I read this article in the Cultural Connect (thanks, Sumaya) on desis and philanthropy that I’ve been mulling over for the past few days. NYU law student Maneka Sinha argues, among other things, that: a) South Asian Americans are more likely than other Americans of color to engage in international philanthropy and less likely to donate to American causes, b) the reason for this trend is because most South Asians identify as brown first rather than as American, and c) brown people should donate to domestic causes in order to assert our American identity to the mainstream population.
I have many thoughts on the article. But first, let’s go through Sinha’s arguments:
The national US population only donate to international causes at a rate of 2.2% of all charitable activity. Minority groups, on the other hand, tend to “give back” on an international scale at a higher rate of 13%. Though as a whole minority groups focus on international giving at higher rates, there are discrepancies between these rates among different ethnic groups. While all minority groups demonstrate a strong tradition of giving at home and abroad, African Americans tend to focus a large degree of their charitable activity on domestic efforts supporting community churches, other community organizations, and education. Asian Americans place the least emphasis on international giving, focusing a majority of charitable efforts on the Asian American community and education. The Latino community gives internationally at a level somewhere between those of the Black and Asian American communities and also tends to focus its charitable efforts on its own community here in the US as well as on education. However, South Asian Americans in particular often give back to communities tied not to their own upbringing, but to their parents’ upbringing – namely, communities in South Asia.
And that’s a problem because…
Though it may be hard to swallow, the truth remains that we are American – we’ve been raised, trained, and educated here. If we don’t establish ourselves as an active force investing in the development of our communities and in aiding those members of the American population less fortunate than our own “model” South Asian community, our kids won’t either. And not only that, we will continue to remain somewhat isolated in a nation that benefits from our skills, talents and brainpower. Cringing at the thought of being “American” without addressing the underlying reasons why we shy away from that label is not an option – it is necessary to give back to the communities where our future generations will be raised in. Showing the mainstream population that we identify as American and are fully invested in the betterment of our local communities will help the general population appreciate us as such and ultimately allow us to shatter some of those glass ceilings.
I disagree with most of these arguments. First, I think it’s important to re-evaluate what constitutes as “charitable giving.” I gave two years of my life to teaching in an under-performing school in New York City. That was my way of paying back society. But my work as a teacher wouldn’t be included under Sinha’s definition of “giving.” So I think it’s important to note that while many South Asians probably aren’t contributing financially to domestic causes, there are also several of us who have made public service to our fellow Americans our life’s work. I’d be more interested in an article that includes people who’ve chosen the public sector as a career path at any given time under the category of “domestic givers” and then see if Sinha comes up with the same conclusions.
Second, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong or un-American about wanting to give to international causes as opposed to domestic ones. Many Jewish Americans prefer to donate to Israeli causes as opposed to others — does that make them any less American than anyone else? So why should the burden be on brown people to prove how American we are by showing less interest in the motherland? Why the double standard?
I also don’t buy Sinha’s argument that glass ceilings for brown people will shatter once we start giving domestically. If that really were the case, then other people of color — who Sinha argues contribute more domestically than we do — would no longer be subject to glass ceilings, either.
That all being said, however, I’d like to see a more comprehensive article that details where exactly South Asian Americans donate philanthropically. I have a hunch that most Hindus, specifically, would rather contribute to their local temples first before donating elsewhere. I also think that part of the reason we don’t see many South Asians giving back to their own community in America through setting up scholarship funds for low-income desi teenagers or volunteering to teach English to newly arrived South Asian immigrants is because many of us are in the dark when it comes to those in our community who are less well-off. And I don’t think that’s out of selfishness or denial — it’s simply because we haven’t had the gift of time in this country like other groups have to establish social services for our own. So in future generations, our attitudes towards giving will probably change — not out of wanting to become more American, but most likely because our perception of who is most in need will probably change as well.
It’s probably true that desis give more to charities abroad than other groups within the U.S. But, as has been mentioned before, I think the author’s reasoning leaves a lot to be desired. I also don’t think that reorienting your funding proportions to U.S. charities is going to help you break the glass ceiling. That comment is so ludicrous I don’t even know where to begin. By the author’s own stats we donate roughly 13% abroad – so the other 87% giving we do domestically apparently doesn’t count? Is she also going to factor in remittances? If we don’t spend a higher % than others in abroad spending than in the domestic economy, does that mean we’re less American as well?
