. As Mona Mourshed puts it, “nonprofits too often receive (well-intended) guidance from stakeholders like funders and board members to disproportionately zero in on a single goal: serving the maximum number of beneficiaries.” Given the power dynamics in play, our partners highlighted that RNP and other philanthropies could explore ways in which the discourse on impact could be enriched and expanded, thereby informing the future philanthropy better. This will undoubtedly be a collective journey (slow emerging).

As we search for better ways of measuring progress, Fields of View—a Bangalore-based organization that makes systems thinking actionable through tools—shows what this can look like by distinguishing between “events” and “processes.” Events are similar to what we termed “concrete actions”: x children enrolled, y acres replanted, z ration kits distributed, and so on. Monitoring and evaluation has matured to the extent that it captures these indicators well. But it fails to account for the processes that bring people into these problems in the first place; if one can see the system better, so as to intervene at the level of process, we stand to change the trajectories of people and problems currently stuck in a loop.

By deploying a systems-conscious, multi-method approach when it comes to capturing and interpreting field dynamics, we stand to increase the resolution of the picture that emerges. This is not to say that doing it is simple, of course. Running evaluations for learning is indeed time-consuming and requires engagement and co-creation. But with emergent technologies, we can start to open up new ways of sensing. Having better sensing tools for impact also allows funders to fund more as this approach reveals many more spaces that require support and funding. Fields of View put it well: “[As] most donors would say, thirty years later we don’t want to be funding the same thing.”

The young, optimistic and idealistic will shape India at 100

It is 75 years since we raised our own flag in our own country, reclaiming it for ever more. What a time for celebration. Here we are, a young democracy, alive with the throbbing hopes of a young population, seeking to fulfil the promise of the Constitution that we gave ourselves in the new India.

As we celebrate the past, we also look ahead. What can we do, as a nation, as a saamaj, as citizens, to bring peace and prosperity to all those who live on this beloved soil? Not just people of one religion, or some castes, or some geographies, but all our people. After all, even if our public posturing may sometimes diverge, our interests are indisputably shared.

So what must we do? That is the question that should be in all our minds on August 15 as we unfurl the flag in every home and every heart.

I will share what makes me personally optimistic. Despite global shocks, the fundamentals of our economy seem to be sound. The race to abundance may be ours to lose. India has laid out the world’s most advanced and innovative open digital public infrastructure. I truly believe this is the foundation for economic democracy in this country. We can now go full-speed ahead in this digital age to allow more access, and more participation in a re-imagined economy that hopes to be more innovative and much greener. Big business seems to have bet big on this path. Now small businesses need policy backing and capital to build the vision from bottom up to put India on a more sustainable path.

Meanwhile, there seems to be a cultural resurgence that has pulled millions of people out of lethargy into a visible pride and celebration of India’s 5,000-year-old civilisation, its rich and diverse rituals and traditions, its public artefacts, and its mythology. India is asserting its soft power at home and in the world. From Kashmir to Kerala and from Rajasthan to Manipur, communities are building on their traditions to innovate for a modern economy. At 75 years, India seems confident and poised for leadership in the world.

But we shouldn’t take our successes for granted, because the same things that make India strong could also make it weak.

If we falter in democratising economic opportunity, if we succumb to a regime of crony capitalism, then we will stifle innovation, and have even more concentrated wealth in the hands of an unaccountable elite. It is essential that saamaj, sarkaar and bazaar work together to expand livelihood opportunities and dignity across the length and breadth of the country, not just in a few pockets. If we can reduce the trust deficit, and distribute the ability of each sector to do what it does best, such inter-sector collaboration can do wonders.

We all experienced the recent example of the collective power of cooperation during the Covid-19 pandemic. Across the globe, and certainly so in India, ordinary people, civil society institutions, private philanthropy, the state, and markets came together in record time to push back against the virus. For all the dark days of death and desperation, it was truly an important two years in human history. We have learnt so many lessons that when the next crisis comes around, we might be better prepared to cooperate more quickly and effectively.

There are other headwinds to face. The same cultural resurgence we celebrate can lead to jingoism, or it can leave some communities and geographies feeling excluded or uneasy. Social media, with its ability to trivialise, heighten the emotional response, and sustain mutual animosities, makes it harder to build bridges of trust.

