hmm... I need to take a look at this article, but the argument seems bizarre to me. The idea that "charitable giving" somehow establishes communities' "Americanness" makes no sense to me. Furthermore, do desis really cringe at the thought of being American? My fellow second-generation desis don't really reflect that to me. In fact most of them are barely aware of South Asian politics or charitable causes. I've been called out on the same by first-generation people my age.

Our community/ies is/are still relatively young in this country. There was a major gap in our immigration, and we didn't have established communities like East Asians did between 1900 and the 1960s. I think it's actually too early to start making these kind of proclamations.

great post, naina. i really hope the comments following mine explain even further where we stand as community that needs to unite in order to succeed and be confident.

my experience is there is so much competition amongst us that we don't think of other desis as part of community.

hopefully it's because

we haven’t had the gift of time in this country like other groups have to establish social services for our own

also, yeah you're right. some of us hindus (at times only) do give a lot of money to temples. where does that go? to the maintenance of the temple and the devotees living there or a cause of some sort?

I read read Maneka's post and I think she is predisposed to bias, and wrote it just for the heck of it, because she did not mention notable social causes which the south asians are involved in and just focussing on the other side. As respect to 1'st gen my father is graduate from IIT and mother is a doctor and they support underpriviledged children in India and they say they will continue to do so as they think its their moral responsibility. My father never forgets to mention he just paid 10% fees in college rest 90% of the tag was picked by govenment ( somehow he feels guilty of not serving the country)it is his way of saying Thankyou.They don't expect the same from me and I respect them for what they are doing.

As for Maneka I don't understand how by helping international cause affects our future generations either she too narrow minded or she is forgetting what American valus stand for that is of respect and generosity towards others.
If she had watched President Bush in the recent State of Nation Address he specifically honoured people who have not forgotten their roots and helping others outside Americam borders, that is what being American means rather than defining in a narrow context.

For any of you who might have gone to high school with a huge south asian population or a university like NYU, UTexas, Rutgers etc...do a lot of the kids who hang out in those huge brown cliques mostly think of themselves as Indian/Pakistani/Bengali first?

I'm asking this cause I'm wondering if maybe Maneka Sinha's idea of second generation desis comes from her own experience as a student at a university or high school or community with a huge indian population.

I just read her article and it is unclear to me that the statistics she uses apply solely to the current generation. When she is comparing groups, she talks about the 'community' - Latino community, Asian American community etc. To me, 'community' does not separate the generations - it just means all people in the US of a particular ethnicity. Only when she speaks of desis does she say 'South Asian Americans' - presumably the 'American' part is to denote the current generation. [Though even when you are including the 'American' moniker for any of the groups, it still, plausibly, speaks of the ethnic group living in this country, irregardless of generation.] If that is so, however, her statistics on the different groups are not comparable. Which means that the statistics could or could not be inclusive of the older generations. And that sort of takes away from her point that people of our generation are still tying their charitable efforts to their parents' country of upbringing, and not to their own. Even if she had comparable statistics, I'm with Naina about the proof-of-Americanness bit. I'm a rather extremist cosmopolitan, so the idea that service to one community or country is somehow 'better' than that to other groups is not one that I accept.

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.

Next time, I give money to Red Cross, Mercy Corp, Special Olympics, Local Firefighters Association, Local Cops, etc., I'll post the receipts on my door and announce loudly in the hallways - It might help me get promoted and get salary raises.

Since when is charity done to break glass ceiling.

I think Ms. Sinha's reasoning is little dense and highly selfish.

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.

In a very simplistic argument, I think most 2nd generation South Asians would have visited their parents' homeland atleast a few times in their lives, and would recognize the fact that the same amount of money goes a much longer way in India/Pakistan etc. in helping the under-priviledged, compared to here. But I guess this should be true for all who (or whose parents) are from countries where significant purchasing power disparity exists.

sinha's article talks about how we (immigrants and 2nd genners) give money and time to folks back home in south asia, and not so much in the community we live in.

but honestly, i don't even witness much giving back of time, money and wisdom to our own (desi) community in the U.S. i think that's should be the first step at least.