As has been mentioned, part of the reason folks may donate more heavily abroad to “South Asia” could be because of feelings of “brownness,” but it could also be because South Asia is one of the poorest regions of the world, rivaling sub-Saharan Africa. I personally feel that I grew up in a household where we had more discussions around international affairs than the average U.S. household, and we also did a lot of giving to NGOs. Perhaps these conversations lead to a greater sense of understanding and agency when it comes to international affairs. But it’s not like the money my parents gave to Amnesty International took away from their donations to the Southern Poverty Law Center and United Negro College Fund.
Throughout my time in college, the 2nd gen. community would come together to fund issues abroad because a) we could all agree that life was bad or there was poverty abroad, and b) this was a way to build unity across our parents’ borders, especially when it comes to issues like disaster relief. And folks donated really heavily to other issues, also, it’s just that we didn’t agree on all the same items, so our funding (as a group) was more disperse.
Additionally, donating to religious institutions in the U.S. is not some awful or undesirable thing that desis do in some rate higher than other groups. I bet if you compared this with other ethnic groups across the board you would find comparable rates of African Americans giving to churches/mosques, Jews giving to synagogues, practicing Christians giving to their own churches, etc.
Oh, sorry another point. Sinha writes:
While I am the first to argue that South Asian Americans grow up in a diversity of class situations and neighborhoods, maybe the people she’s asking in law school grew up in affluent neighborhoods and don’t see a need to give money to people who are already well off?
Joat, I believe the idea of tax deductible giving is American, Rockefeller instituted, but giving, whether via tithe or as any kind of alms, is old and probably universal.
NvM, you said it.
inside the beltway, you make an important point–every one of us except American Indians has fealties elsewhere, regardless of when we came, and no matter how long we stay, so it’s tricky to measure one’s involvement in being American by these means.
inside the beltway, you make an important point–every one of us except American Indians has fealties elsewhere
Right, except that American Indians have primary fealty to their tribe or nation, and then fealty to America, if at all.
Do you guys know what you are talking about, tax deductible giving is prevalant in all parts of the world as is charitable giving per se. Section 80G of the Indian Income Tax Act specifically deals with tax deductible donations. I am not sure why and how these concepts become uniquely American.
I’m not sure I entirely agree with the author in this article. Other minority groups, like Jews, Mexicans, Filipinos, send money back to their ‘homelands’ in different forms. Maybe south asian americans are more likely to remit money through formal, organized structures like temples or NGOs, but other groups send just as much money back through informal remittances. This money goes to provide food, education, housing for their own families – how can you argue that isn’t as valid as contributing to a NGO?
And a question for you all – do you think philanthropic giving to the homeland dwindles as generations pass on? maybe south asian americans will be giving back more to the ‘american’ community when we have reached the fourth or fifth gen.
and finally, just consider philanthropy does not = justice. most people don’t want charity, they want social justice.
A few points:
(1) I give based not on location but on need. I give monetarily to charities in India because they are in more dire straits than their US counterparts. (2) However, I donate my time to local causes through a volunteer outreach organization. (3) What of all those South Asian Americans (1st or 2nd generations) who throw thousands of dollars to religious organizations in India? (eg. Swaminarayan). Yes, those groups do good–but they also build embarrasingly outrageous temples (Akshardam) right out of Indian slums.
Excellent post, Naina. It sure gets one thinking.
Reminds me of Whitman’s words – Behold I do not give lectures or a little charity, When I give I give myself
The big charities within the US make the money circulate within the same communities – initial conditions followed by positive feedback loops. If only I had the money to give – I would change the initial conditions and then one positive feedback loop can compete with another. The day I earn my money, a portion of it goes to improve the lives of poor children of India. Till then, I can set up payment gateways that channel the money straight from credit cards to bank accounts of NGOs who are doing good work. I am sick and tired of the idiotic small complaints and vacuous vanities of people in this country.
I hope not. I hope the salad bowl wins over the melting pot. John Lennon is fine, but the world will be so boring, robbed off its diversity.
[Link]
From the stock exchange to the slums and villages. Donate your money today. And it can be a win-win situation, according to this World bank study. And do listen to P Sainath’s talk here.