It will take some time for social conventions around these interactions to settle into a better normal. But I truly believe we are getting past the sell-by date for public acrimony. People are fed up with the binaries. They want to go back to the rich hues in between the blacks and the whites that this country has lived in for millennia. And hopefully, it is the young people of this nation, who are naturally idealistic and freedom-loving, who will shape the society of their dreams.

I often catch up with youth leaders around the country, and any anxiety I may feel about the future simply vanishes. They bring much energy, passion, diversity, and creativity into the work they do, whether it is for better access to justice, more environmental sustainability or for the rights and dignity of the most vulnerable of communities. Born as digital natives, they are also unleashing the power of technology for social good. Slowly but surely, many are building solid processes for youth to become more active as concerned citizens. In a country that will still be young on its 100th Independence Day, this active citizenship is heartening news for our democracy.

If we can unite in our incredible diversity, nothing can stop this country from blazing ahead. Building on our heritage, we can pioneer a path for the world to follow, whether it comes to co-existing with nature, innovating inclusive markets or scaling up service delivery. But we cannot take such a future for granted. Every citizen will have to work for it, there are no bystanders of good fortune. Everyone will need to internalise that our fates are entwined. The elite, especially, cannot afford to secede anymore. No one is safe until everyone is safe, whether it comes to climate change, pandemics or breathable air. So all of samaaj will have to actively pitch in to make sure bazaar and sarkar play their role in making the world’s largest democracy also the most peaceful and prosperous for all its citizens. We are so lucky that our founders created this magnificent, humanitarian ideal for us to follow. It is up to us, the diverse, vibrant samaaj of India, to realise this country’s tryst with destiny. Hopefully, we can then look back at August 15, 2022, as our Navaratna Jubilee.

एक नए सत्याग्रह की जरूरत है आज देश को

मेरे दादा जी सदाशिव लक्ष्मण राव सोमन, जिन्हें हम सब बाबासाहेब के नाम से जानते हैं, का 1946 में देहांत हो गया, भारत के स्वतंत्रता दिवस से कुछ ही माह पहले। उन्होंने देश को स्वराज्य दिलाने का सपना साकार करने के लिए दशकों संघर्ष किया। वह 1917 में उन स्वयंसेवकों के उस पहले बैच में शामिल थे जो महात्मा गांधी के आह्वान पर चंपारण आंदोलन में उतरे थे। उन्होंने भितिहरवा में पहला आश्रम बनाने में सहायता की। वहां कई माह रहकर उन्होंने स्कूल व शौचालय बनवाए। साथ ही गांधी जी और कस्तूरबा के सत्याग्रह में शामिल हुए। बाबासाहेब किसी भी तरह के भेदभाव के विरोधी थे। वे स्वयं से पहले सेवा को महत्त्व देते थे और वकालत के अपने कॅरियर का सदुपयोग उन्होंने विवादों का निपटारा करने के लिए किया न कि उन्हें बढ़ाने के लिए। चूंकि हम आजादी के 75 वर्षों का जश्न मना रहे हैं, इसलिए यह उचित समय है कि हम बाबासाहेब जैसे लाखों लोगों के जुनून, प्रतिबद्धता और बलिदानों को नमन करें। मैं कई बार सोचती हूं कि आज के भारत के बारे में बाबासाहेब क्या सोचते? क्या यह उनके सपनों का भारत है? विनोदी स्वभाव वाले बाबासाहेब उदारमना थे और वह यह देखकर खुश ही होते कि भारत की युवा पीढ़ी किस प्रकार रचनात्मक तरीकों से स्वयं को अभिव्यक्त कर रही है। कौन जाने, वह सोशल मीडिया पर भागीदारी कर अच्छी व शालीन बातों को प्रोत्साहित करते! वह निश्चित तौर पर इस बात पर गर्व करते कि भारत से गरीबी दूर हो रही है। जो गरीबी उन्होंने देखी, वह करीब-करीब अतीत की बात हो चली है और अब भी बहुत से लोगों को मदद की जरूरत है, राष्ट्र अंतिम पंक्ति के नागरिकों पर भी ध्यान दे रहा है, जैसा गांधी जी ने सिखाया था। मेरा मानना है वह भारत की सुदृढ़ सिविल सोसायटी पर भी गर्व करते जो जरूरतमन्दों तक पहुंच रही है और सरकार व बाजार दोनों को आईना दिखा रही है, जैसा कि वह अपने समय में करते थे। बाबासाहेब यह देख कर प्रसन्न होते की हम औपनिवेशिक छाया से निकल कर कितनी दूर चले आए हैं। वह भारत के अत्याधुनिक डिजिटल इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर के आविष्कार की सराहना करते। वह इस बात को समझते कि इससे नए भारत के आर्थिक लोकतंत्र की नींव तैयार होगी। अगर उन्हें थोड़ा सा भी लगता कि ये सांस्कृतिक पुनरुत्थान एकतरफा है और बहुसंख्यक समुदाय विभिन्न पंथ, संस्कृति के वर्गों को साथ लेकर चलने की नैतिक जिम्मेदारी नहीं निभा रहा है तो वह इसके लिए आवाज उठाते। संभवत: अगर हम सब अगस्त 2022 में देश के लिए अपने पूर्वजों के सपनों को फिर से याद करें, हम स्वयं आने वाली पीढ़ियों के लिए बेहतर पूर्वज बन सकेंगे, जो उनके भविष्य के लिए आशाओं के द्वार खोलेगा। क्या हम ऐसे भविष्य की कल्पना कर सकते हैं, जहां हमारे बच्चे व पोते-पोतियां व अन्य सभी इस धरती पर मानवीय क्षमता के उच्चतम स्तर की उपलब्धियां हासिल कर सकें। क्या यह हमारा नया सत्याग्रह बन सकता है? ऐसा भविष्य मिलना आसान नहीं है, हर नागरिक को इसके लिए काम करना होगा। अगर आज बाबासाहेब होते तो वह इस कल्पना को यथार्थ में बदलने का निरंतर प्रयास करते। हम सबको भी यही करना चाहिए। जय हिंद!