For me, it's more a case of who needs the charity more: a person living in one of the richest countries in the world with a good welfare system, a new mosque for the local muslim community in aforementioned country or a person living in a developing country in abject poverty without bare necessities such as clean drinking water, food and shelter? The latter always seems to win for me as I am a human being first and Australian second.

the article is kind of dumb obviously as charitable giving is one metric. that being said, it's an article and you need to fasten onto to superficial metrics to highlight a general trend, etc. etc. i think a previous commenter hit it spot on when they noted that we're mostly an immigrant community, while east asians have groups like the japanese who are mostly multi-generation natives (that is, their great grandparents might be from japan if they are in their 20s, sometimes their great-great grandparents) or the cantonese chinese as well as newer immigrants from taiwan or south korea.

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?

of curse it makes jews less american, i've talked to jewish american friends who are 4th generation americans who say if they had to pick between the USofA and israel they'd pick israel. to which i tell them to do the aliyah and leave my country :-) though seriously, there is a double standard in part because jews are under existential threat now and then and the holocaust happened and groups most prone to shit on them for their divided loyalties are the same groups (evangelical conservative whites) who are pro-zionist because of their religious beliefs. in contrast, liberals who might be anti-israel are less likely to accuse groups of being unpatriotic or third columnists (e.g., they might be more likely to criticize israel firsters for supporting colonialism and racism rather than being disloyal to the land of their birth).

also, a minor point of semantics, but i do think it is important to consider the USofA the "motherland," and brownland (or whatever foreign land) the "ancestral land" or something accurate but which doesn't imply that we're visitors in the nation which we choose to make our lives, and our futures, in. there are semantic issues that many of us browns had to deal with adults, from our classmates and the general population assuming we were aliens by virtue of our looks, to our parents distinguishing between us and "americans," that i think it is important to be uncompromising in the fact that his land is our land and it is the only land many of us will ever have, and had, and that goes to abandoning quirks of language which imply a detachment from this land that isn't real.

Razib I think you had several good points, i'm too lazy to add anything new.

also, a non-trivial point, a indian american relationship with india that is cognate with the jewish american relationship with israel or cuban american relationship with cuba or the armenian american relationship with armenia isn't going to happen because india is a far more important nation whose relations are more thorough and complex than israel, armenia or cuba. jews and arabs (and more or less muslims) might be obsessed with the israel-palestine issue as if it is the be all & end all, but its importance is only cuz the jewish lobby has america by the balls, israel has nukes and the arabs have oil. nukes, oil and ethnic lobbying are all important and significant, but i would assert that the number of parameters are pretty small when you consider that israel is the size of new jersey and the arab autocracies have their jew-hating-but-doing-nothing schtick down pretty well. in contrast, indian americans who have a relationship with india or chinese americans who have a relationship with china, are going to have to deal with the fact that their "special relationship" is going to be with two nations who are going to be rivals & allies with each other & america depending on very complex circumstances.

p.s. analogy, i'm talking about the difference between having dual loyalties between ireland & the usa, and between german & the usa. the former isn't laudable, but ireland just isn't a big player. germany wuz.

I don't see the problem with giving to causes which are close to your hearts. Truth be told, the need is far greater in developing countries like India then it is here. Millions of kids die in India every ear because of entirely preventable causes. If people with South Asian heritage won't care about these causes then who will. In my past three years oranizing fundraising events for child rights in India, I have found that a lot of Americans actually prefer to donate to these causes once they realize the scale of the problems in South Asia. Does it make them un-american in doing so? Hardly so.

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.

So Sinha's reason to give to charity is to ensure that direct benefits accrue to the giver. To make people like us and enable us to get ahead in our careers. Who cares about the poor back home? They can't give us recognition or help us get ahead.

