Chapter II - Beyond Alms-Giving

Read the information below in 15+ languages by selecting your preferred language using the translation tool in the top left corner of the screen.

Made publicly available in the spirit of open access by its author, Noshir Dadrawala (CEO, Centre for Advancement of Philanthropy), and collaborators CAP and Forbes Marshall.

Katy Butler, in 'Robin Hood was Right', notes, "There are only three things to be done with surplus money: spend it, invest it or give it away. Each person must decide what combination of the three makes the most sense, personally and morally."

Andrew Carnegie, a one-time penniless bobbin boy, gave away $350 million to various philanthropic causes. Perhaps his most enduring contribution to civilisation was the setting up of some 3,000 libraries in the United States of America and abroad.

Carnegie in 'The Gospel of Wealth', summed up the duty of 'the man of wealth' as follows: "To set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and, after doing so, to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgement, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community - the man of wealth thus becoming a mere trustee and agent for his poor brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves."

Carnegie had identified seven "best uses to which a millionaire can devote the surplus of which he should regard himself as only the trustee":

Carnegie also had a word of caution for what he called 'indiscriminate charity'. He believed, "It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy. Of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity today, it is probable that nine hundred and fifty dollars is unwisely spent - so spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which it hopes to mitigate or cure."

Carnegie then provides an analogy of a well-known writer of philosophic books who had given a quarter of a dollar to a man who approached him, although he had every reason to suspect that it would be spent improperly. Carnegie felt, "The quarter dollar given that night will probably work more injury than all the money will do good which its thoughtless donor will ever be able to give in true charity. He only gratified his own feelings, saved himself from annoyance - and this was probably one of the most selfish and very worst actions of his life."

In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves; to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who desire to rise the means by which they may rise; to assist only to the extent that is required, rarely or never to do all. Carnegie firmly believed, "Neither the individual nor the race is improved by almsgiving....for in alms giving, more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue."

Modern and forward-looking as Carnegie's philosophy on 'giving' may seem, it has its roots in the Greek tradition of broad gifts for the populace as a whole. The Athenian citizen, Herodes Atticus, provided water supply to the city of Troas, a theatre to Corinth, a stadium to Delphi, aqueducts for Canusium in Italy and baths for Thermopylae. Many, if not most, of the other benefactions of that period were similar to those of Atticus. Indeed, they were all acts of philanthropy (for the public at large) and not charity (for individual needy people).

Bertrand Russell had observed a complete absence of benevolence in the Greek philosopher Aristotle. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as Aristotle was aware of them, did not move him emotionally. In fact, he held them, intellectually, to be an evil.

Not by wealth alone

Philanthropy, however, is not about giving of one's wealth alone. It includes giving of one's time, experience, expertise and labour. John D. Rockefeller, another leading philanthropist and contemporary of Carnegie, believed, "The most generous people in the world are the very poor, who assume each other's burdens in the crises which come so often to the hard-pressed. The mother in the tenement falls ill and the neighbour in the next room assumes her burdens. The father loses his work, and neighbours supply food to his children from their scanty store. How often one hears of cases where the orphans are taken over and brought up by the poor friend whose benefaction means great additional hardship! This sort of genuine service makes the most princely gift from superabundance look insignificant indeed..... It is only the spirit of giving that counts, and the very poor give without any self-consciousness."

R.M. Lala, in a paper titled "Not by Funds Alone", contributed for the International Conference on Corporate Philanthropy (1991), provided an interesting anecdote. "As a trust officer," he wrote, "I received a handwritten appeal from a young man in Pune who said he was the son of a farmer who had an annual income of Rs 5,000/-. He was studying agriculture at the University. He applied too late to get a government scholarship and was in grave difficulties. I requested a young man from the Symbiosis College of Management, Pune, to visit and find out whether the case was genuine and whether he deserved our scholarship."

