Is Jain-To-Jain Better Than Jain-To-Many?
Long-time reader Joydeep Mukherji sends us this (via email)
This article talks about a program for Jains to donate money to help teach Jain students for free. It seems like a nice idea. Perhaps other groups (Patels, Jats, Chettiars) can follow their example. However, it may be a bad idea if you think that such charity should be open to all, not confined to one group. The latter is more equitable but it may not generate the level of donations that a more focussed program might generate. Perhaps this is something your blog should debate?
Comments are open.
You discuss this long enough, you will arrive at the philosophical crossroad of “Does the end justify the means?”
Here’s why: The objective of the program is to give education to people who need them.
The fact that the donors are Jains and acceptors are also Jains can be moved as a peripheral fact.
So fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the objective.
Why Jains donate? Because they want to. Why do they donate only to Jains? Because that motivates them.
Now, I am trying not to get into the philosophy of why do we feel more connected to some people than others.
So thats that.
Comment by RK — April 30, 2008 @ 7:42 am
It may be a bad idea simply because it adds on to difference in society that is anyways so badly segregated.
However, if you look around India, there are already so many caste-based organizations. As long as it is not state sponsored organization, I think it should be ok. As RK rightly pointed out, if that motivates someone why not? Let patels,jats, sharmas(oh so many of them!!) also start on their own if that motivates them!
Will it fragment the society further? May be yes. And more for the benefactors of this. As in future they might attribute their wellness(hopefully as result of better education) to the caste they belong to rather than Nation or humanity in general. But at least they will be better off! And hopefully with the (right) education they will undermine the caste difference themselves (but still appreciate the caste they belong to - dont really think they are mutex).
To conclude, it may not be an ideal choice. But if this is the only choice, why not?
Comment by Aashish Sharma — April 30, 2008 @ 8:07 am
[…] 5. Is it right for a community to educate its own community or should it educate all? IEB has a debate […]
Pingback by Assorted Links « Mostly Economics — April 30, 2008 @ 9:13 am
Ok so Jains will educate Jains..and Baniyas will educate Baniyas and sharmas , Sharmas…..
And the lower castes will get even more reservation in governments institutions …since they are not rich enough to educate each other, but numerous enough to topple governments..and there will be another discussion on what “merit” means.
Just another manifestation of caste based thinking.
Comment by Vikas — April 30, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Well that is good that they are doing that and are able to do so.The point is that other communities of india don’t have that kind of commitment to their own.The so called leaders of them would use the communities for their own purpose and nobody thinks of giving back to it.Also it needs to have a deep faith in the philosophy and way of life of community to serve for a cause.Well most jains are proud of their non violence philosophy and are keen to promote that while in hinduism people are torn between so many views and counter views that there is not left any sense of oneness.In the whole that’s a commendable effort and should be followed by other too.If one can’t be for his own people, how can he be for others.
Comment by ankit — April 30, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Its no big deal he wants to educate his own community.Big deal.There are similar jewish,parsee and sikh trusts.So what?He is handing out scholarships to people he wants to give it to.Can you really expect one million Gandhis.Anything that contributes to skill development in the contry should be welcome.
Comment by Shantanu Chatterjee — April 30, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Though after sixty years of independence still we have lot of sub strata in our society, first he should benefit the community where they belong, then others, but this is not true in the case of philanthropic Institutions like the Tatas who are Parsis even G.D. Birla was know for his philanthropy.
I have seen in Calcutta Marwari Relief Society do lot of good jobs for Non Marwaris also. Even Aga Khan trust also does lot good jobs even non-Muslim benefits, and Mother Teresa’s is an exception in spite of being a catholic. R.K. Mission do a lot for non Hindus
also.
Comment by Debashish Bramha — April 30, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
Vikas and everybody,
Community based sponsorships are not a replacement for state-sponsored education.
If you sponsor education for 10 people (whatever criteria that may be based on) it is in your willing.
State is not doing a good job for educating their people - thats a whole different problem.
Lets not mix issues here.
Comment by RK — April 30, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
Isn’t it the donor’s money? It sounds archaic and too narrowly focused, but the group might have constraints we are not aware of from the outside. They probably know the Jain community better. Also, if they get bigger and better known, particularly if the group counts better known businessmen among its members; self interest would have a pressure on it to broaden the target population. But ultimately this is donor’s money.