Indian philanthropists need to become bolder, lead with trust, look for new areas to fund: Rohini Nilekani

Winner of FILA 2022 Grassroots Philanthropist, Nilekani props up causes that others may find risky, and steers her philanthropy by having an ear to the ground, operating from a place of trust, and being liberal with her time for the causes and people she supports

By Divya J Shekhar, Forbes India Staff

It was less about the money and more about the intent.

Kuldeep Dantewadia has a clear memory of that meeting with a philanthropic donor in the latter half of 2019, which was scheduled for 45 minutes, but lasted over 1.5 hours. Dantewadia, the co-founder of Bengaluru-based non-profit Reap Benefit, was building a community of citizens to solve problems in their local wards and neighbourhoods.

The donor asked him questions about his non-profit model, not from a place of criticality, but curiosity. She wanted to know how Dantewadia planned to translate individual actions to collective problem-solving in order to bring about larger societal change. She was curious about how women were solving local issues vis-a-vis men, and whether Dantewadia’s team encouraged diversity, not just in terms of gender, but by being inclusive of people of different languages, regions and socioeconomic strata. “She made me think deeper about my own work,” Dantewadia recollects.

What he felt more heartened by, however, was that when he was leaving, the donor inquired about his mental health, something nobody had done before. “She said, ‘You look tired, are you sleeping well? Do you take breaks?’ It was refreshing to see somebody ask me that,” he says. “I came out of that meeting energised.”
Soon, Dantewadia received a grant of ₹5 crore over three years, and his association with the donor continues to date. Reap Benefit, he says, has today built a community of over 50,000 people [who he calls ‘Solve Ninjas’], who have taken over 94,000 civic actions, started 3,143 campaigns, and built 552 civic innovations to address local civic issues across the country. This involves mapping water-logging during floods, providing urgent Covid relief to over 1.6 million people, executing campaigns to improve sanitation in government schools, and collaborating with government officials in budgeting for and solving municipal issues.

“We are now able to establish the connection between the work done by individual citizens and the systemic impact it creates,” Dantewadia says. The donor’s accessibility and support over the years, he says, helped him build a more resilient organisation. “That is important in philanthropy, because otherwise, philanthropists come with a worldview and push people on the ground to subscribe to that worldview. Here, it was almost like she was subscribing to our worldview and helping us have more confidence in that.”

Rohini Nilekani invests in people, not projects. Perhaps that is her biggest strength. Or perhaps it is the fact that while currently supporting close to 80 civil society organisations—in sectors as diverse as access to justice, climate change, gender equity, independent media, governance and animal welfare—she is keen to learn from each one of them.

