What India Inc can learn from non-profits | Livemint

Rohini Nilekani, who has stepped down as Arghyam Foundation chairperson, talks about how corporates can make social accountability part of their mission

By Shalini Umachandran for Livemint 

There’s no secret, quick fix formula to changing habits. It takes years, even decades, to break out of established patterns of behaviour, but philanthropist Rohini Nilekani believes the pandemic has shown us that habits can change rapidly.

“In a year, people have adjusted to this thing,” she says, picking up a surgical mask and tugging at its ends. “Worldwide, hundreds of millions of people are always near a mask—whether wearing it, carrying it, or even wearing it on their chins—because we’ve understood the urgency of the covid situation,” she says. “It’s become a habit. This is something to think

At their core, most non-profits grapple with changing habits—getting people, organisations or governments to understand how certain actions or behaviours impact society or the earth, and working towards transformation. The challenge, most often, is to frame the problem or mission in ways that make people act. “This is a virus, but frankly, so many problems we face from climate change to inequity could be just as devastating. What we in the non-profit sector can learn is this: how do we tell stories and organise our work so that people feel that same compelling motivation to change as they did during the pandemic?” says Nilekani, who recently stepped down as chairperson of the non-profit Arghyam Foundation, which has focused on water and sanitation since 2005.

The power of good intent 

Nilekani, who has been involved in the non-profit sector since 1992, says she decided to hand over the reins after more than 15 years as she believes that just like a corporate, a non-profit also needs structured changes in leadership for true innovation to happen. “Otherwise, one tends to have a disproportionate impact on the organisation,” says Nilekani, both founder and funder of Arghyam.

The foundation runs on a personal endowment of about ₹156 crore from Nilekani, who’s married to Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani. In 2017, the couple, worth more than $2.8 billion, according to the Forbes Billionaires 2021 list, signed the Giving Pledge to contribute over half their wealth to philanthropic causes in their lifetime.

“Giving away that much money is not easy. You can’t just throw money at a problem. It needs some strategic thinking so that the mission will succeed, have impact,” says Nilekani, who turned 62 this year. “I want to give, well, in ways that move us towards a more socially and environmentally just society.”

While she hasn’t openly sought ideas from the corporate world, she realises that years of seeing corporates up close and meeting industry leaders has lent her philanthropy a more strategic tone. “Leadership changes so much in the corporate world, strengthening them. Ashok Soota (Happiest Minds founder) comes to mind not only because he is a philanthropist but also because he has constantly built new organisations. His is a positive continuing journey of learning and achievement.”

She adds that the non-profit sector can also learn financial accountability, being outcome oriented, and putting in place robust processes for HR from the corporate sector, though being too dependent on processes could slow down the work of some non-profits. “NGOs need to be structured for flexibility to respond quickly to social injustice, a natural disaster or even a pandemic,” she says.

And there are big lessons, too, that the corporate sector can draw from non-profits, with the most important being making social accountability part of their mission.

“The power of good intent is definitely something the corporate sector can learn. In most non-profits, the first passion and commitment is to fix something that is broken in society. They have to take a holistic look at the problem—ask is why this happening, how can we better people’s lives or agency. While the corporate sector tries to do that I wish they would have a more societally and environmentally inclusive vision so that there are fewer negative externalities for government or civil society to clean up.”

The idea of being a good corporate citizen has been gaining ground with ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) and CSR (corporate social responsibility) initiatives but Nilekani believes the desire to work towards a more fair and environmentally sustainable market system needs to run deeper in the corporate world. In other words, corporations’ profits could be underpinned by the idea of a larger good towards people and the planet. Such changes could take place within the organisation too—by following labour codes and environmental regulations, and ensuring that equity is built into the organisation’s DNA whether by reducing salary gaps or hierarchies.

“There is research now to prove that companies which put in the extra effort and resources to do this, to be socially responsible, are not faring badly in the stock market or in their balance sheets,” she says. “The corporate sector could do more to translate the power of intent, and that is definitely something they can learn from the non-profit world.”

The World This Week – Children’s Magazine

Rohini Nilekani is the Founder-Chairperson of Arghyam, a foundation she set up for sustainable water and sanitation, which funds initiatives all across India. From 2004 to 2014, she was Founder-Chairperson and chief funder of Pratham Books, a non-profit children’s publisher that reached millions of children during her tenure. She has written several books for young children, published by Pratham Books including the popular “Annual Haircut Day”. In 2017, she was inducted as Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. A member of the Advisory Board of the Well Being Project from 2019, Rohini Nilekani is a committed philanthropist. In 2017, she, together with her husband Nandan Nilekani, signed the Giving Pledge, which commits half their wealth to philanthropic causes.

Please describe your childhood and early years.

I was lucky to have a happy, carefree childhood in Mumbai, which was then called Bombay. We had lots of friends and cousins, we played outside a lot – cricket, lagori , badminton and many indoor games too, like carom and Mikado. I am the middle child, and I had fun fighting over small things with both my older and younger sisters. Maybe it helped to create the strong bond we all share now! Our parents were very encouraging with us girls and helped us to be well educated and independent. And by the way, we had no internet, no TV, no computers and no mobile phones. Yes, you can have fun without those too! All of you are experiencing the pandemic now, but when we were young there were two wars, the 1962 war with China and the 1971 war over Bangladesh. We too experienced difficulties then such as curfew, and having to stay without any lights at all, because there used to be air raids, and rationed food, including sugar, which was hard to get then. Now all of you have too much sugar, na? Many things change, but somethings always remain the same. Difficulties come and they go, and we all learn from them. Why do you give back to the society ? What do you feel when you give back to the society ? In my family, there has always been a tradition of giving forward to society, either in terms of time or talent or money. My grandfathers set an example in this regard. My maternal grandfather set up educational institutions. My paternal grandfather Babasaheb Soman joined Gandhiji’s call to help the people of Champaran way back in 1917. When family members are an example of good values of citizenship, it is easy for their children and grandchildren to follow. The same was true in my husband Nandan’s family. So we truly believe we are the trustees of the wealth that we have been fortunate to receive. We think so much wealth should not be accumulated in private hands. It must be used for the progress of society as a whole. We are not just doing our duty with our philanthropy, and hopefully impacting some people’s lives for the better, but we are also experiencing much joy in doing so, and intellectual stimulation too. Giving forward allows us to better connect with our country’s people and their situation.

How can children get involved?

I would say we have to first be very curious about the world around us. Observe everything that you can, with mindful eyes. You may discover a passion for something or the other. Then follow that passion – whether it is for science, or the environment or cooking or just about anything that is socially positive. Then work hard to follow that passion with commitment and courage, but without losing your curiosity. That will lead you to the answer of “What should I do next?” Like in all the books you read, where your favourite characters always find mysteries to solve, and problems to tackle, you too will find something where you can make a difference. And then, you stay connected to that problem until you , along with others can help make a change for the better. Even if is as simple a thing as planting trees, or growing a plant. Your action matters. So – Stay Curious. Stay Connected. Stay Committed.

How do you chose projects for your work?

I have some areas of my own curiosity, connectedness and commitment, such as access to justice, the environment, active citizenship and more. My team and I work with and fund committed people and institutions in those areas. I truly believe that we need to build an ethical society, or samaaj that can keep active in solving problems in its context and locality and beyond. A good society can also work to make sure that business organisations and government organisations act in the interest of the larger public.