May be it is a strong reaction, but I am reading Chomsky now. So there.
A good start is to get away from these abstract words, and look at some pictures and movies, smell the smells, and get real. Then there wouldn’t be the need for any to and fro argumentation.
another thing to take into consideration is that comparing poverty in north america to poverty in africa is like saying that my not having healthcare at the moment is the same as people who do not have any access at all to healthcare in other countries. two different scales – it’s somewhat foolish to compare contributing to south asia versus contributing to our present communities.
maybe another fundamental difference is that most of us are not living in south asia, so we are physically unable to go there and engage in community service, whereas we can hope that we all do some form of service in our own communities.
“And a quick glance at American history, clearly shows the context of the Statue of Liberty included immigrants of all racial backgrounds, right? It’s very disingenuous to quote such statements outside of the context it was intended.” Disingenuous? Moi? Maybe you shouldn’t glance so quickly. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French, who had been quite pro-human rights, ever since they guillotined their king, queen, and several hundred aristocrats in 1792 or so. The year of the gift was 1886. The Jews were considered pretty exotic, and had only just started to come in numbers; the author of the poem was a Jewish woman. The Civil War and emancipation were only 20 years gone. A former Civil War general, Joshua Chamberlain, as governor of Maine, argued that the Chinese ought to be allowed free entry into the U.S. because they were intelligent, hard working, law abiding, and all that good stuff. He thought they’d make grand citizens and couldn’t understand why officials were balking and making laws against such entry. This was someone who had been raised among only two races, Europeans and American Indians, and been around one other, American blacks. Yet he could see the Chinese here, and he wasn’t alone. By the very early years of the 20th century, they were indeed coming to America from the four corners of the earth. I once worked in the archives for Ellis Island and saw detailed files for persons from: Korea, China, blacks from the Carribbean, Hindus from India (yes!), illegals and legals from Mexico, Serbia, Syria, Sweden, Greece, Russia… But did the typical “Americans” of the 1880s see the country as “multi-ethnic” as it is today? I dunno. Do you think your great-great-great grandparents saw you where you are now?
I
The year of the gift was 1886. The Jews were considered pretty exotic, and had only just started to come in numbers; the author of the poem was a Jewish woman.
Jews from Eastern Europe (i.e. the Ashkenazim) might have been considered exotic, but there were already sizable populations of Jewish Americans by 1886, mostly of Sephardic extraction, via England and the Netherlands.
There are synagogues in the Carolinas that predate the Revolutionary War by almost a century, after all.
But major props for working Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain into a post! 🙂
But you are talking about giving of $. Americans give a lot of their time to charity or community and it wasn’t until I moved to this country that I even heard of such a concept. People volunteering on the weekends to feed the homeless and hungry. The whole concept of “giving back to community” is something I learnt only after coming to this country.
And you are talking about tax deductions which really only make a dent for the rich. The average American might give a few $100 a year, really it’s not that much of a huge dent to motivate anyone to give. Giving is for the everyday American about the actual act of giving, not the tax deduction. We are talking about Joe Schmoe not Rockefeller.
Americans give a lot of their time to charity or community and it wasn’t until I moved to this country that I even heard of such a concept. People volunteering on the weekends to feed the homeless and hungry. The whole concept of “giving back to community” is something I learnt only after coming to this country.
You must have not heard about Vinoba Bhave, the Bhodan movement…….the entire Gandhian movement, the Sabarmati Ashram………Mother Teresa, and Calcutta****………or the entire concept of karma……..hospitals through Satya Sai Baba, Ramakrishna Param Hansa foundations……..Bhagat Puran Singh of Pingalwara.
They are people who dedicate their life to ailing, and destitude in India, something after retirement.
Birlas for nearly hundreds of years have done some amazing philantropy……the great legacy of their educational institutes in addition to temples and what not.
It is true that Rockefeller took institutionalized philantropy to a new level, and it was probably his Christian faith and massive wealth.