In 2020-21, she donated about ₹70 crore in her personal capacity, up from ₹58-odd crore the previous year, as per data on the Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies website. The Edelgive-Hurun India Philanthropy List 2021 calls her “India’s most generous woman”, also noting that in 2017, she and husband Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of IT services major Infosys, signed the Giving Pledge, committing to donate half their wealth toward philanthropy.

Nilekani says while Nandan and she together work at the societal level by investing in intellectual infrastructure and institution-building, her philanthropy at the grassroots involves supporting people trying to solve problems in their own contexts. In 2022, this will involve opening up to new areas like mental health and solid waste management, which require “pan-India deep work”, she says.

Understated profile, oversized impact

Nilekani, 62, believes she just got lucky coming into wealth. An investment of ₹10,000 of her money [partly from her savings and partly given to her by her parents] in Infosys when it was set up in 1981 resulted in her becoming wealthy alongside Nandan, as well as independently of him. Her investments have been separate from those of her husband’s, and therefore, it is her personal wealth that she gives away. In 2005, when Infosys issued American Depository Receipts, Nilekani got ₹100 crore, and decided to create a corpus with the entire amount—along with another ₹50 crore later—for Arghyam, a non-profit she co-founded, to work on sustainable water and sanitation solutions.

She also co-founded Pratham Books to democratise reading for children and served as founder-chairperson between 2004 and 2014. Along with Nandan and Shankar Maruwada, in 2015 she set up the EkStep Foundation, which uses technology to help vulnerable children access education and learning opportunities. She was just experimenting and working on her own in the early days, Nilekani says, before building institutions, deciding to get more strategic and setting up teams. “This way I could focus on strategy and direction, instead of day-to-day management.”

Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies (RNP), at present, is a three-person team that is expanding. “That is small for a philanthropy, but the only reason it works is because of the value system, which Rohini not just preaches, but also practises,” says Gautan John, director of strategy at RNP. Allocation of money is the easy part, he says, but the process of building a portfolio with their early-stage funding to individuals and institutions is where the effort lies.

Nilekani and the team spend a lot of time getting to know individuals, their teams and their approach in order to assess if they are able to think about a problem, and its underlying reasons, holistically. Rohini loves to travel and meet people, John says. “And when she is on the field, what she is doing is listening very deeply.” This helps her garner visceral insights about the work that is necessary, and what is absent. Then the team builds a portfolio around it. In each portfolio, RNP has a clutch of people and initiatives that work on the same problem, but have slightly different approaches.

Current and past grantees under Accountability and Transparency, for instance, include Civis, a non-profit platform that facilitates dialogue between the government and citizens on draft laws and policies before they are passed. There is Haiyaa that runs grassroots campaigns to strengthen democracy, governance and human rights, and PRS Legislative Research, an independent research institute. John explains that RNP supports grantees with capacity building, makes connections for them and exposes them to new ideas and thinking. “This way, the portfolio becomes a powerful way to build scale,” he says.

Nilekani has the ability to take risks, and back unconventional causes when many would rather be in their comfort zones. “Indian philanthropists need to become bolder, lead with trust, and look for new areas to fund,” she says. “There are a thousand things that need philanthropic capital to come into.”

Take, for instance, her support over the years to independent media outlets like Vaaka Podcasts, Khabar Lahariya, the Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation, India Development Review and Oorvani Foundation. The business model of media in India is a “little broken”, Nilekani says, and therefore such efforts deserve philanthropic support. Another example is the Access to Justice portfolio, which supports organisations working on a range of approaches to make the legal system fair, equitable and accessible.