Comment by Corporate Serf — May 1, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
I totally agree that this type of community services should be extended to other groups in the society but I want to make clear on one point that JITO(Jain International Trade Organisation)will extend this service to other section too depending on the funds collected and I don’t think implementing initially on Jain group is immoral as presented by views of above commentators.
And I think we should encourage organisations such as JITO as they are preparing for real competitors and not demanding any type of minority reservation like OBC etc…
Comment by gaurav jain — May 1, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
You dint have to take it personally :-)
Appreciate your idea though.
We were not talking about any specific community or JITO.
I think the topic was generic in nature.
Comment by RK — May 2, 2008 @ 1:16 am
I am not a Jain. But I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with this idea at all. Each group has the right, and I may say, even an obligation, to preserve its own distinct culture and traditions. And to support its own members. As long as the group is not interfering with others, or oppressing others, I think this represents a stable Nash equilibrium in the social context. I believe successful societies are those which encourage diversity, as well as tolerance at the same time. If everyone were to think alike and act alike, the world would be a very boring place. Similarly if everyone were to fight with each other constantly, the world would be a hellish place indeed. A philosophy of live and let live probably confers long-term stability to society.
When it comes to caste, I believe that as long as one caste does not treat another as “lower” or “higher”, but just as a unique endogamous group with a desire to preserve its own unique traditions, language, customs and culture, most of the conflict evident in today’s Indian society would go away. So instead of destroying castes, the focus should be on destroying casteism. Similarly, instead of destroying religion, the focus should be on maintaining communal harmony.
More importantly, Jains, like many other groups, pay taxes to the Indian Govt. These taxes are used by the Govt for the welfare of various disadvantaged groups. Thus, by being honest taxpayers, Jains already help other groups that the Govt decides are disadvantaged. And then there is absolutely nothing wrong in a Jain foundation seeking to help its own members succeed in life. Jains must maintain and strengthen their identity so that Indian society can remain diverse and tolerant for another 5000 years.
Comment by Observer — May 2, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
The idea of charity is to help the needy. As long as the needy are correctly identified, it doesn’t really matter what community or sect they belong to. As long as the Jains or the donor group is donating to someone who needs the money, irrespective of the recipient group’s community, why should there be a problem?
Comment by Rohan — May 3, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Hi,
I think the idea of donation / charity prevails in all the castes and communities . It all matters how do the individual organization use them.
Some donate to temples / church / Gurudwara / Mosques and some for other purposes.
Its good to hear that Jain Community is using part of these donations to knowledge as this will be a stepping stone to the prosperity and growth as a whole.
Upto my knowledge ( strictly my POV ) Jain community has got many businessman and are self dependent. The literacy rate in the community is high too. Also as far as I know the Girl : Boy literacy ratio is almost equal. So as its always stated “Charity Begins at Home” so starting by motivating people to donate for the community and developing the community and then getting bigger by working on wider range is the best option.
The Most Important Point I would like to state is
Starting as a community its better to manage and keep proper surveillance on How the donators money is used. Your faith on the organization is not lost by this and you can even donate more for wider work for nation / humanity as a whole.
* All points I covered are in general terms and applicable to all the castes and communities.
Comment by Aakash Shah — May 4, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
I am not opposed to the Jains or any other group, focusing charitable efforts on their ethnic group in principle. All else being equal, higher quality education is a good thing.
But on a larger scale, in the long term, I think this type of thing is likely to lead to greater economic inequality between social groups within India.
You have to realize that concentration of wealth within small privileged ethnic groups leads to resentment among the majority. Within a democratically elected society this manifests itself in the form of largely ineffective illiberal government policies designed to uplift the masses (i.e. linguistic chauvinism, reservations, regionalism, job protection etc). Outside of a democratic system the result can be even more dramatic (eg. naxalites)
Consider that it is beacause of popular but stupid government policies, such as the ones likely to result from inequal distribution of wealth between social groups, that India’s public primary education system is ineffective to begin with. The consequences of a widespread adoption of ethnic group charities could well be far more negative than most would anticipate.
Comment by dhruval — May 13, 2008 @ 8:33 am