Nobel laureate philosopher, Albert Schweitzer said, “Wherever you turn, you can find someone who needs you. Even if it is a little thing, do something for which there is no pay but the privilege of doing it. Remember, you don’t live in a world all of your own”.
The recent annual survey report of the World Giving Index (WGI) about Indians has therefore gladdened our heart. It was informed that as compared to people of many other nationalities, Indians ranked higher this year for volunteering their time and donating money.
This marker was found distinct in contrast to the Chinese for example. We have no idea what Chinese do of their time and money. But talking of our own selves, this assumption of WGI seems to be based on a misreading of what is going on. Most of us may not have seen any good number of people volunteering time and money for others, or for a cause.
Can we readily think of individuals, neighbours, even friends and relatives who are doing this on regular basisIJ There are only exceptions, if any, both in terms of persons and the regularity of participation by such individuals. The report therefore may have to be taken with a pinch of salt. We do not know the basis of such assessment.
It is not the case that Indians are insensitive to the needs of others or to the act of giving. Many of us have our ways of doing charity. But typically in our country, it’s community-driven. Religion provides the driving force. There are indeed groups and organisations who are involved in distributing food, clothes etc. to the poor in special locations. There are others who set up camps to extend relief to the victims of floods and other natural disasters. These efforts are supported by well-meaning individuals who want to help others. But these efforts are not much and aimed at currying favour with the Gods.
Our trigger is the desire to secure good position in the world hereinafter. Giving alms to the poor is an act of piety that will bring the blessings of God. So when we give, we do a punya (Hindu), a sawaab (Muslim) and thereby earn Almighty’s goodwill.
Without undermining the value and utility of such aids that provide succour to the needy, it is also clear that most of our giving is driven by the diktat of religion and guided by the expectation of reward — an eternal life of peace and happiness — guaranteed by the alms giving. Thus at a personal level the philosophical context of our giving is mainly religious.
We have some reputed NGOs managed by dedicated people who volunteer their time for a cause, among them, we may recall HelpAge India, Goonj, Pratham, Udaan, Smile Foundation etc. just to name a few and there are many more. But the same cannot be said about tens of thousands NGOs who keep springing up now and then everywhere.
Therefore, while many are doing great work and deserve our respect, involved here again, are also many people whose best contribution is by way of some monthly donation, rather than an active physical participation to reach the communities being attended to. And often the call taken is more for social recognition than driven from any serious commitment to the cause itself. There is no objection to recognition or even publicity of a work and of persons involved with such activities as it encourages the participants and acts as a morale booster. But where that desire becomes the primary motivation behind such exertions, than an intellectual conviction to volunteer time and money, the long term sustainability of such acts is an issue. Removal of the limelight becomes a dampener, i.e. if you are not getting recognition and publicity you will sulk and may even stop contributing.
As for the religious fervour for the act of giving, it is community-oriented and generally restrictive and also exclusive in practice. The conceptual framework of such activities is derived from scriptures and therefore linked to the theory of reward and punishment and not from a sense of social responsibility per se, which would make these more inclusive and broad based.
We may therefore start looking at this scenario from another perspective; or rather trace the lack of a perspective, namely, ‘secular giving’, if such a phrase could be used. However, since secularism itself has fallen into disrepute and become a derogatory term these days, it may have to be cautiously explained. It is only meant here to signify that this giving is not necessarily ordained by religious beliefs, ordinarily linked to attainment of jannat or swarg but steered by a social sense of responsibility felt for others who are less endowed.
Such motive is intellectually supported by recognition to fulfil a societal role and is guided by ethical principles. It was observed by American author, Richelle E Goodrich, “It’s impossible to be involved in all situations, but there is no excuse not to be involved in something, somewhere, somehow, with someone”. Our involvement, commitment and contribution in that sense is far too sketchy. It appears erroneous to put Indians at such a high pedestal as done by the World Giving Index.
