- There is an incredible amount of systemic corruption in India. This means there are people- a lot of them, who are rich not by the value creation or inheritance.
- A measure of wealth in India is land ownership, not swathes of hundreds of acres of land like Bezos, but owning a 200 Sq.Ft. land or some real estate property in cities. A flat in a decent city like Bangalore or Hyderabad goes upwards of million dollars.
- Binami. These are aliases of rich politicians mostly their family members control hordes of wealth.
When these people start to give away, it actually generates negative social capital. They face a backlash from the same people they are donating to because, they cannot donate enough. The reason why recipients are insatiable is because, they view the wealth accumulated by these people is thru' non-legit means.
- We are seeing a new generation of multi-millionaires in this country. Seeing what they saw I don't think they will be inspired to donate. If they set up an organisation be it a private charity, there is a good chance they will have to deal with misappropriation of funds in their own organisation.
- Add caste based and religion based inconveniences you may cause to general public with your charitable work, unbeknownst to you.
>>There is an incredible amount of systemic corruption in India.
Two weekends back I was stopped by traffic police. But any way the police guy checked for licence, insurance, RC book, emission certificate, and realized there was nothing to fine. Eventually he threw a surprise by stating I was speeding, it wasn't exactly possible because they were standing at a corner, and the traffic itself was't moving above 30 km/hr.
I realized his palms were itching and he wouldn't settle without getting paid. Beyond had to pay 200. Removed 500 from my pocket, he removed two bundles from two of his pockets to pay me the change. From what I could estimate from a glance, he had a good 2 lacs on him. And he had two more of his buddies with him. With puts the net collection close to 6 lacs per corner, per collection unit.
Man, given how big Bangalore is, the volume of vehicles and places they can stand for collection, that is in the upper double digit crore bribe collection per day across Bangalore. And that is just from a small government unit doing a small piece of work. Across a city like Bangalore, I estimate bribe collection per day to rival a thousand crore a day at least.
No hard work can beat that kind of income. These days your ordinary government engineer is worth a few hundred crore.
FYI most people don't know what a lac (lakh) or crore is. And if you simply Google "1 crore in USD" it converts 1 crore of your geolocated currency (which won't be Indian Rupees unless you're in India, which you won't be because then why would you be trying to find out what a crore is?).
It helps people understand what you're saying if you use international units like millions (of rupees).
Regarding caste, some online sources claim that all the top Silicon Valley executives of Indian ethnicity, belong to the brahmin caste, and that they even promote other Indian-Americans based on their caste.
Is there any truth to that? The sources were somewhat dubious.
There is no truth to that as it will be difficult for Indians to know which caste another person is from if they are both not from the same place. For example, I am from eastern India and I have no clue if Sundar Pichai is Brahmin or not as he is from southern India.
You can but that might not yield the result, Because the surname isn't associated with his caste, It is his father's name which is "Pichai Sundararajan", Yes he got his grandfather's name, In tamil (which is his mother tounge) the word for Grandson is "Peyaran", it roughly translates in english to "Namer".
Unlike the commenter 'dmod' above, I am from the same state as sundar pichai, So i can sort of figure out his caste, But never bothered to conform. Because as 'dmode' says interest in caste is not really something that is prevelant among yonger indians.
But as i am getting older i am interested in caste, But that is more like old people getting curious about their ancestory and going to 23Andme.
Surnames are often associated with caste. They are not 100% aligned but combined with other information a prospective employer would have available it would be possible to identify caste in many cases. And of course they could find out through other channels/networks as well.
Nepotism and caste favoritsm is rampant in India. Let's not pretend it goes away once on US soil.
It would be no surprise if people of Brahmin caste would try to downplay this.
Besides Premji, who is mentioned in the article, the Tatas have several charitable efforts[1,2] on top of their known (past?) involvement in setting up institutions of higher education like TISS and, I think, IISC.
I haven’t had a chance to research this, but I suspect other Indian companies will have similar CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) programmes — i.e. they are funnelling their charity through their businesses?
Also many Indian businesses are “family run” (Premji is an exception I believe), so there’s some value in retaining ownership as it’s passed on to their children.
It's also partly cultural, imo. Most Indians believe in reincarnation [1] and also believe that the current state one is in is because of "mistakes" from one's "previous life." (aka karma)
That gives rise to extreme apathy, zero sympathy for folks on the lowest rungs of society, and a general lack of credence in effecting change.
