Billionaire business tycoon Mukesh Ambani's 27-storey residence Antilla has come in for much flak and censure. But when someone like fellow industrialist and Tata Group chairman Ratan Tatasays that the Ambani residence is an example of rich Indians' lack of empathy for the poor, the debate spills over into the public domain.
The big questions are: Are the wealthy obliged to share their wealth with the underprivileged? Should such blatant and unabashed displays of wealth be avoided? Do the moneyed folk have to be bleeding heart do-gooders to avoid being caught in the guilt trap once their lifestyles come under scrutiny?
Noblesse Oblige?
Rohini Nilekani, chairperson of Arghyam, says, "There can be nothing mandatory about this; but people should share to ensure a stable and prosperous society, which benefits even the rich!"
Philanthropy, believes Adi Godrej, chairman of the Godrej Group, comes from the heart of the people and their desire to give back to society. "I don't think it's something that should be expected by others, but it's always welcome."
Elaborates Harsh Goenka, chairman of RPG Enterprises, " Philanthropy, at one level, is a personal thing. Businessmen and CEOs often promote causes that are close to their heart, and many have become closely identified with those causes and are doing very good work."
The definition of wealth, argues, Shailendra Singh, joint managing director of Percept Limited, has to extend beyond money. "We need to bring into its ambit knowledge and experience too. We've all benefitted from the wealth of experiences that has been passed down to us through generations. That's the legacy we need to create and share."
"Doing charity, contends image consultant and life coach Chhaya Momaya, who's close to Mukesh Ambani and his family, "is a matter of one's personal choice."
However, Anu Aga, director of Thermax Limited, believes otherwise. "I don't think I've the right to use wealth only for my personal enjoyment. I'm a trustee of that wealth and a part of it has to be shared with the community from which I've derived it," she says.
Wealth shouldn't be seen
Would Mukesh Ambani have been at the receiving end had his mansion not been so magnificent? Probably not. Is there, then, a case to be made for toning down?
No, says Rohini. "It is no use playing down your wealth if all it means is that you stash it away in your safes and lockers. If it's not going to be given away to build a more just society anyway, you might as well spend it openly and let it become part of the national economy at least."
Social commentator Pritsh Nandy, while conceding that it's nobody's case that the rich shouldn't live luxuriously, believes they should curb their urge to be ostentatious, lest it attract bad vibes from those not so privileged.
Echoing the same thought is Aga, who says, "I don't feel comfortable with opulent lifestyles because in the midst of poverty it's not in good taste." Begging to disagree, Momaya, pipes in, "Why can't one be allowed to enjoy the wealth one has created through hard work and enterprise? What's so outrageous about wanting to lead a lavish life if it's your own wealth that's being used to fund it?"
Concurs Singh, "We've earned the right to live the lives we want to. Look at Richard Branson. He's made his billions and he lives it up in great style. And he continues to be an inspiration. Our lifestyles can motivate the youth. Why be contrite?" Wealth creation, explains Godrej, includes economic activity and employment, which are very valuable to society.
Whither our Warren Buffetts, Bill Gates and Paul Allens?
Though there's much work happening on the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) front, when it comes to personal philanthropy, there aren't that many Azim Premjis around in our corporate world. Why?
Nandy has an answer. " In the western world since the state seizes most of your assets in death and inheritance taxes, many people prefer to write off their wealth to charities, and , not so uncommonly now, even to their dogs! Our compulsions are more moral."
What is needed, says Aga, is a change in mindset. "The wealthy in India have come out of a crippling tax structure quite recently and there's a mindset that we have given enough to the Government. Today, our taxes are most reasonable and yet, it's possible the rich are operating with the old mindset."
The new wealthy are just learning to give away their wealth, says Rohini. She continues, "Let's not forget, many Indians do not like to talk of their philanthropy." Agrees Goenka, "In a country like India where inclusive growth is an imperative, industrialists are increasingly becoming conscious of their social responsibilities."
Both Aga and Godrej point to the Tatas as a shining example of personal philanthropy. "We've our Tatas who've been philanthropists par excellence for long," says Godrej.
Giving her take on this concern, Momaya says, "Warren Buffett and Bill Gates come from a land of plenty. They've never known hunger, illiteracy, power and water shortage, so it's easy for them to propagate the virtues of giving. But for us it's different. Only when we're sure that our stomachs are full for a few generations can we start thinking about others. You'll see greater personal philanthropy from the third generation Ambanis. I already see this giving nature in Akash, Mukesh's son. Mukesh does a lot of philanthropy at his individual level, but he's not one to crow about it."
While lauding Buffett and Gates, Goenka avers, "I think Indian industrialists and corporate houses have their own home-grown, successful and time-tested models of both philanthropy and CSR."
Singh, however, strikes a note of caution. "If we're looking for Bill Gates and Warren Buffett from amongst us, we'll first have to get rid of the corruption that besets all our systems and polity."
Bottom Line!
