People are inspired when they see others doing something extraordinary. We are more inspired by people who take a 50-90% cut in pay to switch to the social sector, than those who take a 10-25% cut in pay. Similarly, we are more inspired by people who donate 90% of their earnings than those who give away 10% of it. #LivingMyPromise is aimed at middle and upper middle class Indians and we have picked 50% of wealth as the benchmark to push middle class Indians to aspire towards. Any middle/ upper middle class Indian giving away 50% of their wealth is effectively accepting a standard of living for themselves much lower than they could if they chose not to give. Giving 10-25% may not involve a change in standard of living and is far less inspiring for others- this forms the basis of our choice of 50% as the benchmark. However, we’d be delighted to see other people/ organisations launch initiatives that build communities of those who promise to donate 10%, 25% or even 75% of their wealth.

The percentage is more important than the total amount of money, since someone with a net worth of Rs 1 cr giving 50 lacs is as valuable as someone with a net worth of Rs100cr giving Rs 50cr, whereas someone with a networth of Rs100cr giving Rs1cr in their lifetime doesn’t belong to the same group at all.

While #LivingMyPromise is about ordinary people, one of the goals is to ensure that those promising are committing a significant amount of money to charity.

​There are thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to social issues and have foregone earnings to be able to do so. In our view, the contribution of these people exceeds that of the promisors. These people have often made far bigger sacrifices than we have. But that is a different segment of people who need to be recognized and appreciated differently. This platform is for ordinary people who have chosen the “normal” course of life, but have decided to make a difference nonetheless, by making a significant financial commitment to society.

The promise is also entirely moral with no mechanism to verify it. It would, hence, not work if the number of people committing to it were very large. Or if, in future, one wanted to verify it, the cost of verification itself would be a large percentage of the amount of money being pledged. Without a lower limit, the promise could easily be taken by millions of people and there would be no way to verify it, thus watering down the honesty behind the effort.