This is a straight up propaganda from Christian organizations I grew up reading in India.
Very simply put, the concepts of Good and Evil in Christianity is not externalized in Hindu philosophy and instead explained through the principle of cause and effect known as Karma. Hinduism views suffering is an integral part of life. Selfish desire causes suffering, controlling your senses lets you achieve selflessness and eventual liberation from the cycle of suffering. All this "suffering" refers to your mental state, not the material reality such as wealth and status.
There is apathy, but IMO it's mostly due to desensitization by how much of it is out there and constantly having to watch your back from some people willing to take advantage of you the moment they notice how charitable you are.
Thats a massive understatement from western point of view. I have only personal anecdotes, but tons of them due to backpacking all over India for 6 months. Generally the poorer the people, the better the character, with exceptions (which is maybe universal human trait).
Utter ignorance of plight or suffering of dalits you see everywhere (simply because there is 300 million of them). They will never get a fair chance in life like rest of wealthier society. The mostly IT folks you will meet in west (or on call support call) are never from this caste, they just can't escape the vicious circle of poverty.
Seeing young women not giving a nano-fraction of a f*ck about dog dying in the middle of the street from horrible wounds sustained from being hit by a car (literally stepping over it like it was some dirty rag, I sat there crying my eyes out and the memory is still strong in me even after 10 years).
When talking to young brahmin couple, educated, visited west, very nice, soft-spoken and polite, and they considered its perfectly fine that 5-year old kids of poor have to work in firework factory and will never go to school (and they are 1 mistake away from ending up as finger-less beggars for rest of the life). 'At least they bring home some money' was their mantra. I had strong urge to ask them if they would be OK for their daughter to walk the same path but didn't want to be nasty for their generosity (they gave me a ride when hitchhiking in Yamunotri).
The treatment of leprosy (or more precisely lack of it due to religion, aka kiss of god).
I could go on and on, 6 months gives you a bit of perspective especially when you cover a lot (mostly north, west and south, not much east) from such a massive and diverse country.
It is probably still the best country in the world to do backpacking, it can change your perspective on the world and life, but boy sometimes it was too much.
See my point about desensitization. If you live in India and want to remain sane, you have to develop a barrier. Kind of the barrier you develop in the west pretending to not know where or how your hamburger was made.
>Kind of the barrier you develop in the west pretending to not know where or how your hamburger was made.
Is there any data about how widespread this issue is ? I know plenty of people who know perfectly well from where their meat comes from, and are not bothered by it. Some even want to know, think Ron from Parks and Recs, who refuses to eat anonymous animals. On the other hand, I'm totally ok if other people do not want to have to think about it. A succesful society should provide for both needs.
> The mostly IT folks you will meet in west (or on call support call) are never from this caste
And how the heck do you know this? With very few exceptions, I don't know the caste of most of my colleagues. FYI, the government already has enforced quotas in schools, colleges, and government jobs for most of the traditionally "backward" castes. In private industry, we people don't go around announcing our castes to colleagues, suppliers, or customers, and no one cares.
Are you sure you're not just reacting in anger because someone criticised your country?
I love India, but from the couple of months I spent there it's clear that there is a huge amount of apathy and resistance to very much needed social change. This criticism is valid. Just look at the attitude to rubbish and pollution - complete apathy and desensitization. The sacred cows do not eat grass, they eat plastic mixed with food waste. Literally. And as far as I can tell, nobody cares about this, or about the obvious poverty everywhere, the disfigured beggars and starving child workers, because they have become desensitized to it, just as I did after a couple of weeks.
When someone is entirely critical of a comment but doesn't explain what the truth is, I assume it is probably because they know the comment was true but don't want to admit it.
His comment is self evident. Indians = heartless. Westerner = savior. That movie has been played hundreds of times. I don’t have time to debate such useless conclusions.
Whether it's karmic reincarnation or an afterlife, the morality type it generate is the same. Nietzsche seriously need to be taught/explained early so people stop with this "slave" mentality (i'm paraphrasing here).
And maybe more didactic consciouness philosophers could be taught as well, for even in non-materialist theory, monism (that did not need "god hypothesis" unlike most dualism) seems to be mainstream. And perhaps people (esp those interested in psychology, neurosciences and/or IA) could be lured into materialist illusionism (insert maniac laugh here).
Be it N (the philosopher) or other criticism on Hinduism. Buddhism still is the answer for people who believe in Hindu (that is why it was created to begin with).
