A case for eliminating charity.......

Just Like That .......... Not Charity alone

What is charity? In my opinion it is giving out something without expecting anything in return, or an act of welfare bereft of any anticipation of any kind. In most instances it is something we can afford to part with, otherwise most of our social interactions are transactional, that is business like; you give something you take something.

Charity in common parlance is not what the legal definitions make it out to be, that is, something not done with profit motive; still ironically all the reputed “charitable establishments” end up amassing huge properties and wealth. However public generally perceive it as an act of benevolence done with a sense of social responsibility or with a sense of paying back to the society. On the level of public sentiment is viewed very positively and it is front page news item in the media where it gets lapped up with awe. Any personality, institution, organization, religion, business can augment its acceptability by engaging in charity.

Yet, the smartest are the marketing companies who promote their product by publicizing that a small percentage of profit goes to education of poor children. Whereas actually it is the customer who is doing charity, the company is merely channelizing that money but invariably it is the giver who will hog the limelight.

At times I wonder whether we get too easily impressed by such acts. Is it really as great as it is made out to be? Can the donations and monies offered in religious places be considered a charity? Ideally, one should not term anything offered in temples/mosques/churches etc as charity because mostly something in expected in return from God. Or offerings may itself be something done to honour a promise pledged to God, a conditional promise for occurrence of some favorable event, or for getting out of some difficult situation or getting well from some life threatening ailment etc. To my mind these are all agenda driven self-imposed obligations and not charity.

But still there is no dearth of people who selflessly engage themselves in deeds of charity, sometimes even compromising their own comforts, conveniences and well-being. You will find people distributing blankets in the nail biting cold of Delhi, handing out food in shelter homes, working among flood or drought victims, dispensing medicines among people caught in natural calamities or epidemics. Still the very fact that certain areas require people reaching out to counter a desperate and adverse situation is a manifestation that demonstrates that society as an organized set up has failed to reach out there or to some people. Or it has failed to foresee or not planned for certain exigencies or its measures are inadequate. Such individual or group based acts of compassionate welfare might be brave, selfless or sacrificial but in the larger context are always inadequate. It is a stop gap arrangement till a societal organized response reinforces or replaces it. Thus these acts should also be seen as symptoms of larger malaise inflicting society. If there is a need for distributing woolens and the absence of which would mean that a wintry morning may see many dead with cold that means the society is afflicted with inequality or deprivation or both. The larger the need to distribute such blankets the bigger is the chasm separating the affluent and well to do from the stark poverty that cannot afford to outlive a chilly night. Moreover these are one time acts and not sustainable at individual levels without any public support.

Though I do not doubt the genuineness of those who are genuinely into it and quite emotionally at that, but many a times at individual level, say some personalities (that media imposes upon gullible public as “celebrities”) indulge in it as a fad or fashion - an image building exercise. A famous actor involved in all types of criminal acts including that of running over people and mauling them beyond recognition, killing endangered species for wetting his appetite, drunken brawls with fellow actors and actresses has engaged a public relation consultant firm to salvage his image by having a brand brandishing about his humanness. Kind of a joke being perpetrated on people who cannot see an iota of humility in his personality that borders on smugness filled cheap arrogance. But charity gives a halo of grace to salvage his image among people besotted with his reel generated goodwill that in reality is a farce. Here the tactics of concocted charity is used as a diversion to attenuate other wrongs a person might have committed.

At another level say, micro or neighbourhood level I have come across people – by no means I am trying to convey that they are not well meaning people – who in their own spurt of charity feed stray animals– dogs, cow, cats etc off and on. In their own right they are convinced of the service they are doing to animals but often they fail to realize that theirs is a piecemeal approach more of a knee jerk reaction at a particular moment and the rest of the time the animal are on their own and at times cause of disturbance to the other residents who may not be that animal friendly or may be scared of them. But this very act of charity does reflect the problem of stray animals and their plight.It would however be preferable if they take unto themselves the entire responsibility of the animal and have them as pet with full ownership or at a macro level try to evolve a societal response like that of Gaushala or animal rest houses that take care of these animals as organized activity and overcome the shortcomings of adhoc feeding of animals that often becomes a nuisance for the neighbourhood.

Discussing charity at an immediate level say, at personal level, is also quite revealing especially at psychological level. Here it relieves you much of your stress. The very act of giving is quite an elevating experience; if you have yourself undertaken it then you would know it yourself. It is something immediate; often you see the consequence of your efforts taking shape in front of you that is quite satisfying. It makes you a little less selfish. Religiously also it is held that it absolves you of your sins. Then it is easier to perform at an individual level rather than trying to convince others to join in by that time the occasion demanding it would get over.

But all said and done charity is part of the trickle down only that is not sufficient to resolve any problem because it does not go to the root of it. One may note the typical case of The Khalsa aid founded and managed by Ravi Singh, that is a world renowned body engaged in selfless service. It may be doing a yeoman service in all the strife torn parts of the world but it does not address the solution to the existing strife that continues to scar humanity and render people dead, limbless, homeless and foodless. The solutions have to be sought at global level, Khalsa aid merely points to those areas that require attention of the world for some concerted action. It only gives a satisfaction to us that something is better than nothing.

Another instance is that of aid money flowing into the African continent from the western shores. That perhaps points towards the hypocrisy of the West, where on one hand their rapacity rapes the continent of its resources, while of other a trickle flows down to African people in the shape of some aid or the other. These flows of charity are indicators of the global imbalance West has created and the abject penury that has unleashed. The aid money being sent is insufficient and can only serve as balm for a guilty conscience nothing more. Gradually, it is also getting reduced to tokenism where people make pretense of concern donate some token money and wash off the thing from their memory.

It may not be construed that I am denying charity its rightful due to the society. In fact it is actually a starting point to recognize the issue and a problem and not an end in itself. One needs to remember that it is definitely not the same thing as giving the rightful dues. Society should not pat its back on charity alone whereas the societal system as a whole may be crushing and responsible for the distress of the masses. For examples in Jim Crow’s States of Southern US in 1920s charity for free food to blacks would be meaningless till the time slavery remained sanctified and legal. Same is true for many of us who would themselves employ child labor and exploit them but donate to organizations for providing food to poor. They forget that charity begins at home.

The real emancipation of a society lies in ensuring that everybody gets their right, there’s equality of opportunity, liberty and freedom. We have to remember that Charity, for all that it matters, can be done only at an individual level and is not a sustainable measure whereas societal measures are enduring and sustainable. But the real problem lies with unequal societies where rights are either usurped or forcibly suppressed or snatched from the general populace and privileges of the privileged are perpetuated through some invented mechanisms derived from falsely and cleverly invoking divinity or superstitions, in the name of religion or beliefs, rites and rituals founded on blind faith. Among such societies sharing of rights on one to one basis becomes an insurmountable problem because that militates against the imbalance that entrenched forces intend to maintain. These societies too are marked by a big display of charities whereas the entire set up shrieks of the shamness of the same.

In my opinion, the most balanced and ideal society is the one that does not require any charity at all ….... I wish to see the end of Charity from my homeland...