I much prefer giving according to what are considered "pre-modern" reasons -- because of tribal affiliations, to acquire religious merit -- to Sinha's cold and calculated modern rationality.

The term South Asian Americans needs to be further segmented into American born vs. foreign born. For example, first generation immigrants, who are South Asian Americans as well, have a much greater affinity to their countries of birth and naturally donate to the causes and, more often, to poorer relatives left behind. Do the American born South Asians do the same? I would hope not. I would expect ABD's to invest mainly in local issues and organizations, and in that sense be no different than other races. This article did not study the vast emerging American born South American Asians.

A group I work with raises funds for children in need right here, and proposed just yesterday that it was time to put some of the dollars we raise where they make a bigger difference. That's another factor in sending money to the South Asian ancestral lands. Of course Euro-Americans have sent relief funds to Europe before--war torn and otherwise. In any case, without proffering any formal measurments/data to support what I'm about to say, it's obvious, just from looking at the names of existing fundraising groups, that it's quite usual practice for newly established communities here to start into philanthropy both by sending proceeds back to the Olda Contry and by starting local but culture-specific groups with a secondary purpose of asserting a collective presence, sometime via hyperbole (scroll down this page to see the part where New York Social Diary descrbes Sonal Mansingh as "india's greatest dancer") that entails networking---before and after individuals from the community get into the kind of earlier established causes that Sinha is identifying as mainstream-- and then newcomers are more likely to get into crossover stuff or raising serious money for something universal like medical research rather than supporting older museums and opera houses and such. It also depends what one is invited to partcipate in, since a lot of this kind of activity tends to be by invitation only. It's quite easy to take some pictorial measure of who's supporting what online nowadays.

I think Maneka Sinha is missing another thing. She's not counting how much money is collected from Euro-Americans here or living abroad to go to:

French Heritage Society
The Prince's Trust
Save Venice
King Baudouin Foundation
United German-American Committee

...and who know what else.

bengali (#9):

For me, it's more a case of who needs the charity more: a person living in one of the richest countries in the world with a good welfare system, a new mosque for the local muslim community in aforementioned country or a person living in a developing country in abject poverty without bare necessities such as clean drinking water, food and shelter?

What exactly do you mean by good welfare system? Most Americans would either say that the welfare system is inadequate or inadequately administered, or would say that there's no such thing as a good welfare system. The bottom line is that there are plenty of people living in poverty in one of the richest countries in the world, and they deserve help too.

That said:

Given how significantly (to put it lightly) US economic and foreign policy impact the rest of the world, particularly developing countries, maybe those other Americans should look to up that 2.2% a bit...

Also, it's not enough just to give. One has to take it upon oneself to do a bit of research into organizations and what exactly they do with the money they receive.

Do American desis give to groups that explicitly cater to the community's needs in the US, like SAYA and Sakhi, and would that be seen as somehow disloyal to the larger nation? I don't think it's so unusual in American history for people to feel a stronger solidarity with those they relate to in some way - Italian and Polish migrants used to give to community self-help groups and churches, Jewish groups ditto (and to pro-Israel causes),even not-so-wealthy Mexican migrants send money back to their home villages, and evangelicals often give to their own church's missions overseas. Not sure why this should be such a big deal.

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?

They're white. For a few centuries American and white were synonymous. Most Americans are still white, so the definition lingers at a subconscious level.

I think Ms. Sinha's reasoning is little dense and highly selfish

I agree. It's very dense, you can only buy so much acceptance. What needs to change is the definition of an American, immigrants cannot be dealt an "either/or" choice - that is, either your with us or against us. People should be allowed to be "American" without having to sever ties to "Indian" or "Chinese" or "Malaysian" or whatever.

If desis want to establish themselves, then donate time and money to Politics. You get the biggest bang for the buck there.

Thanks for the great post, Naina. Some comments that popped up:

there are also several of us who have made public service to our fellow Americans our life’s work.

