If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
The world’s richest man and the world’s second richest man team up to probably create what would be the most endowed philanthropic venture ever. After Bill Gates momentous decision to quit Microsoft to focus completely on philanthropic activities of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Warren Buffet has announced that he would be joining them as a trustee and be willing to give away most of his $40 billion fortune. Amit is right in suggesting such concentrated efforts at making “systematic investments in medical research, infrastructure and education in poor countries, and a variety of enabling efforts will make more difference in ending the world’s problems.”
These private donors are neither motivated by political gains nor expect compensatory gains in intangible forms. The reason such philanthropic efforts work is that they are completely voluntary and emerge from non-selfish and non-coerced intentions of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. These two individuals aren’t the only ones making substantial donations to causes dear to their hearts but instead part of a wide network of donors that give wealth to private foundations and universities to fund research and educational initiatives. Harvard’s $25-billion endowment is alone worth more than the output of several Indian states.
But would such magnanimous gestures be seen if rich people were coerced – emotionally or otherwise – into donating their hard earned wealth. Probably not, they would instantly lose any interest in doing so and rather be not told what to do with their wealth. For every Bill Gates, there might be several wealthy businessmen who do not donate a single penny of their wealth and frankly, according to me they both are perfectly within their rights to do so. There is a certain section of the blogosphere that looks down upon Amitabh Bachchan for donating a shitload load of money to the Tirupathi temple. Personally, I would donate it to a worthy charity and not to an already-worthy place of worship but mind you, I haven’t earned Amitabh’s millions, he has. And he is perfectly within his rights to spend it as he wishes.
Even the most generous donor has specific intentions behind sharing his wealth. Bill Gates must see a world free of crippling diseases and Amitabh sees a world of spiritual well-being that the Lord of Tirupathi can bestow on devotees (I am stretching my imagination here). Why is his cause any lower than Bill Gates’ cause? As one observant commentor on a blog said, the world didn’t give Amitabh a second thought when he was mired in debt. No one thought of starting a fund-raising campaign for helping a man who had entertained them for years. The thought must have been why should we? He is to blame for the mess of his personal affairs and probably rightly so. He rose up from near bankruptcy and sheer hard work (doing countless crappy movies and advertisement campaigns) and earned his millions back.
He probably attributes his success to the blessings of Lord Balaji at Tirupathi and so he chooses to give back some. We Indians are an emotional lot and generally tend to give more to religious trusts than to purely philanthropic trusts. Amitabh isn’t alone in doing so. I can relate countless incidents of wealthy people sharing their wealth either with their local temples (provided they have a huge marble plaque with their names embossed) or building public amenities, ranging from park benches to dharmashalas specifically for their communities. So why single out Amitabh? Why not question the charitable habits of Indians in general? Thoughts on that shall be reserved for another post.
But by questioning the motives of individuals in the way they choose to spend their money is getting into dangerous territory. Where would we stop at? Would you advise Amitabh where exactly he should donate his wealth? You might think a dying child is more deserving while another might think a destitute elderly deserves better. A child in Africa might need his money more than the child in India.
Taken to another extreme, why isn’t Bill Gates castigated for ‘splurging his wealth’ outside his country? Simply because, it is none of our business. We can hail Bill Gates ventures but we cannot berate other wealthy people into doing so, not even on moral grounds. We can express our disappointment and even claim that we would do different if we had his millions but let us respect the individual’s right to his wealth first. Such pontification on how you would spend my wealth is hypothetical and pisses me off. The idea of equal distribution of wealth has been experimented with before and to disastrous consequences.
by Patrix | on Monday, June 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pm | 
Society Culture . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:53 pm reply
Thanks Pat,
No comments are being offered because none are needed. Exactly the kind of post I would have written if I was not so bloody pissed off.
Actually, thats a nice idea. Next time I see a post I like I will just claim that I would have written if I was not so tired/bored/pissed/excuse for the day. :)
And yes, that moral argument is very important.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:01 pm reply
What I meant by moral argument was that there is no moral argument.
Everone is entitled to spend his
money the way he wants to. Period.
But you it is a lost cause, waht you don’t want to save a dying child? Jeez….