Most people answer like a personal attack if they have been hurt because of this mentality they have in India. I assume that something like that happened to you.
Most of it is not due to religion but the sheer overwhelm that you just shut off your senses. You can keep on giving and giving and giving and giving and giving. It will not stop.
Most people, I know, middle class Indians who are doing decent financially and career wise have tried to help a lot - financially, volunteering, advising etc etc - and quite a bit of them have just found their lives, senses and mental health overrun. At that point you just develop a barrier which, seen from a western perspective, looks like apathy.
And there’s still a lot more to this complex issue. Ascribing it to a belief in religion is grossly simplifying the ground reality - which is very convenient for the purpose of discourse but completely misses the iceberg for its tip.
> Most of it is not due to religion but the sheer overwhelm that you just shut off your senses. You can keep on giving and giving and giving and giving and giving. It will not stop.
This is why the article is so focused on strategic, effective giving/philanthropy - it's the only way to really make a dent in these overwhelming issues. We should be careful not to discount the big successes that effective giving has already led to, even in fairly recent times. Smallpox has been totally eradicated throughout the world, and polio is almost there-- additionally, the most common vaccinations are being implemented all over the developing world, resulting in sizeable improvements for global health and development. And good progress is being made right now on malaria, as well as "neglected" tropical diseases. All of this was achieved by donors contributing to these causes.
Yes, market-driven economic development is still the most powerful force by far, rescuing hundreds of millions from poverty in India, China and Southeast Asia-- but it's absolutely wrong to conclude that giving for effective charity "won't do anything"!
Let me tell you an Indian story from mahabharatha (an Indian epic). There is Arjuna and Karna (Karna, known for his dana guna - virtue of giving away & charity). On an occasion, Arjuna has so much money and wanted to give it away to poor to gain some punya(good fortune). He expresses his intention to Krishna, and Krishna says, go a head. So, he does that, he partitions his wealth, and starts giving it away to poor one-by-one personally. In the end, he comes to know he hasn't accumulated anything (no punya/good fortune). he goes to Krishna again and asks, why haven't I accumulated anything? I did a good thing, I should accumulate good karma for my coming lives, right?
Krishna smiled and took him to karna in disguise to show him something. He went to Karna in disguise and said he was poor and asked for help. Karna gave away everything he got with him without any second thoughts. And he forgot about it instantly and moved on. Krishna turned to arjuna and said, you wanted to accumulate good karma/fortune, and hence you did gave away something of yours(keeping something for yourself) and kept claiming it everywhere you go and you even came to me asking why you haven't got anything in return. Karna, on the other hand, simply gave away everything he has and never even thought about it or boasted about it elsewhere. He just helped a poor and moved on. And thats how dana works. There are so many people in India who were never heard of and in disguise giving away and doing charity without even claiming it anywhere. Thats called 'guptha dana'. Charity in disguise. The first rule of charity according to Indian scriptures is, do it because you can. You wont't get anything in return because you are doing it. That's not how it works.
The above applies in the other way too, someone did something bad in their previous life so they were born wealthy and miss all the simple happy and emotional things poor and joint families can enjoy, instead they merely work hard to multiply their wealth like a machine. The wisdom in Indian literature is very deep and one have to understand it properly and muse over it to benefit from it. If any one is interested, I strongly recommend Devdutt Pattanaik 's show on Netflix. Very entertaining.
India as a society is split into microscopic tribes. Its hard to identify a common fabric that underlies the system and everyone ascribes value to it. There's nothing like it. Why? I do not know.
Dana these days doesn't exactly work like it was originally intended to.
Most religious organizations in India today sit on donations which rival budgets of small countries. Indian religious trusts aren't exactly poor by any definition.
However there is a tendency to be rich. Which mean wanting to receive more, but spend less. The usual spending for these trusts is basically a small time engineering college, or a hospital. Or once in a year mass lunch. This passes for charity and benevolence because the alternative is nothing.
This is where you and most get it wrong. This apathy is one that was created by the political class in India rather than the religious trusts/organizations.
