Of all the countries in Asia and the Pacific, India and the Philippines stand out for having the most available data on non-profit organisations, philanthropy, and the interplay of these with diaspora groups. In her paper for the APPC Conference in Hanoi, Shyamala Shiveshwarkar likened the Indian diaspora to “a great Banyan tree” that has changed dramatically since the beginnings of Indian migration during the 19th century—a tree whose “secondary trunks have established roots in over 133 countries... with a plethora of ‘diasporas’ including the ‘old diaspora,’ the ‘new diaspora,’ and within them the ‘twice-banished,’ ‘brawn,’ ‘knowledge,’ and ‘dollar’ diasporas.’” This richness of experience has led to a similar richness in research content, showing other Asian countries the kind of information they need to gather and validate according to their own experiences.

Research on Indian diaspora philanthropy shows, for instance, that family relationships played a big role in determining which causes to support. In the paper, Shiveshwarkar cited Viresh Rustogi’s 2002 study that shows that “Most [of the research participants] gave only to ‘family and friends in need and organizations and causes that their parents and elders supported’ and that they were ‘less likely to donate to organized causes because it lacks the relationship aspect.’” Thus, beneficiaries of diaspora giving also tended to revolve around familial issues, such as better education and health care, investing in land, starting a business enterprise, or building a nest egg for the future. When it came to social causes, the Indian diaspora preferred giving to the maintenance of local mosques, feeding the poor, or scholarships at local schools. Shiveshwarkar also noted in her paper that “family and close friends [are used] as conduits for charitable gifts and social investments.”

This clearly poses a challenge for not-for-profit organisations in India—as well as organised groups around the region. If findings in other countries replicated those of the Indian diaspora, then it means that organised causes will have to fight for their relevance in people’s lives—and purses. Findings by Adil Najam echo this threat when he writes that “the biggest hurdle to more and better directed diaspora giving is not a paucity of resources within the diaspora, it is a dearth of dependable instruments of giving that the diaspora communities have confidence in.”

But there is hope. The Indian American diaspora, which—according to Shiveshwarkar—is “the most vibrant and the best organized among the Indian diasporas,” has been giving to institutions as well as to persons. It identified eight giving channels that it regularly accessed, including: informal family and personal networks; faith-based intermediaries; international U.S.-based NGOs such as CARE; U.S.-based public charity affiliates of Indian NGOs such as CRY/US and Pratham; Indian American umbrella occupational, ethnic, professional, religious, alumni, and cultural groups such as the 35,000-strong American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI); Indian American philanthropic groups; high-technology and other companies with operations or other interests in India; and American philanthropic intermediaries with donor-advised or “venture” bases such as the Acumen Fund.

What does this mean for Indian NGOs and their counterparts around the region? The diaspora community is willing to give—but organisations will have to make people believe that they are worth giving to. In closing her paper, Shiveshwarkar offers some recommendations that hold true not only for not-for-profits in India, but for those around the region as well:

• Develop strategies that will focus on scale, impact, and the optimum use of funds. There are numerous ‘mom-and-pop’ operations doing good work, but they need to go to the next step of thinking strategically on how they can bring their programs to a greater proportion of India’s population.
• Develop more sophisticated strategies for diaspora fund-raising that articulates a vision, deliverables, and assessment strategies.
• Be imaginative in reaching out to the diaspora population. If funding is much below the potential of the diaspora, it is because the NGO sector has not been creative about tapping it.