Are academics important?

I think you all know the answer to that. Yes, academics are important, but not only to pass exams with flying colours. Doing as well as YOU can in your school and college will help you to improve your ‘learnability’ for your whole life. For all the new things you will have to learn as you grow up in this complex and fast changing world. So trying hard with your studies is a gift you will give to yourself. I know it can be so boring sometimes, especially now, with online classes. Shall I tell you a secret though? Allowing yourself to be bored without being too frustrated with boredom and without complaining too much about it, maybe the best thing you do for YOURSELF! Life can always be boring and if you can deal with that, you will be a winner! Remember this when you have to spend all those awful long hours studying for some test!

Should we have a hobby ? Are playing games online a hobby?

You have to do what you love doing; you have to enjoy playing, especially with others. We certainly loved our hobbies when we were young. I so loved reading! And I don’t know if this is a hobby or an assignment but I am so glad you have this children’s newspaper. I was a journalist too, and I hope some of you will become good investigative journalists in the future. But nowadays, many of you children have so much access to online games. A lot of research is now emerging that too much online time may not be the greatest for your physical and mental wellbeing. I think all of you should get together and decide how much you should do online and how much out in the real world. If we don’t stop to think about that, it may harm us. But if we ourselves decide to be mindful, it is the best solution. Sometimes it is hard to stop. I know! It happens to me too, when I am playing Scrabble or something online. Then my children scold me “Mama, you need to stop and pay attention to what we are saying!” “Oops, sorry, I say, and I shut down my computer.”

When will Sringeri Srinivas finally get a haircut?

Aah, now that is a very good question. I think it depends on when we feel that we have truly managed to make the Covid 19 virus harmless. Sringeri Srinivas is happy to see that many people are vaccinated, but he feels that we have to ALL practice being safe in public so that there are no more waves of infection. He is impatient to cut his hair, which was very itchy in the summer. No one wants to help him wash such long hair! Take care, be safe. This pandemic too shall pass! And you will be together. with your friends again. Treasure your friendships.

Thank you for inviting me for this interview.

Press Release: Arghyam Announces the Retirement of Rohini Nilekani as the Chairperson

Arghyam announces the retirement of Rohini Nilekani as the Chairperson; Sunita Nadhamuni is appointed as the new Chairperson 

Since its inception, Arghyam has operated via an endowment of Rs 150 CR provided by Ms Rohini Nilekani in her personal capacity. 

Bengaluru, June 28, 2021: Arghyam Foundation announced that Rohini Nilekani has decided to retire from the foundation on September 30, 2021, as Chairperson and Member of the Board. Sunita Nadhamuni, currently Member of the Board at Arghyam and Head of Digital LifeCare, Dell Giving and Social Innovation at Dell Technologies, has been appointed to the position, effective October 1, 2021. 

Rohini Nilekani has been the Founder – Chairperson of Argyham, a foundation she set up in 2001 as a vehicle for her personal philanthropy, and which, since 2005, has been working exclusively on water sector issues. 

Talking about her retirement, Rohini Nilekani said: “Every organization needs a churning of its leadership to stay energetic and to bring innovation and new wisdom to its work. I have immense gratitude to the Board, the team, and to every one of our partners in civil society and in the government, for all we have worked on together. I hope I will always remain a spokesperson for better equity and sustainability in water. I am also delighted that the Board has appointed Sunita Nadhamuni as the next Chairperson of Arghyam.” 

Sunita Nadhamuni has been associated with the Foundation over the years as a Trustee and was the first CEO of Arghyam in 2005. Sunita is a technology professional with a decade of IT experience in the Silicon Valley, followed by a decade as a social entrepreneur in the development sector in India. She is currently the Head of Digital LifeCare, a social impact initiative of Dell Technologies driving digital transformation of public health services. As partner to Government of India for the Ayushman Bharat NCD (Non-communicable Diseases) program, their technology platform has been deployed in 28 states with 100 million people enrolled across the country. 

Commenting on her appointment, Sunita said: “I am privileged and humbled to take on the role of Chairperson of Arghyam succeeding Rohini. Under Rohini’s committed and visionary leadership, Arghyam has built up a rich body of work in diverse communities across the country through a strong network of partners and Government. I thank her deeply for her trust in me and look forward to working with the Board, Mala and the team as Arghyam continues its mission of equity and sustainability of water for all. 

Talking about the transition, Mala Subramaniam, CEO of Arghyam Foundation said: “Rohini’s vision and passion for equity and justice in water has been embedded deeply and firmly in what we do as Arghyam. It has been a shining light guiding us for all these years and I have no doubt that it will continue to drive us into the future. I welcome Sunita and together, we look forward to building on this foundation to enable more people toward better water security in the country.”

Rohini Nilekani and Arun Kumar | Succeeding in Partnerships

This is an edited version of Rohini Nilekani’s conversation with Arun Kumar on Succeeding in Partnerships. The discussion highlights the importance of partnerships in addressing large and complex societal issues and the need for including partnerships in the organisation strategy.

Collaboration is an important topic in the social sector today. Collaboration as an idea should, in its essence, be an equal partnership of different players and actors. You cannot call it collaboration if there is one power center and everybody has to follow that power center. Collaboration is difficult in practice because it requires that all collaborators should have a common vision and mission, and learn to give up control. In collaboration, we need to see everyone as a leader or rather as players on the same team, rather than seeking leadership roles. Good collaboration is possible only if we let go of control and truly co-create a path together. There are many forms of collaboration, which can be light touch or very deep, but I believe that this is the era for us to learn how to collaborate better, both in the social sector and in the philanthropy sector, and between the two.

According to Arun Kumar, collaboration is about conceptualizing and visualizing the bigger picture that perhaps needs to be completed by a collective. One of the biggest challenges is to enable every participant to see that bigger picture and agree on its broad contours, which includes a commitment to a certain concept or ideology, which are called non-negotiables. Those who have the ability to think in abstracts and to conceptualize the big picture may not always be the most skilled in facilitation or negotiations to get the collective going. This often results in issues of attribution, clashes of egos, representation, and leadership. 

To be successful in your mission, a broad agreement is necessary. Kumar mentions the example of Child Rights and You (CRY) which headed an almost seven-year long campaign with a coalition of more than 200 organizations from all over India. Although there was no agreement on how to start a common school system or the medium of instruction, there was one common goal theme that everyone was committed to – that there should be free, compulsory universal education. Kumar also mentions the Right to Information and food security as other successful examples of collaborations.

Kumar speaks about his experience in 2020, where after the lockdown was announced in Mumbai, 14 organizations came together to collaborate and coordinate, to share information and find the cheapest mode of transportation, making sense of the procurement. They were organizations working in different geographies and on different issues, but there was an overriding need, and they came together beautifully. Another example shared was of Mission 24, an initiative by Apnalaya. It was aimed at improving entitlements in M-East Ward, which is right at the bottom of all 24 wards of Mumbai. With limited resources, it was difficult to keep people together on questions of advocacy, and to keep them committed for a long time. Advocacy and policy level change invariably knock at the door of ideologies, so it becomes that much more difficult to keep everybody together. However, if we are aiming for sustainable change and sustainable impact, there is no running away from collaboration.

But we also need to consider broader questions when it comes to collaboration. For example, Kumar asks whether we can view collaborations beyond the lens of a funding project, and view them as an investment in a longer term cause. What we can focus on is research, data, evidence, advocacy and policy change since these are areas where funding is scarce and collaboration difficult. This would mean looking beyond implementation and multiplying operations in the name of collaborations. 

