Page 15 - Seniorstoday April 2022 Issue

and giving more effectively. It has over
There is nothing new about Giving Pledge
as a philanthropy initiative except for the
‘realised billionaires’ coming together to
do something about the gross inequality
all around and transform lives. Several
other similar movements or initiatives
have preceded it, both in India and
abroad. Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘sarvodaya’
movement advocating welfare of all and
Vinoba Bhave’s ‘bhoodaan’ movement
advocating surrender of surplus lands
owned and redistributing it to the
landless were public appeals to ensure
mass munificence and alleviation. Not
just these, decades ago business houses
like Tata, Bajaj, Birla, Wadia and several
others had set up trusts for public good in
the realms of education, skilling medical
treatment, upliftment of the poor, etc. In
November 2009, inspired by the ethicist
Peter Singer (a Princeton professor, known
for his book, Animal Liberation, where
he promotes veganism and his essay,
Famine, Affluence and Morality, where he
advocates donating to help the global poor),
two Oxford philosophers, Toby Ord and
Will MacAskill, launched “Giving What
We Can”, as an international community of
people who were committed to giving more,
SENIORS TODAY | ISSUE #34 | APRIL 2022
8000 members today who, between them,
have committed to donate nearly three
billion dollars. It is made up of individuals
from across the globe. At a micro level, most
people are favourably deposed towards
charity in some small measure.
In a world of opportunity plagued by
lopsided and uneven access to natural
resources, education, incomes and
sustenance, entrenched movements such
as these are welcome, more so given the
various countries’ rather lackadaisical or
inconsistent approach to the impoverished.
Most countries have fared miserably in
bridging inequalities. The World Bank
analyses extreme poverty to mean those
who have a daily wage/income of less than
$ 2.29 (at 2021 prices). This is equivalent
to about Rs 175 per day, a poor joke, but
a gross reality in countries such as ours,
where Niti Aayog estimates 25% of our
population to be poor. That translates to 350
million or the equivalent of the entire US
population. Artificial constructs of extreme
poverty are a travesty at its worst.
The other day, I happened to be at a
gathering where several millennials (aged
around 30 +/- in good jobs/vocations
) were present. They were all highly
educated and passionate about their goals
in life, especially on their professional
and personal front. In the course of my
interactions with them, I asked their views
about donations and charity. While almost
everyone cognitively recognised poverty
and inequality as real issues needing
redressal, they were rather indifferent or
uncomfortable discussing it. They had
diverse views on the subject – some felt
that the government is collecting taxes
from them, but is not doing much for the
poor; hence saw it as the government’s
15