“Law is still not treated as other sectors like health care, education or finance where innovation and entrepreneurship have a greater place,” says Sachin Malhan, co-founder of Agami, a non-profit that works to make law and justice more accessible through initiatives for online dispute resolution, digital courts, creating open legal datasets, and bringing together young change-makers for justice. He has received a grant of around ₹8 crore from Nilekani. “Rohini doesn’t come from any fixed script. She does not have some kind of long history of funding only one kind of cause. She funds a diverse spectrum so she knows there are very different ways of getting things done,” Malhan says.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment (FCRA) Bill, 2020, tightened the noose around civil society organisations, with provisions that prohibit ‘re-granting’ or the transfer of foreign funds from one organisation to another, and reduce the cap on FCRA funds for administrative purposes to 20 percent [from 50 percent earlier], among other changes. “I feel really sad, because you should not cap administrative costs. Can a company run without all its departments? Of course not. Nor can NGOs,” says Nilekani. “So we need to have much more flexibility and freedom on whether an organisaton spends 15 percent on its overheads or 30 percent, depending on the work done.”
Nilekani says there needs to be more dialogue between government and civil society to reduce prevalent mistrust. “Civil society and the state are in tension everywhere, but it should be a creative tension. It cannot be a climate of fear or so much distrust. We have some fairly draconian laws on our books and you are seeing how they are being used,” she says. After all, Nilekani adds, everyone is working toward the same goal of a better society, albeit walking on different pathways. “That doesn’t mean we can disrespect the other person’s pathway.” And that is the reason she dedicates a lot of effort and money to build capacity to scale, and develop leadership in organisations.

It is Nilekani’s funding toward building capacity that has been the driving force of the India Climate Collaborative (ICC), says acting CEO Shloka Nath. “The crux of the support is that it has been flexible institutional funding that many domestic philanthropists are hesitant to give. They prefer to fund clearly defined programmes that can be tangibly understood, which is why Rohini’s support has been critical, especially given the limits of foreign funding in India.”

Nilekani is also one of the founding members of the ICC, which works to build the capacity of both domestic donors and foundations to support climate action in India, and support efforts to plug gaps in the ecosystem. As per their 2021 annual report, the non-profit has mobilised ₹45 crore since its launch in 2020. “The RNP team has really challenged us—Rohini specifically—to grow, explore and question, while still assuring us of their support,” says Nath. “We found her and her team to be very vibrant, very curious. They really look to learn from their grantees and share their learning with us as well.”

John agrees that Rohini bypasses the power balance between donor and grantees, and insists on learning from the organisations RNP collaborates with. “She says the act of giving should not just change the recipient, but the giver as well.”

One of the things she has also done over the years is to get a lot more Indians interested in philanthropy. “It is important to pick up the phone and get someone excited about what you are doing,” Nilekani says. She believes the indiscriminate accumulation of wealth makes no sense in a society as iniquitous as ours, and that the wealthy owe it to society to be transparent about what they are doing with their wealth.

Social problems do not just go away, Nilekani says, and so there is no end point to philanthropy. “Which is why some people find philanthropy so frustrating, right? That you do so much and still nothing is happening. Yes, it can be frustrating, but it is also a very stimulating and humbling journey.”

The Virus has Reinvented Philanthropy in India

The recent announcement of Susmita and Subroto Bagchi, together with Radha and N.S. Parthasarathy, donating ₹425 crore to set up a postgraduate medical school, along with a multi-speciality 800-bed hospital, at Indian Institute of Science’s (IISC’s) Bengaluru campus is terrific news. Much like the vaccine, this singular shot in the arm for Indian philanthropy will dramatically increase the scale of healthcare, research and training in the country.
advertisement

Is this one act an indicator of things to come? The phenomenon of individual philanthropy in India is certainly not new, and many families have made their mark on society through decades of giving and institution building, especially in health care and education. This has been the staple of Indian philanthropy, and is expanding.

In April last year, the Bagchis had already committed ₹340 crore for a palliative care unit at a cancer hospital in Odisha, in partnership with Karunashraya, a Bengaluru-based hospice, and Shankara Cancer Foundation. Similarly, Ashok Soota had announced a donation of ₹200 crore to set up SKAN, a not-for-profit entity in the private sector exclusively for medical research, with partners such as St John’s, Centre for Brain Research in IISc, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)-Roorkee, and National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) in Bengaluru.

A few years before, Kris and Sudha Gopalakrishnan had announced their commitment of ₹225 crore to set up a Centre for Brain Research at IISc. It will focus on ageing and age-related disorders like Parkinson’s, dementia and Alzheimer’s.

An emerging trend

This sort of large, academic partnership-based institutional philanthropy is necessary, especially to fill certain critical gaps. And much of it, importantly, is from direct capital infusion, not from the interest on endowments.

But another exciting wave has been building over the past few years. A new circle of philanthropists with different approaches has been slowly forming outside of the usual donors and their continued giving. It includes the next generation of older philanthropists and also the newly wealthy. They are inherently more comfortable with technology, data, innovation, and risk. They will dare to be different.
advertisement

In 2021, Nithin and Nikhil Kamath, the young co-founders of Zerodha, committed $100 million over the next decade to fund climate entrepreneurs and to support grassroots individuals and organisations working on solutions for climate change via the newly formed Rainmatter Foundation. They have been moving quickly and smartly on this pledge.

