Recent surveys suggest that these initiatives mirror society’s preferences. Compared to foreign foundations like Gates’, a bulk of philanthropic effort is being directed to education rather than health. Still, the extent of corporate philanthropy remains meager.

Creating a philanthropic culture is not as straightforward as one assumes.

And India has created genuine obstacles to professionalized philanthropy.

One of the striking features of Indian philanthropy before Independence was that it was genuinely philanthropic. A lot of it was directed at creating public institutions that the donors did not control.

Giving to public institutions, universities, libraries and public hospitals was common. Of the 16 largest trusts before Independence, 14 gave generously to institutions that were not under their control.

But today, much of what passes as philanthropy is really setting up your own institutions, whose purposes you direct and control.

Philanthropy is not just about the object of spending but also the manner in which the money is spent.

What is striking about Buffet’s donation, as with our pre-Independence trusts, is that the grants from family trusts were not in the control of the family and were deployed for purposes set by the receiving institution. So donors were not second guessing professionals. Thus, philanthropy not just sustained different kinds of activities, it allowed the creation of institutions that were autonomous, not just of government and commercial pressures, but also, to a great extent, of the donors.

While there is a lot of giving in India, it still does not amount to a creation of this institutional space, a space that can be of genuine service to democracy.

... contd.