Those who do nothing

It is a well- known quote -  "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." I believe that those that do nothing are not good anyway. 

We have all known at least one person who has displayed lesser mind and a harder heart than we expected. We have all learnt to relegate some 'friends' in our social circle to the 'smile and ignore' section of our awareness. 

But it becomes difficult to smile, or ignore, a person's total lack of empathy for human suffering. Yes, there is too much to deal with at times. Yes, we are individually helpless in alleviating pain and hunger. However we can talk about it, we can donate our time and money, we can make our voices heard. At the very least, we can try. And maybe we will never make a dent in helping women in Afghanistan, or school all the children in a refugee camp. But we can be nice the kid to the car wash, we can stop by for chat with a lonely neighbor. We can help by changing the energy around us. 

Even that little brightening of someone's day will help. Because everyone, everywhere, needs a pick-me-up. The world is in a mess, and oppression is widespread - political, or cultural, in small villages, or in entire countries, sometimes simmering, sometimes smoldering. But never ceasing. I am not proffering any political solutions, I am only trying to figure out our reactions.

I think when we are confronted with our helplessness in the face of a horrific reality of oppression, injustice, violence, we react in two ways. One, we turn away. 'Not my problem. What can I do anyway.' This is, of course, very wrong. Everyone can do something. We manifest. We add to the global awareness. We wish. We make a tiny ripple in our sphere of existence. There is nothing that is 'not my problem' anymore. Karma is real. Thigs across the world will affect you. Sooner than later.

Two, we hate. That strong feeling directs all the negativity to the 'villain'. The more we expand that hate, the more powerful it makes us feel. The more 'right' it makes us feel. This is a dangerous path to be on. Because hate corrodes us, it breaks down the morality we have built for ourselves. And it never solves anything. Not even in our limited  personal sphere. It is ok to let the anger come. Anger propels action. But action must help solve and resolve, not hurt or punish. 

Whether we need to shake off apathy, or dispel hate, whether we discuss with friends or participate in protest marches, we must do. We cannot pretend to be oblivious of the pain people are going through. Facile acceptance of a distressing situation just because it is not our state, is tantamount to compliance. It is selfish, irresponsible and immoral. And that is worse than apathy or hate.

The Education Fraud

Today I was really riled up by Global Citizen's post : 'If girls would complete their primary education, maternal deaths would decrease by 70%'.

Someone please explain this daft statement to me because I cannot see how having completed high school will help a woman who has no access to a clean, well-equipped medical facility!

I think that is the stupidest oversimplification of a very serious social problem. What expectant mothers need is proper nutrition and support. They need medical care during and after the pregnancy, and during the birthing process. 

And that brings me to what I call the 'Education Fraud.' There has been this concerted effort by everyone in the 'do-good' field to make us believe that setting up schools is the answer to everything. From Malala's claims of how important education is to her country (it is, but so much more needs to be addressed before setting up schools) to people signing off parts of their paychecks to help some child learn his abcd's in a remote corner of the world, we all have bought into the concept of investing in schooling. It is great, but it is pointless if it is not predicated on more pressing priorities. And especially when we are already rethinking our entire learning system!

I was always irritated with Greg Mortenson's idea. It bothered me that he thought kids who were covering their frost-bitten feet with straw should be thrilled with the pencils he provided. The deprivation those children were experiencing, they would be thrilled with anything. Electricity, plumbing, water, maybe even chocolates.....? I will not accept that that the joy of learning something new (for it is a joy) is more important that basic human needs. And incomprehensible soundbites like the one that leads this write-up do not convince me. My cook's son goes to a school where where most of the students come from well-to-do families. Along with the theorems and grammar, he learns how disadvantaged he is and how different from his friends. He is a very unhappy child.

I work for an organization that sets up schools in under-resourced communities in Punjab. It is a unique model. All the children come from one community. Besides the basic food and clothing, we ensure that the children learn to express their hopes and fears. There is no set curriculum; the aim is to provide a safe nurturing environment for them to develop their potential.And teach them human values. It is not schooling as much as it is nurturing and support. The concentration remains on what they need, not what we would like them to have. That is the way to help the poor.