In a welcome development, these givers are focussing on important areas that have been under-funded—from brain research, geriatric research and cancer to genomics, sports and climate change. It is a great irony that big philanthropy is made possible only by an economic system that has allowed the unprecedented accumulation of wealth in the hands of very few. Many new entrepreneurs have benefitted hugely from recent economic and technological advances. Luckily, some of them have realised both the urgency and the responsibility to give forward as quickly and effectively as possible. I believe we are witnessing an emerging trend that was too long in coming.

Another movement is around pledges and promises. Azim Premji, Kiran Mazumdar Shaw and Nandan and myself are the three India-based signatories to The Giving Pledge, founded by Warren Buffett, Melinda French Gates and Bill Gates. We are committed to giving away at least half of our wealth. Many other pledges have now been set up alongside. LivingMyPromise brings a similar opportunity to upper-middle-class Indians with a net worth of more than ₹10 million to promise to donate a minimum of 50% of their wealth to charitable causes of their choice. Amit and Archana Chandra, Fiona and Luis Miranda and Venkat Krishnan, the pioneer of retail giving in India, are among a community of 95 and growing that have signed this pledge.

The Founder’s Pledge is another innovation, signed by people such as Tushar Vashisht, founder of HealthifyMe, and Bhavesh Manglani, co-founder Delhivery. Inspired by the effective altruism movement, the Founder’s Pledge asks entrepreneurs to commit to donating a portion of their personal proceeds to charity whenever they sell their business and come into money. The Young India Philanthropic Pledge is built on a morally binding obligation for Indians below the age of 45, with a minimum net worth of ₹1,000 crore, to pledge 25% or more of their wealth publicly and make a minimum donation of ₹1 crore a year.

The two-year-long pandemic has really shaken the conscience of many and propelled them to act fast. The India Philanthropy Report 2021 says that contributions made by wealthy families in the social sector grew to ₹12,000 crore in the fiscal year 2020. It’s not just UHNI (ultra-high net worth individual) giving. A report released late last year by Charities Aid Foundation, a global non-profit, based on online surveys of 2,000 Indians across cities showed a significant revival of small giving, nothing that “… average amount of individual donations to philanthropy in India went up by 43% during the pandemic”. An example of this kind of philanthropy would be Give India’s Covid Response Fund, launched during the first wave, which quickly attracted over ₹220 crore and was rapidly disbursed to 250 NGOs, impacting more than 56 lakh people in more than 115 cities at a very critical juncture.

There seems to be a sudden uptake in the idea of collaboration too. While there are older collaboratives, such as Social Venture Partners, with about 200 members giving steady amounts to curated NGOS, there are newer versions popping up. One example is ACT Grants, a ₹100-crore relief fund set up in 2020 as an emergency response to the pandemic. It brought together, perhaps for the first time, venture capitalists like Prashanth Prakash, private equity investors and start-up executives to give both time and money to philanthropy. The first fund was successful enough to have spawned more ACT funds with pooled capital for emergent challenges such as education, climate and sustainability, and gender issues.

The GROW fund was recently launched to help 100 civil society organisations scale their operations, with a total budget of ₹100 crore. Anchored by Vidya Shah of Edelgive Foundation, it has been co-created by several foundations and philanthropists working together to support civil society.
advertisement

This collaborative philanthropy, anchored in the lessons of the pandemic and focused on flexible and quick funding, trust-based approaches, and innovation, may signal a reinvention of Indian philanthropy.

We must celebrate this new giving by new players. But can we do better? With so much wealth being created so rapidly among so few, the need is to respond at the scale of the problem, at the pace at which societal challenges are growing. This requires more generosity by more of the wealthy. It means more collaboration, and more strategic, systemic approaches to giving and institution building. But most of all, it needs societal thinking to design a philanthropic model that restores real agency to all those who sit at the vulnerable heart of social problems. That will be the driver of exponential change—change that generates ever better change.

Rohini Nilekani is the chairperson of Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies.

