Charity exudes dependency

             Being philanthropic is not very uncommon these days. People have made large amounts of money and then turned to charity. While the word exudes positive vibes prima facie, it is all about maintaining the dependency on the mood of the people who actually donate money. There is nothing wrong in charity and it is done with good intentions but the real question is whether it is the ultimate solution to all problems. Will filling up the money deficit be a solution to poverty and other issues?
          Money cannot buy everything; it applies here too. Giving out charity is like doling out schemes which gives out free benefits to the needy.I dont think it sums up correctly. A little more introspection on what they require is needed. From a philosophical point of view, we are bestowed the fruits of our actions. So, if we need to earn, we need to learn and work. Being dependant on somebody's whims and wishes all the time is not a very great idea.
       Let me take up an example. Let us suppose the existence of a family of three; Father,Mother and Son. Let us also assume that they are super rich so much so that the next 3 generations can easily survive on the wealth accumulated. They have two methodologies to bring their son up
Method 1:      
Tell their son that they have amassed ample wealth and that he need not work and lead a cosy life. Though its not tagged as charity, parallels can be drawn. Their son is given everything at no cost and he will never realise the effort to make a fortune such as that.The son will lead an indolent life, making use of all the perks without realising how others are competing and sweating blood to get it. If the father suddenly changes his mind somewhere in between what will the son do? Isn't the son at the mercy of his fathers wishes? That seems to be a terrible dependency. Can he survive in the blaring competition outside if chucked out of his father's shade?NO.
Method 2:
Educate their son with the wealth amassed in some top class university. Encourage him to study and earn a living. Making their son realise what life is and that earning to make a living is not all that easy as it seems.Never let their son splurge wealth and make him realise the value of money. So basically instead of free charity, work towards creating an independent environment for the son. So that when he faces the world outside, he has an identity and can survive without roping in his fathers resources.
Which is a good option people? The second one has a strong base and can tackle most adversities in life. Providing the necessary skillset is required and not freebies. Becoming a Managing Director of company requires the person to have worked for so many years and it takes a strong base to reach to that level and make decisions. A person who has come up with nepotism will never be able to do justice to the chair he occupies and will eventually have to give up.So, in everything, skills count more than anything else.
    Charity provides you the end result directly(money) and developing a base provides you avenues to earn money. Let us take one more step ahead and monitor how these resources are used. As also our contributions must be used judiciously for developing these individuals into self-dependant people. As, donor's we need to be accountable as to where our money goes and actively participate rather than passive participation restricted to just money donation.If one has decided to take a step ahead, let it not be half-hearted.
Lets collectively take efforts to make THE ROOTS OF THE TREE strong rather than focusing on how GREEN THE LEAVES CAN BE MADE. Without a strong root even the best quality and shining leaves have no place to house themselves.

FOR #indispire31:-
Charity or Empowerment? Are charitable donations to feed and house the poor really the way out of the mire of poverty or do NGOs need to focus more on skill development? Should we as donors be more proactive rather than merely donating money?

No comments:

Post a Comment