Poverty is a much more insidious evil than a simple lack of opportunity for the affected community. It affects the mindset of a people, it affects the spirit, it affects their thinking. Recent research proves it affects both mind and brain. More pertinently, it results in markedly uncomfortable living situations and limits people's access to facilities that everyone has a right to. Poverty is a disease, and it, like any other disease, has to be given the proper antidote. I can assure you that that antidote is not a pencil or a blackboard. 

About 805 million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world are suffering from chronic undernourishment. This is a 2015 UN statistic. Each one of these individuals, children and the mothers-to-be included, are hungry and afraid. Their main worry is how to fend off hunger pangs, where to get clean water from, and what livelihood to find that will sustain them. It is our collective responsibility to make food and stability a priority, for all people everywhere in the world. Education is only the next step. We should move to that step only after we have lived up to our humanity; after every individual in our race is safe from hunger and strife. It is not education but the freedom from hunger and oppression is the most basic human right that we absolutely must address. 

Do unto others as they would want you to do

So we are back to my favorite topic - charity. In a previous write-up, I discussed how giving away money from a stockpile of it is not necessarily noble. By extension, the concept also applies to giving away time when you have a lot of it on your hands.

But it is not so. Giving of yourself - effort, emotional attention and time - is much more difficult than writing a check, and requires real commitment. Our values are sorely tested when you have to take time out of an already full day to go do something to bring succor to someone else. It is easier if that person is someone you care about, so friends and family are a different story altogether. But when it is someone you do not even know, or even relate to well, it calls on every bit of strength in your belief system. It is also a great way to test your own commitment to a cause.

 As difficult  as it is to reach out to an individual you cannot really connect with, in sympathy or otherwise, it becomes just as important to accept them and their needs. And that is a crucial factor in philanthropy. I have heard the common dictum that talks of finding your own cause, something that you feel for. I think that is a really misguided notion.The cause should be where the need is most dire. Because helping where help is needed most is what charity is all about. I might think kids need to be in school, but what the kids really need is food and clothing first. I cannot give them a book instead of bread just so I can feel good about myself, or because I had that extra book to give away. That is a gift, not charity

Another important part is being non-judgmental when assessing need. Wondering why a needy family does not manage time better, or have fewer kids, or be less whiny is not a factor in deciding their need. Charity in its purest form must be unselfish, and that means your prejudices and opinions should be irrelevant to the act of giving.

I believe the defining nature of any charitable act is the establishment of a feeling of hope in the receiver. Hope is not just an optimistic wish, or a pleasant vision of the future. It is also a reflection of joy and satisfaction in the present. So when you fulfill an immediate need, or remove an imminent distress, it gives the person such relief that it translates to hope - hope in the present day for a better day tomorrow. And that is why it is imperative and unquestionable that we provide for the requirement, irrespective of what we think or have or want to contribute.

Altruism  is predicated on doing good for others. It does not include the right to decide what is good for them, or to classify their needs according to our priorities. Or to withhold charity because of the recipient's attitude. It was Mother Theresa who put it so lucidly, "It's not how much we give, but how much love we put into giving."  And how much effort, she may have well added.

Generous Charity

How would you define charity?

In an earlier article, I had pointed out that parting with any excess we may have been blessed with is not generosity, and it is certainly not charity. Purging your closet of extra, unused clothes may be a nice thing to do, it may even be an expression of the desire to help someone in need - but it cannot be classified as philanthropy.

So how do I define charity? Charity requires, by definition, a little bit of self-denial and sacrifice. I can be big-hearted and give a lot of stuff, but real charity does not constitute disposing of something I have enough of (and feeling good about it). Real charity is giving from what is not in reserve to aid someone else. When asked to share their snack with someone who had none for the day, two of my first graders offered half their bag of chips. One child had a lot of other snacks in his bag, one had just juice and the bag he proffered to share. There is a very concrete, definable difference in their otherwise identical kindness. It is defined by what they had to offer to begin with. One may be generous and not charitable, but one can never be charitable without being generous.