*** they are regular Ram and Sita people in Indiyah who volunteer Teresa’s foundations and others for weekends.
“…but there were already sizable populations of Jewish Americans by 1886, mostly of Sephardic extraction, via England and the Netherlands.” Sorry–operative words were “in numbers.” Working in the archives and D.C. will do that. The Irish had been here for a long time before the deluge of the 1840-50s, but not until then did they become politically or culturally sinificant. Ditto the Italians–not till 1875 were they numerically significant in large U.S. cities. I think desis are “numerically” significant in some areas of the U.S. now. There’s the old story about the Connecticut Yankee who wanted to see what a Jew looked like and walked a couple hundred miles to Boston, or some port city where the Jewish gentleman had recently set up shop. When he arrived he had a look, and said disappointedly, “You just look like everybody else.” With the Old Testament sensibility of Yankees, he had probably been expecting Jeremiah in eastern robes and a beard. Yes, I was glad to be able to work old Josh in. Joshua Chamberlain is one of my heros.
So?
And as they became more white/American they became more accepted.
There’s a hint of pejorativeness in calling someone “hard working, intelligent..” as well, but regardless of what Chamberlain said, he was obviously in the minority
Kush #63,
Muct better articulated then I could have. Half knowledge doesn’t serve anyone any good, to further elaborate the point n #63, some more material to read.
different viewpoints, different expression.
in india, often charity begins at home. not snark. this is why the notion of caste as a social structure is so important – because there isnt a well-defined welfare state. social service starts with people looking out for their partner, their parents, their kids, their grandparents, the uncles, the aunts, people of the same caste/community etc… in an ever widening circle of association.
i know of one desi person who took better care of the inlaws than their own children. that’s a cultural attribute that’s typical of FOB’s (from the old world, be it irish, welsh, chinese, you name it). i despair of what people sometimes write on this forum of “old” practices – because the conclusions are just so simplistic and because the linear reasoning passes for sophistication. look around you. visit a langar sometimes. look at the contributions of the aga khan institution. these arent new world concepts. kindness doesnt need to come with a measuring tape. your point may be philosophical though, if a hand helps someone in the dark, does it matter. i am reminded of a novel by guy vanderhaeghe in which an englishman sets out to conquer the wild west. he brings along a photographer/biographer to capture his exploits – because after all it doesnt matter what you do, as long as it is captured for posterity. as i scratch my big old gray beard and pull out this crusty piece of bread to chew from under my chin i ponder, “hmmm. is all history a sham and just the matter of who got to write it? Does it matter to do, or is it enough to be perceived as doing? What’s the frequency kahlil?”
anyway, i’m not as old as i sound. just well seasoned – like a well broken shoe with a comfortable fit.
There are ample charitable NGOs in India. As Professor Jagdish Bhagwati says:
Thus, in India – and I am sure that is true of many countries now -, we have more than two million NGOs, mostly Mom and Pop operations and many others simply small in size.
Many of these small NGOs happen to be founded and led by women.The joke on the subcontinent is that in the old days if you wanted to get a good bride for your son, you had to offer her a green card to go to the United States or her own apartment so she could live away from her mother-in-law and be mistress in her own place. Now you have to give her very own NGO!
I never thought of charity as being a western/American idea. And it’s not just within communities in India, as hairy_d describes, although he does mention the Aga Khan institution which reaches out to a wide range of people. There is plenty of charitable work going on–people involved with the Narmada Bachao Andolan, working with street children, volunteering at medical clinics etc. Plus there is all that feeding of the poor etc that temples/communities do–granted, it may perpetuate a cycle of poverty rather than alleviate it, but that can be said of a lot of organized charity. The Catholic church in India, too, is very involved in social improvement projects–there are a lot of liberation theologists running around.
KT I’m sorry to inform you Mother Teresa and the Sabarmati ashram was always the ‘ultimate ideal’ the average person with bills, job, family, kids never could achieve in India. I come from a middle class family in Mumbai and lived in a average neighborhood. I simply never grew up around giving back to the community on the grassroots level like cleaning streets or building houses. This was something that wasn’t and still isn’t present on a daily basis in the Indian middle class.
Yeah people who can afford donate money as that link provided, do a lot of kind acts, paying for the drivers child’s school admission etc and it wasn’t like humility wasn’t present. However the down and dirty work of volunteering to do good for the lesser fortunate is simply not the culture I grew up with. Being taught to be kind to the poor is vastly different from being taught to do work for the poor. That is the culture I was talking about.