Lala then quotes from the letter of the management student, Bharat Avalani, "Presently he is having a very difficult time and it is very difficult for him to also pay his mess bill which comes to around Rs 250/- per month. He says sometimes he has only one meal a day. Also I must mention that he is quite thin and looks a little undernourished.....I personally feel that he is very deserving and sincere.... I shared this with some of my close friends and we had the thought that we should also do something to ease his burden. We also realise now how fortunate and privileged we are. So far I've managed to collect Rs 300/- from friends who have contributed willingly and voluntarily after hearing about Rajesh. Another friend who has a family business of his own, offered to pay his mess bill next month."

Concludes Lala, "The philanthropy of the students reached Rajesh before I could, as Director of the Sir Dorab Tata Trust, sign the scholarship letter." Adds Lala, "And the conclusion I have come to is that men are more important than funds - men dedicated to serving their fellowmen in a country of India's size, diversity and problems, the way to uplift the nation is to light the spark in a million hearts and let them find their momentum. Funds are needed to assist them. But if you start with creating large organisations and expect them to do the job, you are beginning at the wrong end. We need men who will plan the strategy, have the dedication and also give of themselves."

Head over heart

The patron saint of American philanthropy is not Dorothea Dix or any other saintly person but rather Benjamin Franklin, the man with a business sense and an eye on his community. For Franklin, doing good was not a private act between a bountiful giver and a grateful receiver, it was a prudent social act. A wise act of philanthropy would, sooner or later, benefit the giver, along with all other members of the community.

While living in Philadelphia, Franklin developed philanthropic enterprises which included projects for establishing a city police, for the paving and the better cleaning and lighting of city streets, for a circulating library, for the American Philosophical Society for Useful Knowledge, for an Academy for the Education of Youth (origin of the University of Pennsylvania), for a debating society and for a volunteer fire department. Few, if any, of Franklin's enterprises were primarily for the immediate relief of distress or misfortune. If an activity was required and was not yet performed by the Government, he thought it perfectly reasonable that individuals club together to do the job, not only to fill the gap, but also to prod or shame the Government into doing their part.

Julius Rosenwald considered the concept of 'benevolent giver and grateful receiver' and the axiom that the 'poor are always with you', as 'sob-stuff' philanthropy. Rosenwald was not hard-hearted, but merely tough-minded. He said, "I do not like the 'sob-stuff' philanthropy. What I want to do is to try to cure the things that seem to be wrong. I do not underestimate the value of helping the underdog. That, however, is not my chief concern but rather the operation of cause and effect. I try to do the thing that will aid groups and masses rather than individuals."

Ideas on philanthropy have varied with the customs of people, with changing needs and with the development of the human mind and man's desire to make life happier for others. India, today, has come a long way from the concept of feeding the cow, the dog and the Brahmin. While Mahatma Gandhi believed, "All wealth is a social trust and every individual a trustee entitled to its proper utilisation for the common good", Jamsetji N. Tata (1839-1904) felt, "What advances a nation or a community is not so much to prop up its weakest and most helpless members but to lift up the best and the most gifted so as to make them of the greatest service to the country." States R.M. Lala, in 'The Heartbeat of a Trust', "Jamsetji was a man sensitive to the suffering of his people but realised that 'patchwork philanthropy' as he called it - giving some food here and clothes there - would not go far."

India being a land of many cultures and ethnic groups, there is a natural and healthy diversity in the philosophy and approach to philanthropy. Some strike at the root, while others address only the external manifestations. Mother Teresa felt, "Poverty is man-made and not by God." She believed, "Those who are consecrated (to the work of God), poverty is a joy and a freedom. If you talk of cruelty, you are judging others and meanwhile someone who needs help may die in the next two hours. If you judge people, you have no time to love them." Mother Teresa was not concerned about how poverty or suffering can or should be removed. She only knew that poverty and suffering exist and, therefore, it is our duty to be of service.

In this diversity of approach, however, there is but one common factor - philanthropy or the love for human beings.