Having set up and worked with many organizations like Akshara Foundation, Pratham Books, and my foundations, Arghyam and EkStep, I think philanthropists have understood the need to collaborate. More so among themselves so that we can fund areas broadly, which it is hard for individual philanthropists to continue to fund, till it reaches the impact that it needs to reach. 

There have been a few good examples of collaboration recently. The India Climate Collaborative has more than 20 donors and donor organizations working together to respond quickly and effectively to the challenge of climate change. The scale of the problem is only going to grow, and although we are still finding our feet in the ICC, the commitment and collaborative framework is in place. Similarly, with the Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation, we recognise that good media is the foundation of a good democracy and a good society. A few of us came together to birth this organization which has noteworthy trustees – who make decisions to find good media so that the voices of the people around our country can be better represented through various media. This has also been a collaborative effort from the beginning.

It is becoming clearer that collaborations can help you to de-risk from all kinds of failures. I think the era of collaboration in the philanthropy sector is upon us. I hope this means that a diverse set of civil society organizations will get funded. 

Diversity is crucial when it comes to solving complex societal problems because we need different kinds of ideologies, methods, experiments, and innovations to be backed by philanthropy, citizen movements, and civil society leaders so that when something works, we can try to scale. Cookie-cutter solutions will not work at scale – this is why our team has conceptualized what we call Societal Platform Thinking. Our main goal for this was to ask ourselves, during these challenging times, how we achieve the most impact at scale. Carrying out a successful pilot and then trying to scale up was not as effective, so we are flipping that around to understand what works at scale. For that, we need the Samaaj, Bazaar, and Sarkar, to be involved if we are going to solve complex societal issues. Our whole effort was focused on reducing the friction to collaborate between these three sectors. In order to do that, we’ve put together a framework on www.societalplatform.org, along with many public digital goods for people to use, toolkits, processes, and our team is always available to answer questions.

Solutions do not come from only one end of the pipeline, and if we want more collaboration, we have to learn how to distribute the ability to find solutions. How do we create more agency in a distributed way? How do we scale up diversity? How do we use technology for the public good? How do we allow people to solve problems in context? And how do we bring Samaaj, Bazaar, Sarkar together to do what they do best? This is how we are looking at collaboration. Globally, we are seeing increasing examples of good collaboration as well as from the civil society side in India. NGOs like Pratham, probably the largest education NGO in the world, require all kinds of collaboration at all levels. 

While collaboration remains extremely difficult because it is hard for people to give up their space, egos, branding, and their need for attribution, the need for collaboration has trumped the need to go it alone. The pandemic has made it increasingly clear that we need to work together rather than in silos. We saw this happen over the past year, with people coming together in ways they had never done before, mounting a whole logistics model to tackle pandemic-related issues. They had to resolve their differences to be able to work together, and I think it has taught us how to collaborate a little better from the heart.

It is not an easy task to work across sectors, but we must keep at it and keep in mind that there is a common interest between society actors, civil society institutions, and market actors to work together to uphold rule of law.

Civil society organizations come from a lens of equity, and social justice; I am sure many in the market do too, but it is also about innovation, efficiency, and creating prosperity for a wide number of people. Both of them must uphold the rule of law to be able to function and have the license to operate in society. Corporations need to not only follow the rule of law to the extent possible, but also uphold the rule of law so that business can be done peacefully. Of course, the state is not infallible, in our country or anywhere else in the world. Power does extend itself in human beings and when they have power, they try to extend their power, and the state has a monopoly on many powers.

It is in the interest of civil society institutions and market institutions to make sure that the Samaaj, Bazaar, and Sarkaar remain in a dynamic balance and that one sector does not become so powerful that the other two are left at the mercy of any one of them. Each needs to work together to keep the others in check if we want a good society. 

Global research points to the fact that when corporations attempt to become better corporate citizens – by reducing negative externalities ​​which society has to pick up the cost of, by treating their employees better and working towards improving the world rather than destroying it, those companies are doing better. There is not only a moral but a strategic imperative to get there. Businesses are not going to put themselves at risk because they constantly need the state to approve of everything that they do. But there are always openings to collaborate on some aspects which are morally undeniable and need to be done for a better society. 

In India there is a good separation between the markets and the state, and I see the opportunity for samaaj institutions to work with the state to ensure that we have better markets which do not try to capture value only but distribute value down the line. The age of partnerships and collaborations is truly here and whether we fail or succeed, we have no choice but to keep trying.

It may not be easy for civil society organizations to collaborate with people whose ideas may be completely different from theirs. However, given the circumstances now where the trust between the state and civil society organizations has reduced considerably over the last few years, I think it is imperative that civil society actors create new networks for collaboration so that the interests of society are better represented with a diversity of views. 

Civil society institutions need to come together and collaborate better. They can seek some philanthropic support for this as well, because sometimes we may not be good at storytelling or presenting our messages. I would request my civil society friends to come together through more platforms to tell your stories, and bridge the divide between yourselves and Indian donors. The age of the foreign donor is going away and there may be a kind of philanthropy nationalism emerging. Everyone wants to fund in their own countries and Indian philanthropists are coming together to fund new areas and new collaborations. So civil society actors have to come together as well.

To Fail is to Have Dared

In this interview with IDR, Rohini speaks about why we need to underwrite failure in the social sector, how philanthropists can support failure in practice, and shares some of her own failures as an activist philanthropist.

When working on complex issues of social change, failure is inevitable. Yet, people in the social sector are reluctant to talk about it. Why do you think this is the case?

When I think about failure, I think about the different ways in which it is perceived across samaaj (civil society), sarkaar (state), and bazaar (markets). In bazaar failure is underwritten structurally by financial markets. You’re allowed to go there and try something really crazy. And if you fail—not that anybody chooses to fail—there is a safety net for you. That’s why bazaar can afford to glorify failure a little bit, and say ‘fail forward’ or ‘fail fast’.

Sarkaar, on the other hand, is not incentivised or structured in a way that invites failure. That’s why they will prefer to see a proven model that they can take to scale, rather than try to innovate, because innovation involves a lot of failures. And this is alright because the government’s goal is not to provide risk capital to society, but rather to provide equity and service delivery.

Coming to samaaj, there is a greater risk appetite to try out things to help society, but there is less underwriting of the risk of failure. And this needs to change, because we are talking about people and their lives; we’re talking about their emotional, financial, and social well-being. So, in this context, it is important for social sector organisations to talk about failure, recognise it early on, and course correct. To do this effectively, we need patient philanthropic capital that will allow organisations and missions to experience some failures, some learning, and some experimentation, to find what works.

You make a very important point about philanthropy providing risk capital and staying the course. What does this look like in practice?

The way I see it, there are three main things that can create an enabling environment: trust, patient capital, and allowing the conversation on failure and innovation to be upfront and transparent. For me, it all begins with trust. The relationship between the philanthropist and nonprofit partner has to be built on trust, so that the nonprofit feels accepted when they are trying to do something different. Because if they’re not trying to do something different, how are things going to change? And some of these experiments will fail, either because the demand for those services or the institutional structures that support them are not ripe enough. Philanthropy needs to create space for these failures to be talked about and explained, and then allow more experimentation.

Once a funder trusts an organisation, they need to think about committing to multi-year funding.