And I’m sorry but the occassional feeding of the poor that people do at temples where you buy the food and don’t really do any of the cooking and cleaning yourself doesn’t count in my books. Going and cooking for 5 hours in a soup kitchen, then cleaning the floors and then feeding homeless men is not something the average Indian does where I come from and it has nothing to do with wealth.
And you just validated my point with that link. The act of giving is giving to religious institutions and almost all of the giving is $$$$$. And it keeps referring to the Tatas and Birlas and upper class giving. That is NOT what I was talking about. Perhaps you can go back and reread?
I wish we’d all take one day out of our lives to get together and decide who the average Indian is, what he/she looks like, where they live and how much they make a year.
It would be the end of half the arguments on SM.
I simply never grew up around giving back to the community on the grassroots level like cleaning streets or building houses. This was something that wasn’t and still isn’t present on a daily basis in the Indian middle class.
They are lot of people who do it. Your neighborhood did not it. Who am I challenge it?
However, the truth is lot of people who do service. They come from middle class, lower class, upper class. You gotta keep your eyes and eat less jalebis. Jalebi high puts a tunnel vision.
As hairy_d said, go to a temple or gurudwara……their langar, communal feeding. It is not uncommon for a devout sikh and hindu to volunteer for feeding the hungry on a very regular basis. Same for Muslims in India. These are regular people in Gurudwara Sisganj, Tripathi Temple. Forget Gandhi for a moment. Same like soup kitchen from New York City. It is not that Bonoesque, so you do not notice it.
Gurudwaras have hostels for needy people within premises. Ask any sikh on this board.
Anyway, I am done. Respectfully, Jane, next time in India, please look around.
I don’t think most of the American middle class volunteers their time on a daily basis, either. I have heard from my parents’ generation that there isn’t a tradition of monetary giving amongst the very wealthy in India in the same sense there is here, and that might be true, Tata nothwithstanding, but I have no personal experience with that. All I can say is that I knew as many people in India involved with community service as I do here–but neither is probably a representative sample of the “average” citizen of either country, whatever that mythical creature is.
JOAT # 70,
Firstly corporate giving is only a part of the article attached which is obviously not the be all and end all of all charity in India. There are other facets to charity in India like the remainder of the article, Kush and hairy_d have pointed out, what you grew up with doesn’t necessarily hold true for everyone in India. There are many orphenages besides Missionaries of Charity where people donate time and money. As someone else pointed on the thread above, inquire and observe when you are in India next you will be pleasently surprised.
All I can say is that I knew as many people in India involved with community service as I do here
Me too. I would add that in India, community service is done in a much more private/personal way. For example, my father-in-law is a physician, and although he has a regular day job, there are an endless stream of patients who would come to the house because they need a shot, or because a child is sick, etc. and he treats them all, no matter how late the hour, and he never charges. He doesn’t talk about it publicly either. There is a sense that these are just the things you do.
I will explain in a second what this rambling has to do with the topic at hand.
When I first stepped foot in America in 1973, another desi “foreign student” took me under his wings and proceeded to teach me my first lesson in American culture. I learned that Americans distributed their favors, friendship, money – what have you – with a much lighter touch but to a much broader cross-section of recipients, even strangers. For example, he said that if my car shut down, which my $500 Chevy Impala did with an annoying frequency, some American would stop by, help me out, and then quickly leave. There would be a quick thank you, but no need to form a new relationship. He explained that we desis, on the other hand, were not quite as transactional (not his choice of word) in our charity. We invest in our loved ones very heavily, and forge very deep give-and-take relationships. Giving casually to all and sundry is simply not our style. That’s why you will find a rich Indian sending three poor nieces and nephews to college but giving nothing to any social organization.
After 34 years of living a bicultural life, I find this difference between the East and West still true. It explains the whole charity issue for me. I absolutely do not consider one practice better than the other, though a strong case could be made for the “United Way, payroll deduction style of giving” vs. the highly selective, personalized sponsorships Indians undertake. Now, I am not sure our children (which includes almost all of you) are Indian style donors or American style donors. But there are two distinct styles, and that’s my point.
If you buy this theory, then a lot of South Asian charity issues would become a lot easier to put in perspective.
sakshi:
or, the beginning of one that never ends.