Let me break it down for you:
Did you know that most of these Hindu temples and religious trusts that you find sitting on huge donations come under the Endowment Department? Because of which, these trusts have no say on how those funds are utilized. The ridiculous reasoning behind bringing temples under endowment was to prevent Priests from swindling donations. There are few cases where this has happened and I concede to that but that is not as widespread as it was made out to be. On the contrary, this wasn't reason enough for bringing temples under Government control. All that was needed was to file criminal cases against the offending Priests. However, the political class wanted to (and still wants to) keep complete control over the Temple as they can siphon off those huge donations at will. Take a look at what is happening today in Tirupati with the ruling Government brazenly looting the Temple coffers: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2018/m...
Now instead we have Government servants swindling donations. There is a movement on to free Hindu temples from the clutches of the Government for precisely this reason.
On the contrary, Christian churches and Islamic mosques don't come under the Government control. If this isn't discriminating I don't know what is.
"What is scandalous is the corruption after the takeover of temples as politicians and officials loot the temple’s wealth and land, and divert donations of devotees to non-religious purposes
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment on January 6, 2013, allowing my Special Leave Petition that sought the quashing of the Tamil Nadu Government’s G.O. of 2006 which had mandated the government takeover of the hallowed Sri Sabhanayagar Temple (popularly known as the Nataraja temple)."
I don't think you have the right understanding of Karma. Those who do not treat others with kindness would end up accumulating bad Karma and then they will be the one born as mice and bugs.
Just emphasizing how important a point this is around the world. I've seen many in the US idealize Buddhism which has a similar view as in Hinduism that good actions in this life lead to a better place in the next [reincarnated] life. And indeed this seems like a really awesome baseline tenet for a religion, but in practice it ends up distorted just as all other 'divine imperatives' do.
As one example among many, a family I've lived with is what I'd describe as friendly, intelligent, and perfectly reasonable. They were also Buddhist. But they had some views I initially didn't understand. In one instance they found an individual with a crippling disability (leading to a sort of very awkward bow-legged walk) absolutely hilarious. In other they found people working in some really atrocious conditions at a fishery as comparably humorous. The issue is that they ultimately felt these individuals must have deserved such fates due to bad actions in a past life. After all, if they did good in their past life they would not have ended up in such positions in this life. So they viewed it as people getting what they deserved.
Never give people a divine righteousness, whether it be in religion or social belief held in a fashion otherwise indistinguishable from religion. They will find a way to screw it up no matter how unimaginably benevolent and harmless it sounds.
"So they viewed it as people getting what they deserved."
.
As a Buddhist, quite baffling to read about this "friendly, intelligent, and perfectly reasonable" buddhist family.
In Mahayana Buddhism, which I follow and practice, special stress is given upon practice of compassion which requires seeing all sentient beings as your mother.
So having a view similar to the family you referenced would be considered so un-buddhist.
Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how ignorant someone might be about Hinduism and Buddhism. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and avoid posting like that to HN again.
The topic is one of reincarnation status driven by good deeds, which is a key facet in both religions. I have extensive experience with Buddhism and can thus share insights on that front which many who have not immersed themselves in such cultures (beyond the superficial) may idealize without ever actually experiencing.
An amusing nuance is that this is also not unique to e.g. western cultures. In eastern cultures there is similarly often an idealization of Christianity as individuals lack exposure to what it turns into in practice.
>They face a backlash from the same people they are donating to because, they cannot donate enough. The reason why recipients are insatiable is because, they view the wealth accumulated by these people is thru' non-legit means.
That wouldn't really do anything for the issue GP raises. If society sees someone sitting on a pile of ill-gotten gains, donating some of it (whether openly or secretly) just means society will see someone sitting on a slightly smaller pile of ill-gotten gains. They will not consider someone who fleeced or extorted them and then gave some money back to be their benefactors. They'll only avoid that perception by not being associated with corruption, rather than not being associated with philanthropy.
We Indians are used to seeing sights of abject poverty everyday and it simply desnsitizes us. Most people from developed nations dont understand whats it like to see these things every single day. Some who come to India, get a huge cultural shock (though it is getting better) and are simply unable to process all the misery they see around them.
When I was kid, I used to give money to beggars but now that i am an adult with a steady income, I dont do it anymore. Either I feel that my few rupees is not gonna have any effect on the other person's poverty, or that this beggar is just trying to scam me by leveraging my kindness.
I am just a middle class person in India. But if I were to suddenly become super wealthy, I fear I would carry much of this baggage with me.
I cant substatntiate this with data, but I believe that rich people from other developing nations also have this problem. they dont give their wealth away.
Better education and a growing middle class will help improve the perspective of the average indians. Till then apathy and cynicism will prevail.