I believe this is the biggest hole in the article's argument. Commitment to public service is quite common amongst the desi population, especially 2nd gen desis. Even with first generation desis, you had a lot of doctors, scientists, etc., that may not be non-profit professions, but certainly work toward the public good.

I have a hunch that most Hindus, specifically, would rather contribute to their local temples first before donating elsewhere.

In my experience this is very true, especially amongst South Indian Hindus. Nearly every sizeable South Indian community in the country builds a temple as soon as it establishes itself. Still, I don't see the same level of community outreach as I do in churches and synagogues with similar sized congregations. There are two explanations that I can come up with. First, even though temples have an ancient tradition of being community centers, I don't think that same tradition of community service exists, and the two are very different things. Second, my folks and their friends are very involved in the SSVT temple in Maryland. This temple has adopted the strategy that the first goal of the temple should be to pay off its mortgage and raise funds for an endowment the interest of which will be able to pay for the operating expenses of the temple in perpetuity. Any money raised after that can be used for other purposes. I believe most of the temples that haven't gone under are following this model and they are only now reaching the point where they have money above and beyond the mortgage and endowment.

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,

In my case, absolutely. 80% of my charitable contributions are directed at India, mainly because I see a greater need for money there than here. The remainder goes to US political candidates I happen to like.

b) the reason for this trend is because most South Asians identify as brown first rather than as American, and

Yes, I think there is some truth to that, though many would say they consider themselves both, in equal measure, or some such thing, - that doesn't make one anti-American or an irresponsible citizen btw.

c) brown people should donate to domestic causes in order to assert our American identity to the mainstream population.

I diasgree.

"Next time, I give money to Red Cross, Mercy Corp, Special Olympics, Local Firefighters Association, Local Cops, etc., I'll post the receipts on my door and announce loudly in the hallways - It might help me get promoted and get salary raises."

Seriously! I think the Democratic National Committee has telemarketed me out of half my earnings this year. Maybe I should add that to my resume, along with a little American flag logo on it so employers can see how patriotic I am before they decide to put a glass ceiling over my brown head. Ridiculous.

Another form of philantrophy besides local temples that Sinha conveniently overlooks is the funding of various South Asian educational centers at American Universities. My parents had been pretty active in the formation of SUNY Stonybrook's India Studies Center, which has a wide variety of content and language courses, and a study abroad program. As it turned out, most of the people involved in the program each year are non-Indian. Most centers like this depend on foreign donors, but many are funded by local immigrant communities. In this way, desis in America can assert their Americanness by educating other Americans on their culture and origins. This seems like a more diginified channel than donating to various "neutral" causes just to prove some sort of baseless point about being committed to America.

Still, I don't see the same level of community outreach as I do in churches and synagogues with similar sized congregations.

From my experience, and I'm very embedded in the group of people that built the Bridgewater SV temple (been around since 1991), which is the largest revenue earning Hindu temple in the US. At least with that temple, the groups responsible for building it never had community (non-Indian) outreach as a major goal. The idea is to subtly recreate an environment connected to what existed back "home". Once that goal is met, everything else is ancillary at best. But whether they like it or not, they are beacons for the Hindu religion (not necessarily the Indian community in general), its tragic they take it so lightly.

What I find interesting in the article is the assumption that it's GOOD that Americans (I'm assuming "white" americans since the author goes on to discuss african americans, latinos and the other asian-americans--and I'm guessing native Americans wouldn't be counted in her study since they aren't considered immigrants) only donate 2.2% of their charity dollars to international efforts (in fact, white americans might donate much less than 2.2% since presumably the higher rates of the other ethnic blocks raises the national rate). Isn't that one of the reasons used to scorn Americans--that such a relatively rich country is obsessed with itself? I mean, doesn't the U.N. constantly cite low levels of U.S. government foreign aid relative to GDP as an issue? So, is it really bad to have some private citizens focus a higher rate of focus on international development, in recognition of obligations not just as a citizen of the U.S. but also a citizen of the world, especially when the majority of giving is still local (100%-13.3%=96.7% of money that stays local no?).

