DR. FIAZ MAQBOOL FAZILI
A big hang up of our times — sometimes found even in those involved in socio-religious work — is the focus on doing something big. We want to be associated with big projects. big NGO, s. We want to serve the cause of society or religion in a big way. Big deeds, big names, big rewards, big success, here and in the life after. Who can argue with that? It assumes that the reward for a good deed is based on its value as perceived by us. In today’s social media-driven world, philanthropy is no longer just about silent charity—it’s also about visibility, branding, and networking. A curious trend has emerged: many high-profile philanthropists are frequently seen in selfies and public appearances with politicians, celebrities, and corporate tycoons. While charity should ideally be selfless, the constant mingling of philanthropy with power raises questions: Is this about genuine social change, or is it a strategic play for influence, validation, and personal branding? This piece explores why prominent philanthropists are so often photographed with the powerful, the motivations behind these alliances, and the implications for society.
The allure of proximity of Philanthropists to power and easy access to resources and influence, no matter how wealthy, often need political and bureaucratic support to execute large-scale projects. A photo-op with a chief minister, minister, or business leader can lead to last-track approvals for NGOs, trusts, or CSR initiatives. Secure funding through government partnerships or corporate sponsorships help in gaining legitimacy in the eyes of the public and media. Example: Many top philanthropists are seen alongside the powerful, and VVIPs be it state CMs, Minsters, MPs, business tycoons, administrative executives, Bollywood celebrities etc during charity events—this isn’t accidental but strategic networking. Human psychology craves recognition, and the wealthy are no exception. Being seen with powerful figures serves as a status symbol (“I matter enough to be in their circle”).
Proof of credibility (“If the CM, Minster, Mp , business magnate, administrative Secretaries or Commissioners- CEOs of Institution trusts me, so should social validation & elite acceptance be a way to enter elite social circles, which can lead to more business or social opportunities. We have seen even many top rich people , despite their massive philanthropic work, are often photographed with global leaders—partly because his foundation’s work requires policy influence.
We are living in an era when there is “branding of philanthropy”. In the age of Instagram and Twitter, FB charity is also a branding exercise where philanthropy is used as a PR tool. Posting selfies with powerful people helps build a “do-gooder” image—useful for business reputations. We have many names in K- land who fit this description. Also, engaging in philanthropy helps in distracting from controversies** (e.g., industrialists facing corruption charges suddenly appearing in charity galas) especially when it attracts wide media coverage, ensuring their philanthropy gets maximum visibility. Example: Some corporate-funded NGOs organize high-profile social or entertainment events with Bollywood stars, VVIPs and politicians—not just for the cause, but for the headlines.
What is new in philanthropy is the trending “Celebrity Philanthropy”. Social media has blurred the lines between charity and celebrity culture. Influencers, business tycoons, and even politicians engage in “performative philanthropy”—where the act of giving is as important as the impact. Viral altruism speaks about a selfie with a poor child or a politician at a charity event garner more likes than a detailed report on actual social impact. Virtue signalling as public displays of charity help individuals signal their morality without necessarily committing to long-term change.
The Mutual Benefits: What power figures gain? Politicians need philanthropists too. It’s not a one-way street. Politicians and bureaucrats also benefit from being seen with philanthropists because it boosts their “pro-people” image—associating with charity makes them look compassionate. They gain access to private funding for pet projects (e.g., smart cities, healthcare schemes). They can influence NGO agendas—some philanthropists avoid controversial issues to stay in favour. Example: Many government schemes today are “public-private partnerships,” where philanthropists , politicians and industrialists collaborate—often with photo-ops.
Corporate-Philanthropy-Politics Nexus-Big businesses use philanthropy lobby for favourable policies (tax breaks, relaxed regulations). Whitewash reputation (e.g., a mining company funding environmental NGOs). Gain indirect political leverage—funding a politician’s pet project can ensure future support. Example: Some industrialists fund educational trusts that align with government priorities, ensuring smoother business dealings.
The Dark Side: When philanthropy becomes a power game we sense the Illusion of change. Many high-profile charity events are more about networking than real impact. The poor remain poor, but the elite get another photo for their LinkedIn profile. Selective empathy by some philanthropists often focuses on “trendy” causes (e.g., women’s empowerment, startups) while ignoring harder issues (caste discrimination, labour rights). Why? Because the former gets more media and political attention. There is erosion of trust when people see philanthropists constantly cozying up to those in power, they start questioning motives: Is this charity or a business strategy? Are they helping society or buying influence? Are they promoting their business influences under the guise of philanthropy Example: Some NGOs receiving funding beyond crowd face scrutiny—are they truly independent, or are they influenced by their personal, business or political agendas? A Q always baffles me. Can philanthropy be truly selfless? I feel the answer lies much needed for greater transparency. Public disclosure of funding sources and partnerships. Independent audits of NGO impact beyond just PR reports.
Grassroots vs. Elite Philanthropy-Real change often comes from small, local NGOs—not just billionaire foundations. Supporting them reduces dependency on power networks.Social Media Vigilance-The public must question: Why is this philanthropist always with politicians, Vips , people of power and influence ?Have your own assessment on “ show off( Riyakari) and real God mindfulness..What policy changes follow these photo-ops?
Philanthropy or Power Play?The trend of philanthropists seeking selfies with the powerful is not inherently wrong; networking is part of modern charity. But when philanthropy becomes a tool for personal branding, political access, or corporate lobbying, it risks losing its moral core. Undoubtedly on our K-Land too we have examples of philanthropists who avoid this trend and work silently? Or case studies where charity became a front for lobbying?
True change requires more than photo-ops; it demands accountability, transparency, and a focus on real impact over social media validation. The next time we see a smiling philanthropist with a politician, we should ask: Is this about serving the people—or serving their own influence?
Author is a Surgeon at Mubarak hospital, Healthcare policy analyst, Certified Professional in Quality improvement in Hospitals can be reached at drfiazfazili@gmail.com