We also need to be very conscious of timeframes, when talking about failure. Take the education sector in India, for example. About 25 years ago, parents were not very committed to putting their children through 14 years of schooling. Dropout rates were high and the number of out-of-school children was large. But thanks to the work of nonprofits, government policies, and markets, the understanding that education might lead to a better life for their children began to grow, and the demand for education built up rapidly. Today the idea of education being necessary has been completely internalised in India. Though it took some time, what might have initially seemed like a failure to the nonprofits and philanthropists working in the space, (the number of children with no access to education), today looks like a lot of success.

Once a funder trusts an organisation, they need to think about committing to multi-year funding so that the nonprofit is not spending 30 to 40 percent of their organisational bandwidth trying to raise funds, instead of trying to innovate on the ground.

In spite of a growing recognition among philanthropists that the programmes they support might not work, nonprofit grantees might still be hesitant to talk about their failures in fear of losing funding. How do we address this?

I think the social sector putting forward more stories and examples of short-term failures that allowed them to innovate and succeed in the long-run will build an understanding and make philanthropists more open to having a longer timeframe with their grants. In doing this however, both the philanthropist and the organisation need to make sure that failure is not glorified. We are not trying to achieve failure; we are going to fail because it’s not always possible to succeed, and it’s important to accept that.

While doing this we also have to be careful to distinguish between the failure of the organisation and the failure of some individuals within the organisation. There is a different way of responding to failure of some individuals—perhaps from a moral lapse—than a failure coming out of a good intent to innovate. The analysis of the failure and its origins is extremely important. Creating the space to do this—first internally by the organisation and then a little more openly—should become a structured process. I’m sure many organisations do this already, but it would be helpful if we could come together to create frameworks, toolkits, and processes, which are easy for organisations to follow and share publicly.

Beyond acknowledging and analysing failure internally within organisations, what can we do to ensure that others can also learn from failures, even if not their own?

This is a very important point because the goal of the social sector should be to ensure that even if organisations, institutions, or leaders fail, their mission shouldn’t fall by the wayside. We need to keep space for others to continue the task—the societal task—even if some organisations fail. One way I see of doing this is by converting the effort and knowledge of organisations into digital public goods; using open source technologies that allow people to come in and share, discover, and learn. In a sense, this is a de-risking from the failures of individual leaders, organisations, and innovations—sharing knowledge so that we don’t make the same mistakes again.

We are not trying to achieve failure; we are going to fail because it’s not always possible to succeed, and it’s important to accept that.

But beyond just individual organisations or philanthropists, how can we learn from the failures of the social sector as a whole? To me, what would be interesting would be if we had a process to look at the failures of the social sector in India over the last 40-50 years. Because by now, it should have been in a less risky space. Could we have done something differently, together?

We are now seeing a new wave of young social sector actors using technology and other new methods to increase equity and access. What can they learn from the old wave of social sector players, who worked from the 1970s to the 2000s? What were their failures? What can we learn from them and do differently?

Can you tell us about some of your failures, and what you’ve learned?

In my professional life, I’ve experienced many failures, some worse than others. But my very first failure in my professional life as an activist philanthropist was way back in 1992, when I set up an organisation called Nagrik, after one of my very close friends died in a horrible road accident. Along with a few others, we laid out our goal to create safer roads.

We worked on it for a few years without a large budget, but I don’t think the budget was the problem. I think the problem was that we didn’t quite know how to go about it. There was a lot of enthusiasm, passion, and intelligence in the group, but I think we didn’t structure ourselves. And so, the whole initiative faded away; but the problem didn’t go away at all. India continues to have the highest number of road accidents and deaths in the world, with 150,000 annual deaths.

When I think about my own failures, I also go back to the fact that what looks like a failure today may look like success tomorrow.

It was a failure at many levels and I take a lot of the blame for the lack of strategic thinking on myself. But it taught me a few lessons about how not to do things, how to think through things, how to set realistic goals, and how to ensure that you have a professional cadre working with you—not just enthusiastic, good Samaritans.

And when I think about my own failures, I also go back to the fact that what looks like a failure today may look like success tomorrow. We cannot predict when this will happen, and especially as philanthropists, we need to be aware of this. It’s been nearly 15 years since Arghyam, the nonprofit organisation I set up and fund, started working on supporting sustainable water and sanitation solutions. Somebody could look at us and say that the water situation in India has actually gotten worse in this time. Is this a failure of the organisation and the vision? I think we could say that Arghyam could have been much more impactful. But one could also say that the water problem in India is so huge and so complex that it is completely unrealistic to expect one organisation to do anything more than shift the needle in some aspects of the water situation. And we have been able to do that. We have been able to make the issue of groundwater more visible among practitioners, donors, and policy circles. Some of the policies that our partners have been able to embed in government frameworks will hopefully create more sustainability and equity in the water sector, sooner rather than later. To a certain extent, we succeeded in nudging, catalysing, and innovating. But of course, if you look at the whole water sector, then Arghyam has by no means finished its journey towards its mission.

Climate Action and Impact: A Decade of Insights

This is an edited version of Rohini Nilekani in conversation with Prashanth Prakash at the launch of ACT for Environment at the ACT Summit. The ACT Summit brings together India’s leading startup founders, venture capitalists and changemakers to talk about how we can leverage inventive startup assets and ideas to enable social change. In 2021, ACT will scale its resources to drive impact beyond healthcare, focusing on larger societal problems in education, environment and women’s participation in the workforce in India.

Over the 16 years since I have been working on water and the environment, I have experienced a sharp learning curve. I’ve realised how critical it is to scale this kind of work and ensure the maximum impact. We cannot have just a few handful of people who are only working on this because of their passion and commitment. The sector must expand and it needs innovation and efficiency that people from the markets bring into things. If we look at the four major sectors within this – air quality, water, waste, and land – they present a huge untapped area, both for the market sector and for social entrepreneurs. Although there is a lot of traditional knowledge there, we need to infuse it with new knowledge as well, so that both can meet to create new, India-specific sustainable models to scale. I think we’re seeing a rise in interest now, as people are beginning to realise that ecology is the foundation of life on this planet. Unless we can fix the ecology, we will have continual long-term, short-term, and medium-term risks in any economic activity that we do. If we’re hoping to lift people out of poverty and imagining sustainable prosperity for all, all eyes have to be on the ecology and the environment.

India is one of the biodiversity hotspots of the world. We are one-third the size of the US but have four times its population and multiple times its biodiversity. Of course, that is partly because of the geography of our location, however it’s interesting that we have so many people in our country and at the same time, so much biodiversity. We can’t afford to forget that people understand the sacred relationship of human life and nature. We are so deeply connected that we cannot just treat nature with contempt or hubris.

Overcoming Barriers to Knowledge Bases

India is blessed with hundreds of civil society organisations that are passionate, knowledgeable, and committed to this space. As a philanthropist, I look for good ideas, institutions, and individuals that have vested in the space of environment. And there are plenty of good organisations working on a variety of issues, in the context of their local environments. My team and I try to identify these organisations and we start out with a basis of trust because they are the experts here. We start by working with them to co-create programs and as our relationship grows, we find more opportunities to invest and work. It’s been a thorough delight travelling with these people all over the country – from Sikkim, down to the Andamans, to Tamil Nadu and Kutch. We get to see the kind of work that these organisations undertake, under different and challenging conditions, and constantly add to all of our natural capital base.