That's without examining some of the other issues. For example, African Americans donate to local churches etc. What about Africans? Is the author lumping those communities of African immigrants who have arrived in the last 40 years with the descendants of those forcibly relocated to North America centuries ago with all ties to their ancestral land completely and irrevocably severed? I'd suggest that African Americans and Africans recognize that there are strong differences in their culture and beliefs and I wouldn't be surprised if their allocation of charitable dollars was quite different. What about those who come from the Carribbean and identify as black? Do they donate to the local Baptist outreach centre as well? I'm not so sure. I'd at least like to know that the author had considered this difference instead of using the simplistic "same skin-tone =same" categories. Maybe their is a footnote somewhere in the article that deals with this issue.

I'd like to know if the author considered charitable giving to organizations like Rotary, Lions etc. as local or international. Many of these local clubs allocate a percentage of collections towards international charitable efforts and their members are very aware of this. Thus, Joe American may be quite comfortable donating his charitable dollars to his Rotary Foundation, knowing that while some money stays local, other money goes towards international projects.

Finally, I guess I'm curious as to where the author falls on the issue of donating to local ethnic interests. It seems that she thinks that if you're latino and donate to an american latino outreach program vs. sending money to the orphanage back in Mexico, you're a better American. The author doesn't seem to suggest that the money could be better served by an ethnic neutral organization such as the municipal food bank. So, it's okay to segregate your charitable giving on the basis of ethnicity as long as the segregation is done within American borders? That's an interesting interpretation of the much publicized American value of melting-pot assimilation.

Those are just a few of the problems I have with the article. I guess it's hard for me to come to consider the ramfications of the author's conclusions when it seems like the building blocks of her argument are a little unsteady.

c) brown people should donate to domestic causes in order to assert our American identity to the mainstream population.

Noted. To assert my Indian American identity, I give money to American Indians, the ones on the rez. The rez is the third world...in America. Other than that, to hell with the national identities. Help out those at the margins wherever they may be. A good spillover to such giving is that it brings positive balance to the idea that all Americans are bastards like the Bushies.

Very thought provoking article though not sure I agree with most of it. The act of giving in itself is a very American concept to me. In my world there are two kinds of giving, time/energy and money. Personally I give time/energy to my local community and money to charitable organizations in India. Two reasons for this. I am Indian, I was born there and understand the culture/problems there and feel closer to them than somewhere else.

And yes I am American and I don't see how donating to India or supporting a country that I consider less fortunate (for the masses) than the United States, makes me any less American. In fact that implication alone is utterly ridiculous. I don't generally donate money in the United States except to NPR but I do get involved in fundraising for various causes as well as give time. I find that to be the best use of my resources.

Time to community, money to where I can't physically make a dent.

fascinating discussion...

i donate to 'american' causes... and 'indian' causes as well... whether it be financial, volunteering at medical camps whether it be here or abroad, or time doing things like stuffing envelopes to moving boxes..

help is help
no matter what country, part of the world you do it in..
to divide it by color/country/race/ethnicity is just dumb.

or maybe i'm too much of a simpleton when i look at things like philanthropy.

does it matter who you help in the end? no.
point is you're doing something.
that is a lot more than others are doing.

my favorite philanthropist of recent times: warren buffet.. a recent cnbc piece on him shows what a simple guy he is...and since the gates foundation is providing immunizations to the rest of the WORLD does it make bill and amanda less American and white? yeah...

Time to community, money to where I can't physically make a dent.

p.s. naina, giving 2 yrs to inner city kids is awesome.. that is the highest form of charity... teachers rock. xoxo!