I would tend to agree with JOAT that charitable giving is not AS PROMINENT in Indian urban middle-class culture as it is here. There are exceptions, as Kush and others have pointed out. And Kush, the comments about jalebis seemed uncalled for.
And Kush, the comments about jalebis seemed uncalled for.
OK, I am sorry.
Two things. Well into the 90s, the “terrorist” group that received the most donations from Americans, by which I mean well above every other terrorist group combined, was the IRA. Many Catholics and even non-Catholics like myself have made donations to their affiliates.
Secondly, on the matters of donations often going to temples rather than humanitarian work, well you see, there is an organization that truly does work to build homes, infrastructure and aid the rural poor, regardless of caste or creed, and that group is the much maligned RSS.
well you see, there is an organization that truly does work to build homes, infrastructure and aid the rural poor, regardless of caste or creed, and that group is the much maligned RSS.
That is true. Even though I am not a fan of RSS but they do lot of grass root work – all done through volunteers. So do lot of deobandi (Islamic) societies in India.
In summer, sometimes a local business man would put a free water server @ various points in the town. Giving drinking water in Indian summer is a serious outreach/ karma. Ramakrishna and Satya Sai Baba societies depend a lot on volunteers.
Even here in USA, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army – are religious entities that reach out in secular ways but they are essentially religious.
In Harmindar Sahib (Golden Temple), about 20,000-30,000 people are fed daily (langar) all through volunteers (sewadars). I have never been to Golden temple but same model works for all gurudwaras…..I am sure some hundreds if not thousands of volunteers give their time daily. Somebody can tell us about on this thread. According to wikipedia on langar:
A lot of South Indian temples do the same. Sound like soup kitchen of Amreeka to me.
Jane, Amitabh, I too grew up in Mumbai and my experience re: philanthropy is quite different. In fact I was always amazed by generosity of poor / middle class folk. My own mother still works 3-6 hrs. a day on her various projects.
Please look up Anil AvchatÂ’s Karyarat (Marathi), if you get a chance. ItÂ’s about everyday people making real difference. Their field of work is as diverse as reforestation, alternate energy, education etc. Nothing glamourous. And definitely not checkbook philanthropy.
These are not stray exaples. There are many more. They rarely get any press because they are not attached to fancy NGOs or a political party. More importantly, all of them follow “Neki kar darya mein dal” principle.
PS. Avchat himself is no slouch. His and his late wife‘s work on addiction is legendary.
I hope this doesn’t rub anyone the wrong way, but has anyone considered answering such questions with ‘I don’t know’. I can think of many people I know India who are really into social work, and I know a lot of slouches too, and ditto with the US, but given my small sample size, I really do not see a significant difference I could draw conclusions from.
My grandfather was heavily into social work and so is my mother (though significantly less than my grandfather). But I know many families that are not. What does that prove? Indian techies usually get a bad rap, but I have techie friends in India who work in hospitals over weekends. One of them gets up at 5 in the morning to teach kids in the Mumbai slums before she goes to her job (and you know how hard commute is in Mumbai). But again these are anecdotal experiences and I won’t generalize from them.
And Kush, thanks a lot for your tenacity and the perspective you always bring in.
well said Sakshi, I usually refrain from commenting on things I have partial knowledge about, a simple I don’t know and learning from someone that knows better always helps. That being said I bow out of this discussion now till it is still respectful.
The Indian Middle class is becoming younger and younger, all those young tech professionals, etc, who probably don’t have the time/extra income (I suppose after a second cell phone, motorcycle) to spend on philanthropy. But for th eolder people, 40+ of all classes they are definetely very involved.
Sakshi, Kush-thanks…..
I can only speak about where i come from-rural Punjab. and in that part of the Conutry and the world sharing and giving is not so uncommon. hairy_d appropriately mentioned about langars in Gurudwaras and Temples. and besides, people usually need an excuse to offer a “degh” (a huge cooking utensil-literal; usually offering sweetened rice like zarda and/or gud wale chaul/chawal) or “chabeel” (offering cold water, sharabat etc to everyone, its most popular during Guru Purabs, Massya/Amavasya but occasionally seen at other times too). Anytime if someone hosts an Akhandpath (be it Shri Guru Granth Sahib or Sri Satyanarayan Katha), food is offfered to one and all. And yes, it does extend beyond religion and religious activities…..Langars, deghs and chabeels are organized by people even when its a personal occassion-like opening of a new shop, someone’s B’day etc. I have seen doctors offering free clinics for poor people, teachers taking free classes for students in need. However, the extent of “giving” depends on one’s economic status and also how much time can they afford. But, as Sakshi mentions, all kinds of people exist in all kinds of places and its very hard to define “an average Indian”.