However, there are several barriers to building these knowledge bases. Policy barriers present one kind of challenge, and that’s always an ongoing political and advocacy discourse which has to be undertaken by all of us. But the lack of long-term patient capital invested in this space is also another real barrier for organisations to be effective. For example, sometimes people who invest, whether it is philanthropically or whether it’s in the market space, want high returns that are quick and visible. Unfortunately, sometimes the damage to the ecology can be slow and invisible, so it requires patience in terms of resourcing the institutes that are doing the observational analysis of the biodiversity loss or degradation of the land, etc. So there is a lack of patient capital. There’s also a lack of trust between financing institutions such as philanthropists or governments, and the civil society organisations working on the ground. We need to build more bridges of trust and discovery between these sectors so that we are not all working in silos. There’s so much wonderful work being done, but how do we learn to make it more discoverable, transparent, and accountable on both sides of the equation?

I believe that technology has a role to play in overcoming some of these barriers. Although I’m not a techie myself, after years of learning from Nandan I have realised that you can really amplify the power of good intent by using technology. And in the environment sector, data is crucial and you can use technology as a backbone to collect data from different points, to democratise it, and to ensure that it’s accessible to all. We need citizen-based science, data collection, analysis, and the ability to use this data to improve and restore the ecology. There have been several attempts at this, from the India Water Portal to the Biodiversity Portal, and other existing government frameworks. But we need more and we need them to be democratic, functioning well both from bottom-up and top-down perspectives. All the data should not simply flow upwards to where the power is, it needs to flow out and democratise access to knowledge.

The second way technology can be used is for capacity building. For example, when we started out working in water, we realised that there was no cadre like there is in education with teachers or public health with the ANMs and ASHA workers. In water, it goes from one program to another and all that knowledge is just dissipated. In lieu of this, we started thinking about how to use technology to bring all training content into a common platform where people can use technology to get atomised learning content and be able to show proof of their knowledge level. So it’s a common program after which they would be able to say, ““I am a water practitioner, I learned A, B, C through courses D-E-F, and I am available for work.” At Arghyam we have undertaken this, working with Meghalaya and other government programs to implement this. In this way, we need to start thinking of technology as a potential enabler of capacity and livelihoods in areas such as land, water, waste, and air.

I have met many ambitious young entrepreneurs who have come up with technology innovations, but I personally don’t have the setup to be able to support and invest in them. If ACT can do that and make access to capital for such innovators more discoverable, adequate, and timely, this would be crucial for the future of sustainability. This capital must be high risk and patient capital because many times only one out of 10 ideas will succeed. But this is a great time to invest philanthropic risk capital for local innovation since this is a big year internationally, for the Paris Accord COP26.

Creating an Ecosystem of Innovators

Hopefully, more technologies will flow between countries but we can’t wait around for that. We need to build on what we have had before and what we have now, which is the very new spirit of entrepreneurship combined with the idea of sustainability. And we need young entrepreneurs to innovate their way out of the mess that our generation has left them. They’re thinking about sustainability from get-go and in the design of their technology ambitions, and we have to support that. We should build a solid, healthy ecosystem of innovative entrepreneurs, both in and beyond the markets. We have nine more years, but if we don’t manage to make substantial changes in this decade, I dread to think what’s going to happen in the 2030s.
In order to change our world for the better, one of the first things we all have to acknowledge is that all of us are in this together. We must think of ourselves as citizens of this planet, as human beings first. 2020 has taught us how wrong we have been about the way we treat nature and wildlife. We cannot afford another pandemic caused by our own carelessness. We need to remind ourselves at every moment that we are inextricably connected with nature. We have to understand how deep those and complex those interconnections are, and rewrite human history starting from today. We have no other choice.

Secondly, if you are investing in something, invest in an area that you care about and that you have researched. You need basic knowledge when you invest in an area. Arm yourself first with passion and then with knowledge. Thirdly, start your relationships with trust. After you do your basic due diligence, let trust run the game because that’s how you and your partners get the best out of each other. Lastly, this work requires patience and usual market sense. If we try to push for outcome data before the time is right, we will only add perverse incentives into the game. So we must have the right incentives in place and co-create the metrics with our partners. And some of your portfolio must be reserved for developing more awareness among citizens, especially urban citizens who have been deracinated from the wild. Our cities are a nightmare, in terms of air, land, water, and waste. So we need to reconnect them to the possibility of living differently.

This is a good time to understand the relationship we have with land, water, air, or even those who produce our food. Agriculture is one of the worst drivers of ecological damage, destroying the soil, water, and air. So we need to think about reforming the way agriculture is practised, not just in India but all over the world. How can we use this opportunity to figure out how to use agriculture to improve our land, soil, and the way we use water? How do we move towards a low-water economy in agriculture and industry? How do we therefore keep our air better? How do we improve our biodiversity while producing more crop per drop? Perhaps with more funds like ACT supporting innovation and working with small farmers, we will see a shift towards a more sustainable future.

Trust is the Absolute Foundation of Any Partnership: Q&A with Rohini Nilekani

Rohini Nilekani is a fierce believer in the power of being an active, participatory citizen. She quips that her friends could get irritated with her Gandhigiri, as she went about picking up waste which people had thrown on the road or requested people to stand in line at bus stops right from her childhood days.

Today, as a philanthropist and a leading voice representing civil society, Rohini supports ideas, individuals and institutions doing ground-breaking work that enables a strong samaaj with ethical leadership, a sense of urgency and the courage to learn. She is the Founder-Chairperson of Arghyam, and Co-founder and Director of EkStep. She is also an author, Giving Pledge Signatory along with her husband Nandan Nilekani, a former journalist and a member of various advisory boards. 

How did you arrive at this idea that value is created when the civil society, government, and markets come together and co-create to solve societal problems?

Since childhood, I always felt very strongly about citizens banding together to do some things. But putting these three things together really happened in 1997 – when I had gone on a field visit for our work on water in the Northern state of Bihar in India.

I got talking with one of our partners there, with whom we were working through Arghyam. He said to me, “in the good old days, society used to be very strong. And then in the last century, the government became stronger (starting with colonialism and onwards), followed by even stronger international corporations, especially with globalization. In the process, society kept getting pushed back and back and back to the lowest point instead of being at the top”.

This really made me think. I started reading and learning about societal movements, about social change, about power structures. And it occurred to me that in this continuum of society, and markets, and the state – in this continuum, the most important sector was the societal sector! That if we want any change to happen, we have to look at the role of all these three sectors. I’ve been feeling for a very long time now that the societal sector has to be the strongest foundation so that the markets and the state can be responsive to the needs of the society. So all of my work has been on how we can strengthen the foundational society, to actually try and come together to solve problems for itself, and include bazaar and sarkaar without letting the societal power reduce. Without creating an imbalance. 

This idea of Societal Platform Thinking was germinating in your mind and manifesting through your work since 2004. What were your personal experiences, how did you come to this construct of Societal Platform Thinking? 

Through my work at Akshara Foundation, I learnt a lot about how to work with the government. But it was when we started Pratham Books, whose mission is to ‘put a book in every child’s hand’, there I realized that even working with the government would not be enough. You have to involve a broad section of society to make sure that every child is given the gift of a reading life. 