This article is absolute bull. Let's take my example. I have never ever given any money to beggars in India. But the first time I went to the UK, I went berserk dumping "spare change" on white beggars; I mean WHITE beggars! WTF? For days I giddily wandered around the tube stations showering them with change. If I was giving someone four coins, I'd drop them one by one, very slowly, relishing each and every clang to the fullest. It was then that I truly understood the joys of giving. The novelty soon wore off though; still, those were the days...

HMF says: "People should be allowed to be "American" without having to sever ties to "Indian" or "Chinese" or "Malaysian" or whatever."
Oh come on. Anybody can be a "real American." Anybody. The base of the Statue of Liberty says so. In fact, it even encourages the world to send whoever--"...send me your poor, your tired, etc., yearning to breathe free...etc." Now of course, desi-Americans are mostly desirable as citizens and what is the problem with being a "model minority"? The same qualities are admired in them as were admired in any Yankee townsquare of yesteryear. But HMF, your proposition creates a Catch 22. You can't expect "Americans" to accept and trust you if your prime loyalty is elsewhere and you've dragged all the baggage; yet, apparently, you are resentful of not being accepted. Got a quandary going on there. Forcryingoutloud, of course there are "real Americans" who are desi, and no rational person would question their national identity.
Now--could a Swede be accepted as a "real Chinese" if he chose to live there? How about India? Nah. No way Jose, as they say.
To comment on the initial posting: My experience is that desis are pretty generous to local causes in the U.S., and if they donate to Indian charities, fine. India needs help too. The only time it is a problem giving to causes of another country, is when it is at the expense of those in this country, who don't want to be involved in such donations. Such as Americans giving to the Israeli lobby as opposed to Israel, or the IRA, as opposed to Irish charities. Then it is wrong because it is political.

However, realize the implications of HMF's statment. If you are so sure that you have to be "white" to be perceived as a real "American", that is your problem. Legally, you are just as much of citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities, as someone whose ancestors came over by means of the Mayflower, a slave ship, Ellis Island, or an orphan on a plane from Saigon. Why, U.S. law allowed an infertile woman from Nigeria to enter the U.S., get fertility treatment, and produce octuplets. How generous is that? The locals--in Texas yet--pitched in and gave the new family a house to live in, as the family had decided beforehand to remain here. Meanwhile, there are people born and raised here who can't afford all that, but at least you couldn't accuse Texans in this story of racism. You can't always get what you want, but sometimes, you get what you need.

While the world may be one country someday, it's normal to feel connected with, and supportive of, your ancestral lands and people. However, this virtual dual citizenship some people promote--and it doesn't matter what countries you're talking about--has ramifications for the immediate future. All countries are going to be evolving into something quite different in the future, but a social experiment not entirely under anyone's control, is underway in America especially. People are being asked to leave priorities of ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, ideology, etc., behind and yet still respect such things. Difficult balancing act. Whether they can do that depends on what is there to replace what they give up. Has it been done before, I wonder? If so, in how many countries has this worked?

Excellent post but you miss a few points when you talk about philantrophy and giving back to the community, the donations dont always have to be monetary. Often times you can give back in terms of effort and time - helping pets get adopted, spending time with senior citizens, participating in charity walks. I seldom see any fellow macacas, in community related activities.

inside the beltway, great post! I agree 100%.

The focus on philanthropy is a bit confusing, but this is part of a larger debate on how newer generations assimilate into the mainstream American experience.

The prevailing view among "immigration reformers" is that new immigrants identify more closely with their country of origin, and therefore become American merely for convenience. They are neither invested in American ideals, nor supportive of American policies. With respect to foreign policy, all American conduct is filtered through the lens of their home country's interests.

While you can dismiss the philanthropy argument quite easily, it's hard not to see some truth in the assertion that many immigrants, and especially desi immigrants, are more Indian than they are American. It's not a question of giving up your social or cultural values. It's a question of participation in American life. I know plenty of recent South Asian immigrants who live in desi-dominated enclaves, only have desi friends, and generally disdain everything America stands for. Why become American in that case?

