Pragmatic and Paradoxical Philanthropy: Tatas’ Gift Giving and Scientific Development in India

Abstract

Despite the growing interest in organized philanthropy from India, scholarship on the subject has remained thin. Existing literature argues that Indian philanthropy has been shaped by three, sometimes overlapping, narratives of managerialism, modernization and nationalism. Departing from such smooth and singular narratives, this article contends that modern Indian philanthropy has been shaped by colonialism, imperialism, managerialism, modernity, nationalism, nation building, neoliberalism and secularism. The particular ways in which it has been shaped can be understood as both pragmatic and paradoxical. The article draws on the history of philanthropy of the house of Tatas, India's leading corporate group, geared toward scientific development in the 20 th century.I would like to thank the three reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments.

‘You've Been Framed’: A critical review of academic discourse on philanthrocapitalism

“…Philanthrocapitalism is also seen as an approach to corporate philanthropy or a form of corporate social responsibility (CSR); both terms are used interchangeably in the philanthrocapitalism discourse as any corporate activity that exceeds legal obligations in pursuit of social or environmental objectives (Godfrey et al., 2017; Kumar, 2018). Whereas proponents praise corporate efforts to address development‐related issues, Metzger et al.…”

Emerging infrastructures: the politics of radium and the validation of radiotherapy in India’s first tertiary cancer hospital

“…Philanthropy also worked to reinforce the power structures of "patron-recipient bonds" between companies and citizens in contexts of vast inequality (Palsetia 2005, p. 202; also see: Piliavsky 2014; Raianu 2017). Specifically, Kumar (2018) identifies Parsi hospitals as creating a space which viewed philanthropy as "a collaborative political community" between citizens, the Parsi elite, and the British government (4). Thus, philanthropically funded Parsi hospitals were both a means of social welfare and a means to reinforce an ideology of the necessity of big businesses.…”

“…As the scientific nationalist aspirations of the state emerged, Vevaina (2018) has shown how, while philanthropy "remain [ed], what [was] subject to interpretation [was] who [and what was] worthy" of being a beneficiary (Vevaina 2018, p. 248). For the Tatas, Arun Kumar (2018) has shown that the Tata Trust's philanthropy was pragmatic: it "was attuned to what was practical and not necessarily theoretical, principled, or normative considerations" (17; Markovits 1996Markovits , 2008. In other words, to attempt to maintain the benefits formerly awarded to their philanthro-capitalist projects, the Trust's philanthropy began to cater to the interests of scientific nationalism.…”

“…In other words, to attempt to maintain the benefits formerly awarded to their philanthro-capitalist projects, the Trust's philanthropy began to cater to the interests of scientific nationalism. For example, by the mid-1940s, the Tata Trust began to reserve 10 percent of their budget for scientific investment (Kumar 2018). With this funding, the Tatas partially funded a National Physical Laboratory, a National Chemical Laboratory, and a National Metallurgical Laboratory (Phalkey 2013).…”

Is the influence of neoliberalism on development norms waning? Evidence from the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

“…This implies further that the idea that neoliberalism is the framework in which political and economic decisions are embedded cannot be taken for granted, as it often is. Much recent work on, for example, gender (Bessa, 2019), conflicts over land (Nair, 2019), sustainable development (Borras Jr. & Franco, 2018;Brisbois et al, 2019;Kauffman & Martin, 2017;Sealey-Huggins, 2017), labour relations (Agarwala, 2019), resource extraction (Childs & Hearn, 2017;Gilberthorpe & Rajak, 2017), state-community relations (Bennett, 2018;Devika, 2017;Schilling-Vacaflor & Eichler, 2017;Vijayakumar, 2018), philanthropy (Kumar, 2018) and microcredit (Guérin & Kumar, 2017) tends to refer rather uncritically to neoliberalism as the decisive context for social and economic change. Moreover, this literature employs the term to describe both state deregulation and increased government control of populations, making neoliberalism a rather blurred concept.…”