Philanthropy: Giving to one’s alma mater

There has often been criticism about donations made by high net worth (HNI) alumni to their higher education alma maters such as the IITs, as flawed philanthropy, the argument being that such institutions are already well funded and do not need these donations as much as State-run schools especially in tier two and tier three cities catering to students from marginalised and economically disadvantaged communities. These lack basic amenities such as functional toilets, access to clean drinking water, and adequate classroom infrastructure because of inadequate funding. Redirection of the funds to the latter would, goes the argument, lead to a more equitable society.

To argue thus is to misunderstand the role of philanthropy in society. It is not to make provision for those basic needs of a society which are essentially the responsibility of the State. The provision of universal and quality primary education is now recognised as one such. Unlike charity which is meant to take care of immediate distress, the role of philanthropy is to be a catalyst for invention and innovation which will advance society to a higher level.

Yes, philanthropy can and should fill the gaps and inadequacies in State provision, and it is already doing so in India. Many major philanthropists and many companies too, through their CSR contributions, are funding infrastructure development for, and reform of, school education.

But funding the needs of higher education is perhaps a more important role for philanthropy at present because, contrary to popular perception, higher education is underfunded, especially for research. Though public expenditure on all education has increased tremendously since independence from ₹64.46 crore or 0.64 % of GDP in 1951-52 to ₹50,078 crore allocated in the 2025-26 Union budget for higher education alone, this is still 0.33% of GDP, quite insufficient to ensure expansion of seats to meet the unmet demand for higher education and improvement in quality.

The quality of teaching and learning in both public and private institutions is by and large low because of this underfunding of higher education. The system churns out ill-prepared and unemployable graduates due to a chronic shortage of faculty, poor quality teaching, outdated and rigid curricula and pedagogy, lack of accountability and quality assurance, and separation of research and teaching. India spends less than the other fast-growing economies on research and development. If India wants to become a superpower it must spend more on cutting edge research and innovation in medicine, science and especially in new and emerging technology by more funding of centres of excellence.

Whatever gains we have made in technology have come these institutions like DRDO, ISRO and a few public and private universities like the IITs.

Historically, in the West, and in India too, higher education has been developed by private philanthropically-minded individuals. Many of the institutions like Oxford, MIT, Harvard, and in India the Indian Institute of Science, the Birla Institute of Technology, as well as the IIM, Ahmedabad, Grant Medical College and others which have contributed to breakthroughs in science, technology and medicine have been first established through philanthropic donations. They gave India the technological and scientific personnel that would enable it to step into the industrial age. Today too we need centres of excellence to deliver solutions to many of our current challenges, including the climate crisis, and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for new solutions to poverty and poor health. Presently there are too few endowments for Chairs of Eminence or for Distinguished Fellows that would raise the status of an institution to an internationally recognised Centre of Excellence. Such centres need to be nurtured, if not through State funding, then by private philanthropy, of which alumni donations is part. The cause of equity can be served if the donations are also used to increase the number of merit scholarships for research, especially for those from the weaker sections, are increased.

The recent case of Harvard university standing up to an arbitrary exercise of power by the Trump government gives an added reason for giving to our reputed universities and institutions. Only with independent funding can they speak truth to power.

Compared to the West, far too few alumni give back to their alma maters to pay back for the quality education received by them at highly subsidised rates. Fortunately, there are some notable exceptions of such giving by Nandan Nilekani, Narayana Murthy, Kris Gopalakrishnan, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta, and Kishore Chivukula. They have given mainly for research to professional institutes and research institutions, for non-traditional scientific research and development. Their numbers need to increase.

But several constraints prevent such philanthropy from growing. One of these is the government refusal to give autonomy to public or publicly aided educational institutions. Donors of scale, whether NRIs or Indians, hesitate to commit large resources unless they also have a say in its use and an institutionalised mechanism to have their voice heard.

One reason why Indian Institute of Science (IISc) has attracted such a large donation from Kris Gopalkrishnan is that it has set up the new Brain Research Centre as an autonomous society, which gives it full freedom to operate, free from government rules and regulations, while also drawing on the intellectual and physical facilities of the institute campus.

While the corporate sector and India's elite can be criticised for not paying sufficient attention to India's public universities, where many of them studied, universities must also shoulder some blame. Apart from a few exceptions like the IITs and the IISc, Bengaluru, higher education institutions have, in fact, not attempted to tap the huge alumni resource through aggressive fund raising.

Unfortunately, more aggressive fund raising will not help unless the regulatory regime changes. It is difficult, if not downright counterproductive, for public colleges and universities to tap private resources or seek to leverage old school ties with alumni because of the University Grants Commission’s practice of deducting such philanthropic contributions from a university’s grant-in-aid. It leaves little incentive for these institutes to conduct aggressive fundraising campaigns. A more enabling regulatory regime would surely help.

This article is authored by Pushpa Sundar, writer on philanthropy and author of Giving With A Thousand Hands: The Changing Face of Indian Philanthropy, New Delhi.