The article is generally correct...more desis should give money to institutions that affect them directly (like university chairs, buidling, cneters; and hospital outreach) instead of throwing millions at temples for whatever reason...the point that Jewish-Americans give a lot of money to Israel is irrelevant since they have given and created many many institutions in the U.S. beforehand {foundations, buildings, universities and colleges (Brandeis, Bloomberg, Geffen); Weill medical school, Mt. Sinai hospital, etc.)partly because their interests weren't served well and they were trying to make a mark on American society...if one wants to "help India" and do it with the best Return on Investment, then one can give to Planned Parenthood (or other family planning services; to services that educate women to make them more independent from their family; and to conservation of the environment (water; and monuments and cultural records which are decaying quickly.
The poster and many of the posts are too reflexive in their bias. I doubt the author was trying to undermine what it is to be an Indian-American.

Even in decline, the dollar handily beats all desi currencies. It is nice to see your donation multiplied by 45.

UberMetroMallu, your comments are always awesome (and hilarious)!

As for charities, give to whoever your heart dictates...just make sure it's a decent, legitimate charity that doesn't eat up all the donations with its own overheads.

To summarize the various arguments for/against international vs. domestic giving:
Nationalistic: 1) My country of citizenship and the people who live there deserve my special attention, hence I should consider giving to my country first. 2) No, my country of birth deserves special attention since I am culturally similar to the people living there; so I should consider giving to them first.

Cosmopolitan-utilitarian: I do not accept that people living in my country of citizenship deserve my special consideration. Humans qua humans deserve consideration,and artificial markers such as citizenship should not decide who gets special consideration. That being said I should give to causes or places where my donation of time/effort or money will have the maximum effect/ do the maximum good. Often this is the country of my citizenship, but not always.

egoistic-utilitarian: I should give to the people living in my country of citizenship sine this is good public relations and I will rise in the esteem of my fellow citizens.

Sigh - to your "nationalistic" category you might add "empathy" - the suffering of a certain group of people is something that I can relate to better or that is more important to me. It's not always nationalistic - former alcoholics will give to AA, religious people to religious charities, in a similar way.

SP: you are right. I think that the nationalistic category is a particular subset of the empathic category. Doubtless some might argue that some empathies are more rational (such as the ones you describe) than others and on that basis might categorize nationalism differently.

I meant "some of the ones you describe" since many would consider religious empathy as irrational as empathy based on one's citizenship.

Oh come on. Anybody can be a "real American." Anybody. The base of the Statue of Liberty says so. In fact, it even encourages the world to send whoever--"...send me your poor, your tired, etc., yearning to breathe free...etc."

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.

But HMF, your proposition creates a Catch 22. You can't expect "Americans" to accept and trust you if your prime loyalty is elsewhere and you've dragged all the baggage; yet, apparently, you are resentful of not being accepted. Got a quandary going on there.

Sure I can. By extending the definition of American, one doesn't have to choose between "selling out" and "not being accepted" My point is, it isn't us that should change, it's the very definition. It's counterintuitive when you're sticking to "this-or-that" methodology. I don't want acceptance in the sense you're using the word.

In discussions of Indians settled in Kenya, mutineers mention that Indians use their money power to help in emergencies, and build up goodwill with the majority. I strongly commend this example. As minorities, we do need the goodwill of the majority, so outreach is important. The Hindu temple in Livermore has begun to do some outreach. In particular, it contributes money to local charities, one of which is (I think) a Christian charity. I feel the outreach would increase if second-generation Indian Americans become committee members in Hindu temples. It's just a question of building consensus.

There are things other then helping the poor in there own country that some in the west give there money to. Some of those are issues in the homeland that have to due to political causes back in the homeland. My parents almost found out the hard way what happens when you don't support those causes.