So if Melinda Gates decides to hop around the world making sure that poor kids get immunized, she is being generous. And she well can afford to be (and maybe she NEEDS to be)! But it is not real charity. Not according to me. Seriously - big deal! Nice of her, of course, but can we please stop acting as if the world needs to take its collective hat off to her and her trust? The Gates picked something close to their heart. I applaud the fact that they are taking out time and money to help better the world, to help make it safer for others, us, and themselves. Very generous. But charitable??? Hmmm.

I think the essence of charity is looking at what your recipient needs, not what you want to give; to consider what is imperative and pressing (like children chewing on bark in Africa to stave off hunger pangs), rather than what catches your fancy. The Gates think fighting disease is important. It is their priority, but it may not be all-important to kids who take the shots. How about ensuring clean water and environment first? Lawrence O'Donnell raised more than 2 million dollars to buy desks for children in Malawi. Desks! In a country struggling with food shortages, bad government, and rampant AIDS. PLEASE!! Am I the only one who is actually a little annoyed? Everyone else is patting themselves on the back that kids will not have to sit on the floor while learning at school. Do we know if there is enough clean water or food for them at home? Or proper sanitation? Or lunch at school ? Or even if they have enough books or pencils? Is where they sit to learn really that important?

I believe that charity is morally incumbent upon each one of us. Not just generosity, for that is largely dependent on one's nature. The frequency of giving is predicated on things like ability, opportunity and environment. But charity is, for me, something that is required for the purification of one's soul. Once you begin to give because someone else needs it, it ennobles your spirit. When you give of something you cannot spare, it demonstrates how immaterial material things are. It makes you more than the sum total of your possessions. That is a very empowering feeling.

That also means that charity is independent of a person's resources too. How much you have has no correlation to how much you can change someone else's situation, because you will be fulfilling someone's need at that moment. Maybe it is $10, maybe it is a $1000, or maybe it is a snow shovel to borrow. Or giving a push to a stalled car.

I think it is charity when you can smile and wish someone a good day when all you feel like is kicking something or someone(!) real hard. You have to draw on draining emotional reserves to do the right thing. I think that is what the Prophet Muhammad meant when he said 'Smiling is charity.' He was not talking of the mindless grinning to look good, or smiling to look pleasant and make an impression. He was talking of smiling to make the other person feel better.

Oscar Wilde said that no good deed is unselfish. Everything we do is to make ourselves feel better. Are we all so jaded that that is what the definition of good is reduced to? Real charity, I have always believed, is something constant - irrespective of your means, situation, or your life plans. If you are giving $100 to a soup kitchen when you earn 5000K a month, please do not donate a million to UNICEF when you get that 15 million dollar lottery. Make the equal percentage donation to what you know in the heart you always needed to do.

I guess I may be envious of people who have too much money and time to know what to do with themselves - the royalty by accident of birth, the rich by marriage, even the stock market gamblers. So when I accept their generosity at face value as 'charity' - that they are doing this for others and not for themselves, it is I who is being my charitable best!