We knew that the publishing industry in India was in dire need of change: if we cannot find more than 600 books in any mother tongue language put together but English, and we have 300 million kids! Something needed to be done with urgency! So we decided that we have to unleash the creative energy of all the people in India, because every household is a storytelling household in India. Everybody tells the stories of the epics to their children and grandchildren. So how could we transition from an oral culture to a written culture? 

We started working with publishers, with state governments, and we worked with every single creative artist we could find. It taught me the power of unleashing the most amazing positive energy of people. Writers, illustrators, translators, editors, publishers, governments, philanthropy – everybody came together. We innovated on how to make a book cheap to publish, and financially accessible to many? Even though it was underwritten by philanthropy, we wanted it to be eventually financially sustainable. And, we did.

So, innovation mattered a lot. Partnerships mattered a lot. I learned about unleashing the societal energy that people have in them to achieve a common goal. And this learning has informed the coming together of Societal Platform Thinking.  

You have always stressed on leadership for the society and of the society. So when you think about leadership, how do you look at that dimension?

The true idea of leadership has to come from a place where I feel the responsibility to change something that I think is not correct in the world. It could be anything. And if leadership is born from that – that idea of transformation, then you have to shoulder the responsibility to make that transformation happen. 

And we all know that we can’t do this by ourselves. Leadership is about being a follower of other people’s ideas, because we are always standing on the shoulders of other giants. But it is as much about being able to create a followership. We ensure that by our example.

For me, the power of intent always matters a lot. I did realize on the way, however, that just the power of intent is by no means enough. When I co-created my first institution in 1992, Nagrik, we wanted to have safer roads in India. While the intent was strong, by every metric it was a disaster – now i realise that we didn’t yet have the language or the grammar of that intent, so that we could be effective. A leader must learn with his or her team how to create a grammar, so that people can build a language.So for me, leadership is about enabling the grammar of that intent, so that everybody can work on enriching the language of that mission or whatever that we decide to do together.

You are an advocate for creating safe spaces to embrace failure, and you have talked a lot about this. So we’d love to hear your perspectives on failure and how you look at failure.

In the social sector, it’s very hard for us to talk of failure publicly. I do understand where it is coming from – most social sector organizations need funders, and funders like to hear nice things about what they’re funding. It’s only now that there is much better sense that funders need to know about what didn’t work. So that they are able to fund that as well. 

We are beginning to learn that failure is okay. In fact, we had a failure conference in Bangalore three years ago, where icons of the civil society movements in India came and said, here’s how we failed. Here’s why we have failed. We take the responsibility for that failure. But here’s what we learn from the failure. 

Nobody wants to fail – so we should be careful of not glorifying failure. But in our organisations, we really must make time to understand failure, to accept failure, to discuss failure, and then where possible, to pin accountability without demeaning that person or team so much that they won’t try anything different again.

You have led the charge in philanthropy in India in many ways – with investments in Societal Platform and the way you have been a risk funder through trust. Tell us more. 

I started off as an activist in some sense – whether it was at Nagrik or Akshara or Pratham Books. I was inside these civil society organizations, and I knew how difficult it is to have to respond to donors who don’t understand the ground reality. The reality is that things keep changing, and you need to be able to respond to that changing situation in a flexible manner. Whereas, if you’re stuck with some programmatic kind of backed donation or something very specific, it really makes the organization very rigid, and makes people very anxious about reporting to the donor. So, I know the feeling and the hardships – I had been on this side. 

So now as a donor, I know that I cannot, cannot, cannot thrust my own ideas and opinions and rigidity on to any organization and expect them to succeed. There’s just no way! I recall, one of the first people that I gave a large chunk of money to, Mihir Shah in Arghyam said, “Rohini, don’t make the mistake of calling your partners grantees. You should not be a donor and they should not be grantees, you should be partners.” We really try our best to always do that. Trust is a basic currency we need. You just have to work on trust. Of course, you have to do some due diligence and sometimes your trust will be betrayed, but you learn. So for me, trust is the absolute foundation of any partnership. 

Building Trust Through Grantee Feedback: The Story of Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies

This is an edited version of Rohini Nilekani’s conversation with The Centre For Effective Philanthropy. She talks about the importance of feedback, speaking truth to power and trust-based philanthropy.

 

We set up Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies only recently because earlier much of my philanthropy work was done through Arghyam, my foundation for water, or by directly giving cheques to various organisations. It seems to work because I don’t think we need to set up a very large foundation for the kind of work we do, which is trust-based philanthropy. Once we have identified partners, we have a very simple system of working with them and that’s what Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies is. Trust is very important to me and my team because your actions have to speak louder than your words when it comes to building trust. You have to give organisations and people time and space, because we know how complex things are on the ground and how quickly things can change. If you lock your partners into doing something in a particular way, when things change they can’t respond quickly. So, as a granter, you really have to give them that freedom, and I think that’s one of the things that helps to build trust.

In the social sector, if you want to end with trust, you have to begin with trust. I have always believed that the people I work with know much more than me about ground realities, so I genuinely try to see them as partners and not grantees. I think there is a kind of reciprocity of trust that happens immediately when they see that, and trust takes time to build. One of our experiments in India in my portfolio, where multiple philanthropic entities have come together in a relationship of trust, is the India Climate Collaborative. Climate change is such a huge issue that’s obviously affecting all of us individually and globally as well, that it was easy to find that as a common ground to bring together international foundations, who had already been doing a lot of work on this, and build a partnership with Indian philanthropists who came together for the first time in this collaborative. This is what we need to do more of, so that we can trust each other and learn from each other to be much more effective and impactful than we are individually. 

CEP’s Grantee Perception Report showed that Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies is not very communicative over exactly what its intent is, which was an eye-opener and we’ll have to work on that. It was also useful to know that partners hoped for more long-term funding. That’s something we try to do, but because we have opened up new sectors we’re all still learning along the way. I’m glad that we worked with CEP on this report, and we will take the feedback seriously and hope to improve year on year. I hope more organisations find a way to really listen anonymously to their partners, so that they can get the truth. The truth is hard to tell to power – it’s very hard for grantees and partners to tell donors really what they think. So I really hope that culture gets established. 

Building the Indian philanthropic sector – what can we learn? | India Conference at Harvard 2021

This is an edited version of Rohini Nilekani’s conversation with Mona Sinha, co-founder of Raising Change, at the Harvard India Conference 2021.

In my work over the last three decades, I’ve tried to put together a theory of change and what I have realised and tried to communicate is that in the continuum of society, state and markets, my work is primarily focused on how to build good societies or what we call in India a good Samaj. In this continuum of Samaj, Bazaar, and Sarkar, much of my philanthropic work is focused on enabling good institutions of civil society, good ethical and moral leadership, and innovation of the grassroots, because a strong society can hold both Bazaar and Sarkar to the larger public interest and also innovate constantly. As Mona Sinha mentions, the US philanthropy sector seems to be moving in this direction as well, with trust-based philanthropy where the goal is to undo systemic inequalities and help build a stronger civil society, but also allow the government to participate in a way that’s much more effective. As philanthropists, we have great responsibility in reshaping systems. With trust-based philanthropy, we lead with trust, we center relationships, we communicate with humility and curiosity, and most importantly, we redistribute power as we work towards systemic equity.