My parents in the early 80's were being harrased by some right wing sikh's to give to there stupid Khalistan movement. One time few of these idiots came to my parents house and told them that if they did not give money then they would be sorry. Yeah that made my parents scared at 1st. However one thing that set my parents apart most other desi's in the west was that they had made friends with many of there white neighbors. A couple of those friends were in the police. So my parents were able to get there police friends to talk to these khalistan idiots and didn't have to deal with these people ever again in Canada. But in India several of my dad's cousins were beated by these idiots cause of my parents actions.

To this day when my parents come to visit the Vancouver area, there are some here who still look down on them for what they didn't do.

However one thing that set my parents apart most other desi's in the west was that they had made friends with many of there white neighbors.

Yet again Clueless it's trollish statements like the above that prevent me from taking anything you say seriously.

However one thing that set my parents apart most other desi's in the west was that they had made friends with many of there white neighbors. A couple of those friends were in the police.

I once offered a beer to my white neighbor. He accepted it. It made me feel good. That sets me apart from the other desis, IMO.

JaneofallTrades what did I say that was so wrong about that one statement. There are alot of desi in the west like Hema said in end of post#36 who don't not have anything do with non-south asians.

I'm sorry that you don't like what I had to say. I guess maybe if you were a 8 year old and your parents are threatened as a kid, it may have an impact of you views as you get older.

my father asks my sister and i to help him choose the NGOs and other organizations to which he makes an annual donation. he asks us to look at both local/state/national organzations as well as international so that we are helping people all over. while ms. sinha's points are not lost on me, i do believe she is making some unfortunate generalizations.

in addition, i agree with those of you who were saying that 2nd generation south asians (like me!) are compelled to give back to local communities with the professional choices made. there are many south asian americans who have become teachers in underserved communities, non-profit workers, lawyers working for legal aid coalitions, etc.

there are many ways to give back to communities and it is important to do so both nationally and internationally.

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:

“My family’s village in Bangladesh.”

“Urban areas in India.”

“My parents’ hometown in Pakistan.”

These are typical answers I have received over the years from first-generation South Asian Americans who like myself, have been born and raised in the US, when I ask them, to the question, “if you had the ability to give back to communities in need, where would you focus your efforts?” Usually, I respond follow-up with, “what about the neighborhood you grew up in, or elsewhere here in the US?”

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?

The act of giving in itself is a very American concept to me.

Noted. To assert my Indian American identity, I give money to American Indians, the ones on the rez. The rez is the third world...in America.

Anybody can be a "real American." Anybody. The base of the Statue of Liberty says so. In fact, it even encourages the world to send whoever--"...send me your poor, your tired, etc., yearning to breathe free...etc."...While the world may be one country someday, it's normal to feel connected with, and supportive of, your ancestral lands and people

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.

The act of giving in itself is a very American concept to me. 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.

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.

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.

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.

While the world may be one country someday, it's normal to feel connected with, and supportive of, your ancestral lands and people.

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.

1. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries (based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs).

2. The Top 200 corporations’ sales are growing at a faster rate than overall global economic activity. Between 1983 and 1999, their combined sales grew from the equivalent of 25.0 percent to 27.5 percent of World GDP.

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! :)

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.

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.

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.

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

And as they became more white/American they became more accepted.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Half knowledge doesn't serve anyone any good

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?

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.

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.

This was something that wasn't and still isn't present on a daily basis in the Indian middle class.

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.

It would be the end of half the arguments on SM.

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:

Each week a family or several families volunteer to provide and prepare the Langar. This is very generous, as there may be several hundred people to feed, and caterers are not allowed. All the preparation, the cooking and the washing-up is also done by voluntary helpers (Sewadars).

A lot of South Indian temples do the same. Sound like soup kitchen of Amreeka to me.

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 simply never grew up around giving back to the community on the grassroots level like cleaning streets or building houses...

I would tend to agree with JOAT that charitable giving is not AS PROMINENT in Indian urban middle-class culture as it is here.

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 Avchat’s Karyarat (Marathi), if you get a chance. It’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.