Because writing uses thinking processes while donating uses emotional processes. It’s easy to see that what we know intellectually (cigarettes are bad) does not necessarily translate into what we actually do.
The real way of giving away money, using corruption free ways to needy in India, is to start a business venture that is not so profitable but gives tons of employment, like TATA had done since ages. India has so many people ( even wealthy people are poor compare to Western counter part ) that philanthropic activity does not move the needle much, while business venture helps a ton. I hope indian rich keep not-giving away money and instead keep investing in employment generation.
You are correct. Empowering people ends poverty much faster than handouts.
In fact, there is an opinion piece from 2017 in the Guardian titled "Obsession with ending poverty is where development is going wrong" [0] that argued for a reframing of the "end poverty" approach in developing economies like India to something like "enabling prosperity".
One of the most effective ways of "empowering people" who are living in extreme poverty (as with many in India) is actually to provide them with starting capital, with no strings attached. Job creation can be useful of course, but self-employment is surprisingly common among the very poor.
The reason seems to be self-perpetuation really - it isn't that work in itself is some great virtue (we should strive to maximize output not input) but because continuous gains and losses add up over time.
While Ola and Uber would not actually aim to be philanthropic companies, they definitely have enabled people to come from different walks of like and become a driver. I have met many drivers who came from villages to drive and support their family, and Ola and Uber made it very easy for them to get started.
Overall, good for a larger segment of the society i would say.
>>I have met many drivers who came from villages to drive and support their family, and Ola and Uber made it very easy for them to get started.
Making a virtue out of compulsion, eh?
Those people leave rural farming jobs and come to cities, because irrigation infrastructure is in shambles. Farming is not open to free market economics, there is not enough water, and overall its not profitable. They sell what they have and inhale CO day in and out to put food on the table.
Farmer to cabbie ain't exactly a good career transition.
Many rural farming jobs are seasonal - there's nothing much to do for part of the year so no matter how successful the farming is, they're still better off coming to the city and earning an income there.
Bot these companies are heavily funded and are not currently operating 100% based on their own revenue. Once these companies go public, you'll know the real impact of these companies.
Until now, they have been good with providing employment/independence to many people, while improving transport options to the public.
But, once they go public and they cannot throw money at drivers/riders, I expect many drivers to be negatively affected mainly because they start with a new car, purchased/leased through a subprime loan lender, when initial earnings are high. They start feeling the pinch a few months in, when they realize their bonuses are reducing and they are working more days in a month to payoff the car, and receive less into their account.
Sad thing is that, the same billionaires from such startups, will open a foundation/charity to help the poor, and they'll be lauded as "great philanthropists"
You mean to say, Because of Ride "Sharing", they are actually reducing the net employment ? Well, I support all idea that improves resource utilisation and helps environment, even at the cost of employment.
Basically it seems like the premise is that the rich generally like donating because of the publicity it generates for them (trading financial capital to social capital). However, in India there is a fear of being noticed by the 'taxman' and being asked/audited for higher taxes (it's not clear). This means the wealthy are afriad of publically donating, and hence, donate less because there's no 'social capital' to buy via the donation. At least this was my interpretation.
Even when completely legal, rich Americans use charities as a means to avoid taxes while still using their money to influence policy or pursue other agendas. But there are also a plethora of charity-related tax evasion, money laundering, and fraud schemes.
The Trump Foundation is a good recent example of how criminal schemes tied to charitable organizations (like white collar crime more generally) go largely uninvestigated and unpunished in the USA. The brazen repeated crimes were only noticed because the chairman/founder became President and started attracting scrutiny from the media.
My interpretation was also they didn't trust the charities/groups weren't embezzling the money.
>So, for instance, a non-profit that works to improve sanitation could use donor funds to build toilets, hire more people or even buy a laptop or other equipment that might make them more efficient. But most donors, Mr Bhagwati says, will set conditions about how they want the money spent. In other words, they will insist on the toilets being built. He calls this "restricted giving" and says it's hard to coax people to give any other way.
Noting one exception, India's biggest business group 'Tata' is a 100+ years old family business conglomerate, but is mostly owned by various trusts(https://www.tatatrusts.org/). It is very easy to find works around the country funded by them, be it restoration of historical monument, NGO publishing children education books.
This is a clickbait title. The article clearly says "Rich Indians might be charitable, but not enough of them are philanthropists." So the title should be "Why India's rich don't give their money away to philanthropy"?
