I would say that I am blessed with a very very good executive team that operates reasonably autonomously each of the companies. We have a review system, I am the non executive chairman of, nine or so, of the major companies. And on the nine companies it’s a little trying because you jump from one industry to another as the case may be but one has a reasonable knowledge of those nine activities and it’s been an exciting job.

I think that’s the excitement of the job, that’s been part of the adrenaline that it gives you.

I think there are many honest businessmen, I think there are many that bend. I’m happy that I have not bent, not that I am dishonest, that I have not bent.

Working on the shop floor as a young man, I saw close up the misery and hardship of the less fortunate and thought about how one makes a difference to improve lives. As I moved up through departments and divisions, I continued to see hardship and had more opportunities to do something about it. Now I’m trying to take the Tata Trusts to a different level of relevance in the 21st century to maximize the benefits the trusts seek to bring to disadvantaged communities.

If I put it into one sentence, I think you really want to be doing things that make a difference. If you cannot make a difference, it’s just water trickling through a tap or leaking through a drainage system; it’s wasteful. Dr. [Jonas] Salk must have had a tremendous feeling of satisfaction when he developed the polio vaccine. Similarly, I think going after causes where you make a difference, rather than scratch the surface, is very much in keeping with the trend in new philanthropic endeavors.

A fair amount of our early philanthropy was in the form of charity to alleviate individual hardships—helping people with money for dialysis or for surgery, for example. And we worked with a lot of NGOs, supporting them with grants. We’ll continue to help alleviate individual hardships and support NGOs, but we also want to be more involved and to manage projects ourselves. We want to enhance our impact and ensure that interventions are sustainable. The question is: Can we fund a research project that aims to eliminate or control a certain disease and, therefore, has the potential to benefit a larger number of people, or should we stick with helping individuals suffering from that disease? We believe we can make a greater difference through large projects that serve mankind.

I have been emphasizing that the trusts must be concerned about the sustainability of the communities where they work. Until recently, we would support an NGO for 8 or 10 years, and then want to move those funds to another community. We would assume that this community was now self-sustaining, but it wasn’t. So when we withdrew our funds, the NGO collapsed, the village programs collapsed, and we became the most hated organization in the village. So, sustainability is a new calling for the trusts.

Yes, at all times. The greatest challenge one has in working with NGOs is finding those that are well organized and not just a well-intentioned entity run by a bunch of society people. Those sorts of people often run something badly, have little or no financial discipline, and think they are doing a great thing when they are actually wasting resources. In recent years, we have asked for grants back when NGOs haven’t performed as they promised. This has added to our cost because it involves a fair amount of auditing and visiting and evaluating progress. It has also given us a great feel for which NGOs can be turned around by assisting them and those that can’t. In which case, they get their funds from somewhere else, not from us.

My advice is to do thorough research before deciding where to get involved. A lot of money is less effectively used than it could be because an organization has not done enough research. Today, a large amount of philanthropy in India is deployed in traditional forms like building a temple or a hospital. India has to move into a more sophisticated form of philanthropy that is designed to make a difference rather than just building edifices.

There is a tremendous need for NGOs and philanthropic organizations to consider partnering with government agencies. Unfortunately, there has been a view that the government shuns collaborating with NGOs or philanthropic groups because officials consider the so-called welfare of the people to be their business. But our own experience in working with state governments has been very positive. We have terrific cooperation, and without the infrastructure that government agencies have built, we could never have achieved the impact we have today.

Very often an NGO ignores or forgets the traditional outlooks of the community they are working in, and because of that, what they are trying to do, however well-intentioned, doesn’t work. Also, corruption and collusion can divert resources to personal use. For example, about five years ago we were funding 10 schools through an NGO in Bihar. On one of our site visits, we found that the principals and teachers were coming to school and signing in, then leaving the children unattended. The children played all day, and their parents didn’t even know. The students never got an education. But the principals and teachers got paid. To make matters worse, the government was paying for midday meals, but the kids never got fed. The money was divided between the principals and the teachers. So we stopped giving grants to those 10 schools. Who suffered? The kids suffered, and we were the nasty people who stopped the grant. But what could we do? A lot of that goes on. And now with the requirement that large companies in India devote 2 percent of profits to CSR [corporate social responsibility], a whole bunch of NGOs have lined up to receive these funds. What we will need to do is to see how much of this is well spent and how much just gets short-circuited.

There could be a fair amount of abuse of these funds, and the government will have to do some regulation to make sure that the money is used effectively. It would not be a bad thing if the government designated a number of causes to which companies could give these funds. Even large public works projects could be funded this way. The government may have to define what the projects are and be ready to ensure oversight.

I think many CEOs would say that they are doing it because it is required. But if we can get even a small number committed to making a difference, I think we will get projects that will be showcased of what one can do with such funds. CSR could become an avenue for innovative thinking of how you can improve the quality of life of the people of India, or it could be wasted.

I think what I would like to do is to leave behind a sustainable entity of a set of companies that operate in an exemplary manner in terms of ethics, values and continue what our ancestors left behind. Not my legacy alone but a continuation of the legacy that extends over the last over a hundred years. I hope my successor will be as committed to that as I have tried to be. My only regret is that I am not 20 years younger because I think India is going through a very exciting period in its history.

There is always a pitfall to anything you do. I was going to say, if you take risks, there will be pitfalls; but even if you don’t take risks, there can still be pitfalls. Another thing that I advocated very early when I took over, was that we should look at acquisitions and mergers as an inorganic means of growth, not organic growth alone. I think globalisation just made the availability of target companies that much bigger than they were in India. That would be the only difference.