Heroes

Who is a hero for me? I admire a lot of people. I admire the stay-at-home mom giving her time to raise well-mannered, well-adjusted children. I admire the doctors struggling with dismal facilities and rampant diseases in areas the world prefers to ignore. I admire the fruitseller in India who pushes his cart in the hot sun all day so that his children will not have to. I admire the little boy who runs up to return to coin purse you dropped, even though he desperately needed the little money in it himself. But I cannot and will not understand why on earth we go so wild about the physical prowess of sports stars.
I am going out on a limb here. I know this will attract the wrath of those millions of fans of sports around the world. I cannot fathom how basketball players become 'heroes' just because they play a game well. A few days ago a sportsperson got a 3-year 54 million dollar contract. Apparently, his talent lies in hitting a ball very well with a wooden bat. Damned lucky is all I have to say. And let’s hope that strength in those arms is not artificially induced. So let's be a little careful on who we call a 'hero'.Then there is the person who automatically recieves a step-up in public esteem because of something that happens to them. Please tell me -what is special about someone battling a disease? Its sad, tough, and all my prayers and very best wishes to them, but it does not make them a hero. And there lies my probelm with the fans of Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong cycles exceedingly well. He is also fighting a deadly disease - and winning. Hats off to him. Good job -and yes, it is inspiring too. But that does not make him a hero. He is doing things for himself. His is a wonderful, heartening fight for survival - like hundreds of others everyday all over the world; and so many others not as hopeful. If survival is the criterion then we have millions of heroes, and those are of a stature much superior than Armstrong - like the the little boy in Africa carrying his sister on his back, trying to find a place where he can get food and water for them both.
So some big stars give millions to their charitable trusts and their favorite aid agencies. I do not mean to belittle their kindness at all, but frankly, if you had that much money would you not give some of it away too? It must be a relief to get rid of a little bit actually. So do not annoy me by going ga-ga over how charitable Angelina Jolie is. I do realize that having millions to spare does not necessitate a large heart - and not every rich person wants to contribute to society. If giving is the criterion then again we have thousands of unsung heroes. And its not Oprah Winfrey, it is someone like the old lady taking the time to walk to the church where she volunteers to serve food to the poor.Real charity is when you have to budget for sending that planned cheque to the soup kitchen. And real heroism is sending that cheque out by cutting corners elsewhere.
Each one of us has a story of struggle. And the fact that we are still around, and with relatively normal faculties, means we have won in some measure at least. Yes, we have a hero in each of us. Each of us has done our bit to help, to improve things around us, maybe even reach a bit beyond ourselves. And we did not expect any payback. So forgive me if it annoys me when people go wide-eyed delirious everytime Bill Gates does a major philanthropic gesture. And forgive me again when I get frustrated when a hockey player gets a ridiculously high salary for his ability to move on ice (and this comes from a Devils fan!). Or rather, don't even bother - because I am not sorry for my annoyance. Its is justified- 54 million times over!

A man's mind can be filled with anything if his stomach is empty.

Hunger is a very destructive weapon.

Rusi Karanjia (the late editor of a popular Indian magazine) once stated, 'Hunger is a very corrosive acid'. He wrote of it melting a man's brain and eating his flesh. But hunger is much more potent, and more insidious. It involves more than just the person who suffers from it. Hunger is a sore on the society that breeds it. Deprivation of victuals has a terribly debilitating effect on a man's soul and mind . It leaves him vulnerable to anything that will alleviate the agony of starvation. He will be a slave to anyone who makes him feel less alone, less harrowed. Hunger kills the soul before it kills the body.

That is why terrorism breeds in countries where people have less to look forward to in their lives. When one does not know if there will be a meal the next day, and no one to turn to -anything that guarantees an umbrella of security and belonging becomes irresistible. Trading their souls to the devil must not seem like a loss if the soul feels pretty much dead already.For the children in Congo, to fall in line and obey orders to kill was, possibly, not a difficult choice when the orders came from the men who were feeding and clothing them (Needless to say, the psychological damage those children suffered in the process may be irreversible - but that is another tragic story altogether).

I find it very difficult to see nobility in setting up schools where children are given slates and pencils when their stomachs are rumbling and their feet are bare on icy ground. To read is certainly important, but to eat is far more so. The mind's needs cannot be supported without first satisfying the ache in the stomach. Thats a scientific, biological fact. So the delight a hungry girl feels because of a new pencil is probably only a reflection of the gratification the giver feels doing the misguided right thing.

It is certainly more pressing to respond to the needs of the body first, the fierce need for survival. The mind cannot think for itself if the rest of the system is in starvation mode. If living is priority number one for the biological system, all high-minded pursuits are put on hold. Yes, the wonders of opening a mind to learning and thinking cannot be exaggerated, but let us take things in order. Get the mind and body in good physical condition before we start on the 'spread knowledge' spiel.

The thoughts you put in the consciousness of a child with a famished belly may not be his own at all.