One of these areas that I began working on was with young men and boys. For 25 years, my work was focused on women, whether it was within the field of microfinance, education, or water. But as I travelled around India and started meeting young people, I found that while we had a very justified emphasis on empowering women, perhaps we also needed to understand what was happening to young men. We were not seeing them and in doing so, we were somehow forgetting to include them in our public policy and programmes to also allow them to flourish as human beings in their own right. So I started a portfolio called Young Men and Boys, but there were hardly any people working specifically with them. We started with only one organisation. I’m happy to say that in our second convening, there were 30 organisations represented including funders who are beginning to turn their attention to the question of how we can ensure a better future for everybody. We are trying to innovate with our partners and find new ways to create safe spaces for young men to talk to each other and respectfully interact with young women as well. It’s been a very sharp learning curve and I hope more people will join us because ensuring young men feel supported and safe also ensures the safety and progress for the young women we have been helping so far.

Restoring Our Connection With Nature

In terms of my philanthropy, I have a fairly wide portfolio in conservation and I’m also very invested in the preservation of the marvellous biodiversity in our country. Although India has one-third the land than the US and four times its population, we are also one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots. But this biodiversity that gives us our water, cleans our air, and that will be the future medicine for the next generations, is under threat due to climate change and the need for economic development in our country. Luckily, there are hundreds of environmental NGOs in our country that are working with local people to restore our ecology. I try to support as many of them as I can, in addition to supporting academic and research institutions that are doing long-term monitoring of our biodiversity in deserts, grasslands, mountains, oceans, and coastlines. I firmly believe that the marvellous work being done all around the country to regenerate the ecological base is at the heart of the economy as well. If we do not safeguard it, I don’t see how we can sustain a healthy economy.

We have many forest and tribal communities in India with generations of experience and knowledge, and I believe that we need to carry these people along with us while we also ensure the conservation of our forests and natural resources. The Forest Rights Act allows forest dwelling people and tribal communities of India to get pattas in forests, in order to sustainably live there as they have for many centuries. Some of these are very fraught political issues, however India has kept our biodiversity, our forests and our water sources in the face of tremendous population and land pressure. I think there is a reason for that. There is a culture of understanding the kind of sacred connection between humans and nature. Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of pristine conservation where half of the country flourishes without any people. To me, the most sensible and strategic decision is to carry people with us, especially those who live in our forests. Many of those communities do want to find opportunities beyond living in forests, so we have to find a way to let their knowledge and their wisdom also light the path for ecological restoration.

During this past year, I have been spending a lot of time in the Kabini forest in search of a black panther whom locals call Kariya or ‘the black one.’ For five years, I have not been able to spot him, but through my frequent visits to Kabini, I’ve begun to learn more about the forest itself. I learned about the people who dwell in and around the forest, about the Forest Department and what they have to do to keep the forests protected, and more broadly about the connection between people and the forest. Especially since the pandemic, when we have learned so much about zoonotic diseases, I think more people must understand the connections between the wild and the rest. Urban people can get pretty deracinated from the wild, and I personally enjoyed the journey of getting back in touch with nature. So many people have come to the forest searching for this black panther, but I think what we are really searching for is a way to restore the connection between nature and ourselves, so that we can restore our own well-being.

Collaborating and Co-Creating Solutions

We have seen a rise in philanthropy over the last few years in India because there have been more wealthy people in the country since the liberalisation in the early ’90s. And I think people have come to the conclusion that you can enjoy your wealth, but you really owe it to yourself and to society to give forward. After all, why do societies allow so much accumulation of private wealth? It’s because societies believe that wealth in the hands of private individuals will do at least as much good as it would have done in the hands of the government as taxation. I believe that the wealthy have a special responsibility to use their wealth for the good of society. Many of the Infosys founders have tried to give this unexpected and unprecedented wealth that we came into forward, based on our passions and interests. Having said that, everyone comes to the point in their philanthropic journey where they realise they simply cannot do it alone if they want to have maximum impact. So in India, many philanthropists are now creating collaborative platforms to work together. For example, the independent and public spirited Media Foundation was started a few years ago with about 12 donors. The idea was to support good journals and magazines, especially in the digital medium because we thought that was the next phase of journalism. Another important collaborative, called the India Climate Collaborative, has several dozen individuals and organisations who hope to work on mitigation and adaptation for climate change.

Doing serious philanthropy helps you acquire a lot of humility very fast. You realise that no matter how many great ideas you thought you had, those simply don’t work unless you co-create solutions on the ground. In India, we philanthropists stand on the shoulders of giants. The Tatas have been doing this for more than 100 years, and created a culture of listening and not just doing top-down philanthropy. Now newer philanthropists are also learning this lesson. We have so much diversity in India, where every 100 kilometers, the dialect changes along with the crops that are grown, the livelihoods practiced, the water resources, etc. So no cookie-cutter solutions will work here. We must create unified solutions, but they cannot be uniform solutions because problems have to be solved in context. I can’t sit in Bangalore and problem-solve for people in Bihar. We must listen and trust our partners, civil society or implementation partners, in order to co-create solutions.

Although I am not a techie, I have learned a lot from my husband, Nandan Nilekani, who believes that technology has to be used to solve a lot of societal, business, and government issues. I have learnt a lot from him and his team, especially over the last few years. We have built what we call Societal Platform Thinking – the idea is that in order to solve complex societal problems with impact, at scale, and with speed, we are going to have to deploy technology to create more impact and discoverability, to get people to share and learn together globally. We need technology because it amplifies the power of intent. So, if you are very careful to not be technology-led but technology-enabled, you can use technology to further societal goals. This is what we are trying to get societal and government organisations to do. Of course, there are many risks with technology and society is just beginning to grapple with how to look at issues like artificial intelligence and the algorithms that drive some of our platforms. But we must ask ourselves how we will, together as a global society, create new norms and shift some norms, and create new regulations and laws so that we have AI tools and algorithms that work for the broader public interest and not just very narrowly for a few? These are some of the things and questions and challenges that we are asking ourselves, while developing technology backbones that help create open public digital goods.

Moving to Broad-Based Philanthropy

India is an exciting place right now for intermediary organisations and retail fundraising. Small donors are increasing and I think that’s very important, rather than relying on a few big, super-rich individuals to do philanthropy. We could have a more broad-based philanthropy where active citizens are participating by giving as little as 100 Rupees to causes they care about, doing kindness to strangers, and putting passion into things they care about. The platforms that have emerged as intermediary platforms that aggregate this small funding are really exciting to see. They’ve been raising hundreds of crores, some of that from rich individuals, but a lot of that from ordinary citizens who care. For me, that is the best thing I’ve been hearing about the Indian philanthropy sector. We must thank all the aggregators who have made this much easier than it used to be. Many philanthropists have also come to the understanding that some of our philanthropy must be directed towards increasing philanthropy and to the ecosystems around philanthropy. Some of us are committing capital to that, to capacity building, training, discovering talent, and creating more platforms for giving.

We cannot expect the super-rich to solve all of society’s problems. But, like everybody else, they can participate in this quest. With wealth and with philanthropy comes a lot of power. I think philanthropists need to look in the mirror every day and be clear about what we are doing philanthropy for – is it to keep the status quos of power, or are we trying to do something more exciting than just keeping wealth for a few? Mona points out that without the opportunity to be economically successful, we would also never have innovation. Innovation comes with the opportunity to create something new, to break systems that don’t work, to find solutions that are different. When those succeed, people do become wealthy because that’s how markets work best.