When Momaya says Mukesh is a modern king and he's entitled to his palace, you can't but tut-tut in agreement. But we need to remember that the king has his subjects too. Corporate philanthropy has pushed ahead with gusto. Personal philanthropy could well do with a leg up, and move beyond temples and religious institutions to causes that are more urgent and pressing. "Whatever the reasons, it is time for a change in outlook and for the rich in India to practise true generosity of spirit," Aga concludes.
Noblesse Oblige?
Rohini Nilekani, chairperson of Arghyam, says, "There can be nothing mandatory about this; but people should share to ensure a stable and prosperous society, which benefits even the rich!"
Philanthropy, believes Adi Godrej, chairman of the Godrej Group, comes from the heart of the people and their desire to give back to society. "I don't think it's something that should be expected by others, but it's always welcome."
Elaborates Harsh Goenka, chairman of RPG Enterprises, " Philanthropy, at one level, is a personal thing. Businessmen and CEOs often promote causes that are close to their heart, and many have become closely identified with those causes and are doing very good work."
The definition of wealth, argues, Shailendra Singh, joint managing director of Percept Limited, has to extend beyond money. "We need to bring into its ambit knowledge and experience too. We've all benefitted from the wealth of experiences that has been passed down to us through generations. That's the legacy we need to create and share."
"Doing charity, contends image consultant and life coach Chhaya Momaya, who's close to Mukesh Ambani and his family, "is a matter of one's personal choice."
However, Anu Aga, director of Thermax Limited, believes otherwise. "I don't think I've the right to use wealth only for my personal enjoyment. I'm a trustee of that wealth and a part of it has to be shared with the community from which I've derived it," she says.
Wealth shouldn't be seen
Would Mukesh Ambani have been at the receiving end had his mansion not been so magnificent? Probably not. Is there, then, a case to be made for toning down?
No, says Rohini. "It is no use playing down your wealth if all it means is that you stash it away in your safes and lockers. If it's not going to be given away to build a more just society anyway, you might as well spend it openly and let it become part of the national economy at least."
Social commentator Pritsh Nandy, while conceding that it's nobody's case that the rich shouldn't live luxuriously, believes they should curb their urge to be ostentatious, lest it attract bad vibes from those not so privileged.
Echoing the same thought is Aga, who says, "I don't feel comfortable with opulent lifestyles because in the midst of poverty it's not in good taste." Begging to disagree, Momaya, pipes in, "Why can't one be allowed to enjoy the wealth one has created through hard work and enterprise? What's so outrageous about wanting to lead a lavish life if it's your own wealth that's being used to fund it?"
Concurs Singh, "We've earned the right to live the lives we want to. Look at Richard Branson. He's made his billions and he lives it up in great style. And he continues to be an inspiration. Our lifestyles can motivate the youth. Why be contrite?" Wealth creation, explains Godrej, includes economic activity and employment, which are very valuable to society.
Whither our Warren Buffetts, Bill Gates and Paul Allens?
Though there's much work happening on the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) front, when it comes to personal philanthropy, there aren't that many Azim Premjis around in our corporate world. Why?
Nandy has an answer. " In the western world since the state seizes most of your assets in death and inheritance taxes, many people prefer to write off their wealth to charities, and , not so uncommonly now, even to their dogs! Our compulsions are more moral."
What is needed, says Aga, is a change in mindset. "The wealthy in India have come out of a crippling tax structure quite recently and there's a mindset that we have given enough to the Government. Today, our taxes are most reasonable and yet, it's possible the rich are operating with the old mindset."
The new wealthy are just learning to give away their wealth, says Rohini. She continues, "Let's not forget, many Indians do not like to talk of their philanthropy." Agrees Goenka, "In a country like India where inclusive growth is an imperative, industrialists are increasingly becoming conscious of their social responsibilities."
Both Aga and Godrej point to the Tatas as a shining example of personal philanthropy. "We've our Tatas who've been philanthropists par excellence for long," says Godrej.
Giving her take on this concern, Momaya says, "Warren Buffett and Bill Gates come from a land of plenty. They've never known hunger, illiteracy, power and water shortage, so it's easy for them to propagate the virtues of giving. But for us it's different. Only when we're sure that our stomachs are full for a few generations can we start thinking about others. You'll see greater personal philanthropy from the third generation Ambanis. I already see this giving nature in Akash, Mukesh's son. Mukesh does a lot of philanthropy at his individual level, but he's not one to crow about it."
While lauding Buffett and Gates, Goenka avers, "I think Indian industrialists and corporate houses have their own home-grown, successful and time-tested models of both philanthropy and CSR."
Singh, however, strikes a note of caution. "If we're looking for Bill Gates and Warren Buffett from amongst us, we'll first have to get rid of the corruption that besets all our systems and polity."
Bottom Line!
When Momaya says Mukesh is a modern king and he's entitled to his palace, you can't but tut-tut in agreement. But we need to remember that the king has his subjects too. Corporate philanthropy has pushed ahead with gusto. Personal philanthropy could well do with a leg up, and move beyond temples and religious institutions to causes that are more urgent and pressing. "Whatever the reasons, it is time for a change in outlook and for the rich in India to practise true generosity of spirit," Aga concludes.
No comments:
Post a Comment