June 26th, 2006 at 6:40 pm reply
Confused, I may have rambled a bit while writing this post but I didn’t want to fisk Alka or Amrit’s post which would have been perceived as ‘being personal’ in today’s ‘inflamed times’ :) Yet this issue is dear to my heart and I resent any form of emotional blackmail which incidentally we Indians are extremely good at.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:33 pm reply
[...] Update 3- Patrix has written an excellent piece explaining why it is wrong to pass a moral judgment on Amitabh for using his money as he pleases. I am quite amazed that one is forced to defend this most basic of human rights. [...]
June 26th, 2006 at 7:41 pm reply
Hi guys!
I seem to be enjoying all this because frankly for a day or so, I have nothing better to do. Well, when I had written the post for the first time I hadn’t imagined it’d have a snow-balling effect and eventually it’d be graced with such enlightened thoughts :-). The whole issue has taken such a grotesque turn that the death of the child, at least in the blogsphere, has turned into a fiasco. A black comedy can be written on this topic. Well, mea culpa.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:57 pm reply
Amrit, I am glad you are taking this in the right spirit but my intentions weren’t to poke fun at the death of a child. I just want to reiterate that Amitabh shouldn’t be held responsible for that. Grotesque turn of events of snowballing effect would be avoided is basic individual rights are respected and understood by all concerned.
June 26th, 2006 at 8:57 pm reply
I agree. Big B can DEFINITELY spend HIS money the way he wants. And no one can force him to spend HIS money MY way. But if the matter is made public, I too have the freedom to express my thoughts. And you or anyone too has the freedom to disagree. And AS FAR as you said about Indians being sentimental, its not the case at all. Indians are the best “Maukaterians” in the whole world. When its the question of rights, we follow Americans, when its the question of responsibilities, we become Communists dumping everything as government responsibility. I have never thought that a dying child will be turned into a laughing stock.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:32 pm reply
Alka, whoa! I didn’t know the dying child had turned into a laughing stock. I empathize with the child’s condition and would have done something about it if I was capable or maybe I am doing something for some other child (e.g. Anu Bakshi’s Project Why). Mind you, in all this argument, I am not bringing up that question of “what have you done for the child” because that question is invalid in this discussion.
And of course, you have the right to express your thought as much as I have to disagree with them. Indians indulge in emotional blackmail more than other, according to me although they might be “Maukaterians” (lovely word!) as you say otherwise. That brings up the issue of hypocrisy; which is a whole different subject which we all are aware of.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:40 pm reply
ahem..thanks for mentioning the nameless commentor on amitabh..and putting it in a much better and coherent form!:D and this duty issue, strikes me as a very ayn rand issue..why duty?
June 27th, 2006 at 1:18 am reply
Disha, thanks for dropping by. I couldn’t remember where exactly I had read that but now I know. ‘Duty’ is merely another’s idea of utopia based on emotional appeal; doesn’t work everytime.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:32 am reply
good post.
We were asked to play a game where we had to save 5 people.
All of us started fighting on who should be saved and ended up killing everybody. Your post remimnded me of the game. It is none of our business to know where the rich should donate.
Atleast they are donating.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:20 am reply
Patrix,
Don’t want to get into the ‘whose business it is who donates where and who has right to protest’ arguement (I supsect you know my stance) - but a big kudos to Gates and Buffet to for undertaking this responsibility.
I would like to add that Gates/Buffet and other donors are also unencumbered by the weight of having to seek political compromise with 100 nations like the UN.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:47 pm reply
Bongo,
Patrix has not only killed a child but is actually laughing at him after the deed.
Two crimes make a third one, I guess.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:37 pm reply
Arunima, Of course…I am mighty pleased that Gates and Buffet are donating most of their wealth but I am more pleased that they aren’t emotionally blackmailed into doing so but are doing so on their own.
Bongo, I bet the accountability factor helps although Gates has expressed apprehension after Buffet joined in although I’m sure he’ll do fine.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:29 pm reply
Does that mean we should not make fun of Tom “scientology” Cruise?
Aww… south park will be so boring then.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:27 pm reply
No, we should not make fun of Tom Cruise.
I have never made fun of Tom Cruise.
Or Mithunda.
Or Amitabh Bachhan.
Because they did not spend my tax money.
I have only made fun of politicians who hold office.
Trust me on this one :-|