King in the Pack

Since the success of Five Point Someone, a number of books about campus life (now termed as campus novels) have been written. Books like Above Average, Everything You Desire, Keep Off the Grass etc portray the curious and bizarre experiences in premier institutes of our country, mostly IITs and IIMs. Recently, I read one such book recently called Jocker in the Pack: An Irreverent View of Life at IIMs by two IIM alumni. Almost like a documentary, the book chronicles stories about ragging, placements, summers, events, friends and girls at IIMB. To my surprise, I found striking similarities between the life at IMT and IIMB as described in the book. Being a part of two tier-2 institutes, NITW and IMT, I always wonder that apart from placements, is there anything worthwhile which differentiates IITs and IIMs (which I call tier-1 institutes) and the other premier institutes (i.e. tier-2s).

Let us take tier-2 engineering colleges which include NITs and a handful of top state engineering colleges. Almost everyone who joins them has appeared for IIT-JEE and majority of them clear the JEE screening phase. But minor mistakes like one wrong differentiation, one incomplete force diagram, one forgotten chemical formula, or worse, one spelling mistake in the JEE Mains cost them admissions to the mighty IITs, and they land up into one of these tier-2s, definitely unjustifiable to the copious amount of talent they possess.

Similar is the case with MBA aspirants. Nobody dreams of joining NITIE, MDI, SIBM and IMT etc after preparing hard for what is termed as one of the toughest entrance exams in the world. But one calculation mistake in quants, one wasted minute in drinking water during exam, or worse, an option (b) wrongly marked as (c) shatters their dreams of entering into IIMs.

Thus most of the students of tier-2 institutes reach there not by choice but as a compromise, though still happy to end up in one of the best institutes if not the best ones. And there’s no denying the fact that they stand shoulder to shoulder, even a notch above, their tier-1 counterparts in the corporate world. In NITW, I and my friend used to crib a lot about pathetic state of affairs in our institute and the discussions would always end with “That is why NITs can never be IITs”. Surprisingly, even at IMT, almost like a déjà vu, we crib on similar issues and say “That is why IMT can never match IIMs”.

I just hope that our tier-1 counterparts, all pumped up with excessive pride, realize that their institute is not worth the exclusive glory it commands in an average Indian’s mind. After all, if they are the Aces, we are no less than the Kings in the pack who are at least a cut above the remaining twelve cards. And I wonder if someone from IMT will ever write a book about the ecstasies, doldrums and idiosyncrasies of life at IMT.

Isn’t Charity Selfish?

The Joy-of-Giving Week started on Sep 27 culminated yesterday with lot of support from NGOs, press, media, corporate, institutes and celebrities. It is being termed as the biggest national philanthropic drive ever. NGOs organized clothes collection drive for poor, 5 star hotels organized buffets for charity, colleges organized cultural fests and awareness campaigns etc. The total sum collected through these initiatives is not yet calculated but we just hope that all of it reaches the deserving people.

Let us get to the topic of this discussion: ‘Why charity?’ Charity, according to dictionary, is an act of liberality to or provision for those in need or distress; or in simple terms: alms-giving. Thus charity and philanthropy have always been considered as selfless deeds, concerned more about the receiver rather than the giver. But I believe that though the end benefit to the receiver is more recognizable and pertinent from societal point of view, the selfish motive holds dear to the giver more than anything else. Following few examples establish my hypothesis.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest philanthropic organization in the world, aims to enhance healthcare, reduce extreme poverty and expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. It has donated heavily for the cause of HIV research, vaccination and immunization programs, agricultural development in African countries, various disaster relief funds, hygiene and sanitation, scholarships in US universities etc. But BMGF has been criticized for its hidden motives to reap profits for Microsoft by investing (i.e. donating) only in those countries where it wants to expand its business. It is seen as a way to appease governments and citizens of these countries. Also, it has promoted the cause of education only in USA which is its biggest market, and not in under developed nations that actually lack in educational infrastructure.

Reliance and GE, on the other hand, are organizations that do not believe in much of outright charity. In a recent event, Jeff Immelt and Mukesh Ambani agreed in unison that providing rightful income opportunity to each and every individual is the most effective form of charity. It creates a win-win for the individual as well as the organization and increases the overall productivity of the society.

There are multiple examples of organizations worldwide that have done philanthropy and reaped indirect benefits. In fact, CSR is now taught in B-schools not merely as giving-back-to-society but as a strategic brand building activity. Thus it can be reasonably accepted that any profit organization has some tangible selfish motive while they take up CSR.

Charity by individuals, on the other hand, can have both emotional and tangible benefits. People do all sorts of charities to reap tangible benefits like publicity, recognition, fame, image building, media attention, alibi for unlawful activities etc. The emotional ones, however, are a bit more complex and rest mostly in our subconscious. Some may want to purge off their sins by helping the poor, while to others it gives self satisfaction, improves self confidence etc.

Recently, one of my friends asked me my motivation behind joining Teach India. Though the reasons are multiple and have even changed during the past two months, I found it worth giving a thought to this question. I like to consider myself as a selfish person and hence dispassionate about unproductive charities. My initial intention to join TI was simple: I was getting bored with my life and had too much of free time. One day during summer, I watched 3 movies consecutively but forgot the name of 2 of them the very next day. I said to myself, “What the hell! I got to do something more productive and worthwhile.” TI ads were appearing on TOI those days and so I enrolled.

But later, as the free time become sparse and I got busy with studies, I still enjoyed those 5-6 hours per week of teaching. And the new motive, as I figured out, was the feeling of ‘pride’ and ‘contentedness’ which came from the realization that I have the potential to distribute knowledge, which in actuality is not true. Though these terms sound presumptuous and condescending, they are not. We always prefer to choose things, maybe subconsciously, which give us pleasure and happiness one way or the other. And to me, this feeling of contentedness by teaching children gives me happiness and self-assurance.

This brings me to NGOs, which most people would contend, are truly selfless. They bring together a bunch of like minded people and give them a platform to perform philanthropic activities. But isn’t an NGO run by people who may have individual selfish motives behind their actions? Aren’t NGOs just means for these people to realize these motives?

After reading this discourse, a believer of selflessness would think of me as a paranoid with limited knowledge and viewpoint. But these are my personal views and I would graciously accept contrary views. In fact, after saying all this, I must accept that I have seen a few true philanthropists and have been unable to figure out any selfish motives behind their charitable actions.

In the end, whether its an act of selfishness or selflessness, the society should not be concerned with the motive. We must only ensure that the alms reach the neediest ones. After all, everyone deserves his rightful share of God’s grace and the philanthropist could only be a chosen delivery-man to deliver the gift.