But going by the comments in this thread I guess the title has achieved in drawing the reactions it really wanted to.
Still as per the quoted report[0], private funding grew by 15% compared to less than 10% growth in US[1] (unfortunately drawing a parallel between private funding is kind of difficult).
Additionally, the article says "ultra-rich households have grown at a rate of 12% over the past five years". So, the private funding growth (15%) has kept up with the UHNI growth in past 5 years? Sure, we can make a case of more funding for UHNI but then the title makes even less sense.
Additionally, to add one more of the interpretations in the ring. Indians donate lots of money in temples like Shirdi, Thirupati Balaji which goes to some chartiable trusts. Though again the major point is charity vs philanthropy.
People do it and there is no effective tracking system in place. As any media house, the headlines and the content inside are contradicting itself.
A headline like 'Philanthropy challenges in India' would have made sense. Comparing to US is a poor benchmark as well.
Please go and check for contributions made by Indian citizens on crowd funding platforms like 'Rangde', you will realise there is some serious traction on.
There are a million ways to help. Giving money away to charity is just one way.
In the US, it is a tax write off & status symbol and you have the challenges of what percentage actually reached the poor.
In India, many huge groups do help in the society. Like the TATA group has employed members of the victims of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, not just the victims that died in the Taj Hotel (Tata owned). Even the families of the cops kills also got something. These are on top of the financial aid given. Handicapped service members (soldiers who are hurt during duty) are extensively employed in the private sector. Basically in India, we believe in teaching a person to fish instead of supplying them free fish. Its actually a rule for Govt entities and most private firms, if a person who is employed dies during on-duty or off-duty. A member of the family will get a job. Basically they help another member of the family to be employed to replace the lost revenue. These efforts are never accounted.
Tata's are pioneers and a model company that all Indian companies aspire to follow. There are many examples of this involving other groups. Actors like Nana Patekar has adopted villages.
As per the Vedic culture, you actually have to help the needy yourself and not make someone else to do it. So, the concept of giving a charity cheque is not accepted to many.
In my village, we have a collective fund that I pay to monthly. The fund is used to serve dinner to all 365 days a year. We have about 300 people daily for dinner. Like a soup kitchen in the US.
In India we do both. Teach them how to fish as well as hand out lots of fish - government’s byzantine number of subsidises or continuous farm loan wavers.
Despite claims on the contrary, the philanthropist model is a way for a rich person to use their money to control public policy and garner public support. I'm no expert on India, but with the wide scale corruption problem I'd guess they just skip the middlemen.
Yeah. There is also the element of how being philanthropic isn't 'cool' as it might be in the US. The article specially notes the problem of how the are no economic incentives to do so, unlike the US and China.
TBH, I'm not aware of this org. This org as well as many more out there may be doing genuinely good work.
I'm not an American but I'm skeptical about US politics, of which "Philanthropy" is a huge part.
So any thing that comes across as a philanthropy especially one whose goal is to solve a political problem, I'll be a little extra skeptical about it. Especially from a country that is known around the world to install democracy of their choice
I'm not sure which side of the US politics you are (I'm neither, since I cannot vote in the US), but it's kinda funny that Carter Center didn't monitor elections in the US, so all we have are the "collusion" stories flooding the news reports every day, in 2019.
If you take a look at the most hated personalities in India, most of them happen to be the darlings of certain US Philanthropies. (I hope that explains my skepticism about such orgs).
- There is an incredible amount of systemic corruption in India. This means there are people- a lot of them, who are rich not by the value creation or inheritance.
- A measure of wealth in India is land ownership, not swathes of hundreds of acres of land like Bezos, but owning a 200 Sq.Ft. land or some real estate property in cities. A flat in a decent city like Bangalore or Hyderabad goes upwards of million dollars.
- Binami. These are aliases of rich politicians mostly their family members control hordes of wealth.
When these people start to give away, it actually generates negative social capital. They face a backlash from the same people they are donating to because, they cannot donate enough. The reason why recipients are insatiable is because, they view the wealth accumulated by these people is thru' non-legit means.
- We are seeing a new generation of multi-millionaires in this country. Seeing what they saw I don't think they will be inspired to donate. If they set up an organisation be it a private charity, there is a good chance they will have to deal with misappropriation of funds in their own organisation.
- Add caste based and religion based inconveniences you may cause to general public with your charitable work, unbeknownst to you.