listen folks . i am the last person to rah rah about the indianz – but i just think it unfair to say that indians are stingy or mingy. it isnt how much you pay, but the spirit of the giving that matters – charity that is nothing more than an act of collaboration for perpetuating one’s society. given that indians have proliferated like bunnies – surely they got some of that co-operation worked out.
that being said, some prominent examples of charitable giving in my opinion.
to get back to the topic – Sinha’s talking through her behind – i suspect she’s a bit green (heck that glass ceiling comment is worth quite the eye-roll)
From what I’ve seen (mainly Bangladeshis here in US), the family comes first, then struggling relatives in other states or back in old desh, and then giving to others outside those circles (such as mosque, Salvation Army, or alumni association). My parents sometimes say the could have given more b/c they know how hard it is back in BD, even for a scientist and university professor! We have few family in the West who are able to give all they would like to the old folks and young people (usually wanting to study or marry).
This is ridiculous. There is a huge, valid reason why we tend to give back to our parents’ communities…those communities are in far greater need than our communities in the US, particularly since most of us live in high-income areas. Having seen both India and America there is no way I, or I presume amany other South Asians, could in good faith not choose the former when it comes to charitable donations.
The Muslim zakat varies from a basic 2.5% of one’s wealth to, among some Shia communities, 20% of one’s annual income. Sikhs also have a strong social solidarity system, whether by giving to the gurdwara (which then runs schools, orphanages, feeds the poor) or to a biradiri fund to help relatives out in time of need, weddings, etc.
Doctors in many hospitals in urban India will run a free clinic one day a week – I believe this may even be required by law. Back in the day if you were a Somebody in a small town, you built schools and clinics, or in the pilgrimage cities, you’d build a ghat that would be in your name. Donating to temples etc is of course a classic form of “charity” (it’s because some of the bigger temples have so much money that their finances and management are actually under the supervision of an IAS officer, to make sure they fulfil their mandate and aren’t corrupt).
Much “giving” in the Indian context happens closer to home, definitely, as someone mentioned, it’s in a sort of feudal order – you “give” to the children and extended families of those who are part of your “household,” you take care of your elderly parents, you leave your children as much as you can, etc. You can sort of see how this would happen with the clan-based nature of social security in Indian tradition, you don’t feel you can give to strangers till you’ve taken care of your own family, and there’s always someone in the extended family who needs help, and who knows what tomorrow will bring, etc. (there have been sociological studies about similar patterns among immigrant groups in America and among African-Americans too, it’s not just a desi thing)
There’s also the question of prestige, in the US, giving to your alma mater is a big deal, even though wealthy universities rarely are the ones who need the money most in America, they tend to get a lot of it from their wealthy alums. Is that a rational decision? Well, if you think an elite education is worth preserving, yes, it’s rational, and most of all, it’s prestigious, like giving to museums and so on, and it gets you on gala charity invitation lists. Desis giving to temples and having hospitals named after them, or being the Big Man in the Family that Everyone Goes to for Help, are no different.
yes RSS do a lot of work .
Check here
Its sister organizations work in variuos fields like
seva bharti :
and Vidya bharti
But our sickular media does not write about it . And looks like most of SM readers can associate RSS with only Gujarat riots and Babri masjid demolition .
yes RSS do a lot of work
Not surprising, since fascist movements have normally historically been mass-based. Lest some of you misconstrue this, I mean it as a matter of fact and not as a normative statement. The organization is very consciously fashioned after fascist movements in Europe (and the leaders admit as much…). Their ideology of the nation as an organic entity is very reminiscent of similar movements in Italy and Germany. Now whether this is good or bad is another argument altogether (as Hume pointed out many years ago,you cannot derive “ought” statements from “is” statements).
KT,
I’m aware of langars and temple feedings, they happen here in the US as well. I wasn’t even remotly trying to be hostile simply stating an observation in the Mumbai middle class experience I’ve had over my lifetime.