While we should all challenge why so few people have so much wealth, we should not demonize individuals in that process. We must separate the person from the societal distribution of wealth. Instead of saying all billionaires are bad, we can talk about things like more taxation, increased transparency and accountability in philanthropy, and ask whether power structures are being kept the same or changing because of philanthropy. We must be careful not to sit in judgment about individual billionaires, but rather talk about changing the system. How do we change the system together? We can’t depend just on the super-wealthy. How do we change the skewed economic system in the world, fueled by the over-financialisation of the economy and winner-takes-all business models? Together, we can change things for the better.

Nandan and Rohini Nilekani; A Conversation with Badr Jafar

This is an edited version of an interview with Nandan and Rohini Nilekani on the Business of Philanthropy. In conversation with Badr Jafar, they discuss some of the golden rules for strategic philanthropy, how technology is changing the philanthropic sector, and how Covid-19 will impact India’s ability to achieve the SDGs by 2030.

I have been working in the philanthropy sector for almost 30 years now, and while it looks like I’m trying to do a little bit in so many areas, what holds my philanthropy portfolio together is one simple but powerful idea – the continuum of the state, society, and the markets. My entire focus is on strengthening society or Samaaj because I truly believe that markets and the state have to be responsive to society. To ensure that the state and markets are accountable to the largest public interest, we need very strong leadership and societal institutions to make that happen and to collect and coordinate ordinary people’s efforts so that they become part of the solution rather than victims of the problem. So whether I’m working in education, environment, water, or arts and culture, it’s all about finding institutions, individuals, and ideas that strengthen the Samaaj. That’s the common thread in my work, and the rest of it is based on my passion and opportunities for many different things. On Nandan’s part, one of the big areas he focuses on is education and EkStep is the largest part of that. He supports many institutions, including the Indian Institute of Human Settlements and eGov Foundation, both of which he has founded. He’s also the president of NCAER, India’s preeminent economic think tank.

Takeaways From the Pandemic

The current pandemic has had and is continuing to have a devastating impact, in terms of pushing people back into poverty, and the gains of the last few years are actually getting unwound with lack of jobs and income for many people. Especially in India, it’s pretty heartbreaking because so many people have just lifted themselves out of poverty in a stable way. If we are to achieve our SDG goals by 2030, we have to work harder, faster, and even more at scale to make up for what it has meant in terms of progress. We need private philanthropy now to step up and underwrite a lot of risk, so that the next time – and there will be a next time, whether it’s a climate change-related crisis or another pandemic – we are much better prepared. We need people who can invest, to assess what has happened in the last nine months, figure out what worked in different countries, do rapid studies, do some scoping, and then support institutions who will be able to come together for a rapid response next time around. The government is too busy right now to do this, but private philanthropy has the space, the time, and the resources to do it. So that’s one thing in terms of Covid and philanthropy. And as Nandan points out, perhaps the nature of this pandemic and its impact has made people more receptive and flexible to new ideas and innovations.

What we have learnt so far is that we must focus on society and communities. Who were the first responders all over the world? It was citizen’s groups, people who knew the neighbourhoods and could reach the last mile, or rather the first mile as I like to say. Of course, the government came in, health workers came, but the first responders were civil institutions. Strengthening those and building networks of trust well in advance is a big learning that I have taken away from this pandemic.

We have also seen a rise in the acceptance of digital technology and at EkStep, we are quite taken aback. Luckily, the government had already asked us to help with setting up a national infrastructure to train teachers to create content and also allow students to come online to get a lot of learning resources. But the kind of rapid uptake we saw in the last few months has staggered our own teams as well. We have tried our best to also watch out for those on the other side of the digital divide, and a lot of innovations have flourished there as well. So this uptake of the digital, the knowledge that citizen’s groups are the first responders, and the ability of philanthropy to take new risks with a new imagination so that we are better prepared next time, seem to be the takeaways from this pandemic.

Technology With Good Intent

The role of technology in philanthropy has gained a lot of importance in these Covid times because everything has been digitised including the way we deliver things to people, and we believe that it enables scale, as Nandan says. If we really want to solve the problems of a billion people, we need technology underpinnings to reach everyone. It enables speed, a common platform, and the ability to deal with the diverse changes that are required across the world. Unlike Nandan, I am by no means a techie, but I’ve understood how using technology appropriately can actually amplify our good intent. There are of course dangers that come with technology, so how you use it, taking the power of your intent and building a grammar around that intent through good technologies is a very important thing. Philanthropists need to now start thinking about how they will support civil society with more technology tools to be able to participate fully in the digital age.

Civil society institutions, especially in India, have been a little technophobic, thinking that technology and power get woven too intricately against the interests of the masses. But I think it’s now crucial for them to enter and participate fully in the digital age, and to democratise the digital age so that whatever problems we have to solve about technology can be solved together. Rather than shunning technology, we need to accept the digital age and improve the way technology serves society. For philanthropy, it’s important to understand how to support civil society institutions to be technology-enabled but not technology-led. As a non-techie, I can honestly say that good technologies will amplify good intent and we must now use them.

The Future of India’s Philanthropy

For both of us, achieving impact at scale is very important. But along with scale and speed, diversity is also important because one solution does not fit all. It is patently obvious to all of us that you cannot solve issues in silos. If you’re interested in having impact at the scale of the problem and not just in a much smaller way, then you have to work with Samaaj, Bazaar, and Sarkar. This is certainly easier to do with areas like education where there is a moral undeniability to it rather than something political. So starting with issues that are common to everybody’s welfare, it’s easy to draw in the state because it is their mandate to provide basic services. We have found that governments have been pretty open to coming in as partners and helping them reach the last mile. Of course, there are setbacks but it’s possible to find champions inside the government. On our part, we have to clearly articulate the common goals and communicate them. Even in terms of the markets in India, by law they have to share a portion of their profits with society through our corporate social responsibility laws. So they are very eager to participate.

Throughout our work in this sector, we have held certain philosophies and ideas, about how to increase access to services. For example, with the kind of work I do in the water space, how do we increase access to those services, or to opportunities like education in a country where a large part of people are unable to participate formally in the economy due to a lack of education and access. So how do we bring these people into the fold and help them improve their lives? The work that we have been doing for so many decades now has led us to come up with a slightly more structured way to address these questions by reducing the friction to collaborate between state, markets and society. We call it ‘societal platform thinking’, a framework underpinned by a few very fundamental values such as being technology-enabled but not technology-led, being people-led, problem-led, and to create a unified but not uniform solution so that multiple people can engage in their own context to solve their own problems. This is something we hold very dear because using this, the government and markets can come in, the civil society can thrive, and individuals can also find a way to build back agency. This is what we are trying to achieve.

Over the last few years, there’s been a tremendously increasing awareness and interest in philanthropy. All the wealthy people of India have come to the conclusion that we have to give forward and there are now many structured opportunities to do so. Whether it is through the India Philanthropy Initiative, or the many business bodies in India and informal networks that we have been able to work with, we have seen an acceleration of the intent to cooperate among the Indian philanthropists, which I find very heartening. We’ve had several conversations and meetings on this and I’ve been lucky enough to also see a flourishing of international cooperation. Looking eastwards from India, the Asia philanthropists have come together in several fora and we have been exchanging a lot of information. There are certainly cultural similarities between us so coming to understand a new way for Asia to come together is very exciting. Of course, western philanthropists have also been part of those discussions. In addition, global collaborative platforms like Co-Impact and others have me hopeful about this interesting point we’re at, but we need to take advantage of this momentum and push forwards to a better future.