The great migration: A sky full of Amur falcons in Nagaland | HT

“They’ve changed their course, they’ve come closer,” I got an excited call, early in November. This year, the much-delayed, much-awaited migratory Amur falcons had split up into several groups. Some flew as usual to the far reaches of the Doyang valley and reservoir. But another flock chose to visit Hakhezhe village, not far from Nagaland’s main airport at Dimapur.

What a lucky break. For years, I had been planning the pilgrimage to witness the largest migration of winged raptors on the planet. In the past I had hesitated, daunted by the long, bumpy ride and trek to Pangti, the falcons’ favourite resting stop.

Every year, in late October, lakhs of these majestic little predators emerge from their breeding grounds in Siberia and Mongolia. Together, they soar on westerly winds to their hunting grounds in South Africa, crossing the Arabian Sea along with their prey, the pantala dragonflies, and making a fortnight’s fortuitous stopover in Nagaland.

Once I had confirmation that the falcons had landed propitiously close to somewhat navigable roads, I quickly banded together some friends and our guide, wildlife filmmaker Sandesh Kadur, whose crew had already done the recce. Just hours later, our ragtag team was hurtling from Dimapur to Hakhezhe, where a newly printed welcome banner proclaimed it the village of the Amur falcons.

Three minutes to go, promised our naturalist Sriharsha HK. And as we watched in disbelief, the first black dot in the sky showed up exactly at 4.15 pm, as he had predicted. I thought then of how no one fully understands the biological mechanisms that birds use to navigate; about the theories of vision-based magneto-reception. Then came a second falcon, and a tenth. Within minutes, the sky was darkened by hundreds of thousands of the Amur falcons, swooping down in ever-narrower circles, heading towards the row of teak trees in which they would soon roost. A faint chirping grew into a mellow symphony as the birds signalled to each other, perhaps to avoid mid-air collisions.

After the first overwhelmed oohs and aahs, we could only stand in meditative silence. Necks craning, we waited respectfully in the shade of trees so as not to disturb the birds, who, mercifully, seemed oblivious to us. Within an hour, it was over. The birds had settled precariously in the canopy, soon folding into the night.

In the morning, the pattern was repeated in reverse. We set off at 3 am to make our tryst with the waking falcons, as they snatched the rays of dawn in a dazzling display of golden acrobatics. Now we could train our binoculars better to distinguish the males from the more striated females, the collared juveniles from the parents. In widening, rising circles, they then took off for the day, heading towards the green hills on the horizon in search of food.

Goodbye, we said, our hands on our hearts. It was one of the most unforgettable of experiences. There were many people to thank for this opportunity, first and foremost being the local people. But also, conservationists like Bano Haralu, Rokohebi Kuotsu, Ramki Sreenivasan and Shashank Dalvi, among many others, who have worked for years with the local communities to weave one of the biggest success stories in India’s bird conservation history.

A decade ago, in keeping with long-standing hunting traditions, locals would trap these falcons for food, using large fishing nets strung across treetops. In a remarkably short time, they have begun to see these birds as honoured state guests. There is a hope that the rising opportunities from the growing ecotourism in the area will sustain the positive energy shown by the community to protect the falcons.

It is a fine lesson in the architecture of trade-offs that citizens will have to actively participate in designing, in order to conserve nature and wild beings, not least in order to save ourselves.

Much work still remains ahead. New communities must sign on to become stewards of this vulnerable migrant flock, as the birds shift their routes due to a degradation of their roosting habitats. An eco-tourism based on trusteeship, not extraction, will have to be nurtured. The government could finish tarring half-done roads so that the journey can itself feel like the destination for tourists and birders, across the lovely landscapes of north-east India.

More research is also needed to document the entire voyage of the amazing Amur falcons, across two hemispheres, over plains, mountains and seas. We don’t know since when the falcons have been visiting India, as there are no cultural artefacts and no words for these birds in local languages. Technology could help quantify just how many birds come here (our group estimated 800,000 to 1 million at Hakhezhe, though we have no way of verifying that number). Perhaps research could determine how many such odysseys the average Amur falcon makes in its lifetime (one tagged bird was observed making four trips of approximately 20,000 km each, from its birthplace to its wintering ground and back).

Most of all, many more people need to belong to this tale of mystery, of beauty, of resilience.

It is said that when we are curious, we learn, then we understand, we come to love, and we want to cherish. As I returned home, I felt renewed hope that it is this human journey that may yet turn the tide on climate despair.