As so many others have said charity is a family investment and people give to their own family before they venture outside. I’ve seen this in my own family my whole life. And like Hema’s FIL my mother treated non paying patients on a daily basis and did a lot of work with eunuchs in Mumbai. People in general regularly fund education for plenty of service person’s children. No pomp there. There are plenty of signs of acts of kindness and lots of financial giving. I’m not denying that.
Again no hostility intended at all but that simply brings me to the point. The concept of giving to and doing good and right by your family is NOT charity in my books. It’s what you do for people you love. I financially supported my brother when he was in college. I don’t consider that charity. He’s family. Also the concept of giving heavily to family in the South Asian conctext comes with incredible expectations in return in my opinion and I’ve seen it happen in so many people.
I’m leaving for India tomorrow. If there are everyday people doing voluntary work and who practice giving of time in their regular life I will definitely try my best to educate myself on this and reach out to them. I’m not a fan of jelabies FYI or for that matter Indian sweets. My intention absolutely wasn’t to offend anyone much less malign anything people in India do. I was stating a difference in giving from the west and Floridian said it far more beautifully.
JOAT – “family” is never ever just limited to your immediate family in terms of “giving” in Indian society – it includes paying for your deceased relative’s kids’ education and weddings, and for the healthcare and schooling of your family employee’s own family. Biradiri funds work similarly, though more formally, in an extended family. This may not count as “charity” in the sense we understand it today, but the function is very similar, in that it provides social security (and a place to put your do-gooding money) and comes out of a sense of feeling responsible for the well-being of those in your clan-community. I’m not denying it can be parochial and not always driven by the same high-mindedness as perhaps a “pure” expression of empathy and solidarity in giving to complete strangers, and perhaps it even reflects what old-school social scientists called “amoral familism.” But it serves very similar functions.
You lucky arse! Bon voyage JOAT!
Thank you NVM. It’s unfortunately under not very good circumstances but I’m just hoping to get thru the actual flying time first 🙂
“And as they became more white/American they became more accepted.” They did not change in appearance at all. Nor did anybody else who came here.The same boxes were checked then as would be checked today.
Really, this is getting old. You shouldn’t believe everything those 1960s sociology profs tell you…unless perhaps your tongue is in your cheek? I’m not a great Mother Theresa fan–against birth control? was she nuts?–but she did say one true thing: it is a lot harder to help people when their poverty is not material. Even the poorest people you can find the U.S. are more often too fat and wearing expensive sneakers. It’s the elusive, non-material things they need, and who has that?
I thought this was a minor point, but I noticed right off in the original article that she uses the phrase ‘first generation South Asian American’ to mean people born and brought up here. To wit:
This is inconsistent with the usage here at SM – I just thought I’d point it out. Many commenters are, however, using it in the (in my opinion correct) sense, and this may create some confusion. To cite only two of the many:
Anu #3
Floridian #16
In my own ‘1st gen case’ – all my giving has been to local charities wherever I’ve lived – food banks, homeless shelters, rehabilitation centers, soup kitchens, Thanksgiving meals for the poor, and Xmas presents for poor kids. I’ve also given to museums, and volunteered at public radio stations and such, and that’s a form of giving too! There’s simply no way to live in America and be oblivious to the very great needs that exist right here, in my book. From a theoretical standpoint, idisoyncratic risk is the single biggest threat to life and livelihood in advanced societies – the chance of not just a double whammy but the whole trifecta hitting you someday. So I don’t completely buy the argument that needs are ‘greater’ elsewhere.
While I’m making minor points – hey Sakshi, did you notice how Maneka’s an engineer too?
I would just like to contribute my positive, personal experience with a desi family’s philanthropy.
When I was 15, I was removed from my working-class latin-american family in Jersey City and sent to live with a foster family who had two daughters around my age. I believe the parents were originally from Gujurat. They didn’t have a lot of money, the mom was in school working on a masters or something and the dad worked at a gas station nights and taught during the day. I lived with them until moving to my grandmother’s.
When I eventually went to college, I found out these folks had put aside money for me for college.They paid for one of my semesters at school and my books and transportation.
They didn’t have to do all that.
Awww coach thanx for that really heartwarming story. It really gave me the fuzzies 🙂