A different view point

My first blog post ever!

I appreciate Soujanya’s eagerness in giving a helping hand. But, it looks like many don’t share that enthusiasm, going by the number of followers of this blog. I thought I will add my views here. Be prepared to hear some radical view points, as radical as I am. But, I think this post will help people in deciding what to do.

The current idea of charity goes by its literal meaning. Some examples are:

1. Visit orphanages – give children clothes/books, spend time with them, teach them something.
2. Child Rescue and Rehabilitation – A programme to identify child labourers in Chennai and free them from their master’s clutches. This programme is being run by a HCLite and being actively supported by Community Service Council of HCL.
3. Visit old age homes – give them lots of love along with money and clothes.
   On a bigger stage – support, monetary or otherwise, to victims of natural disasters such as the recent floods; victims of man-made disasters such as those displaced by a dam.

These “traditional routes” require time, money, patience and hands from the individuals. You have to be dedicated to a single cause. There are certain aspects which need to be considered:

1. Though the importance of amount of money that we would provide will not be of a lesser value, the monetary help that we provide will not be enough; ours is just a contribution.
   a. If our effort fails because of reasons external to us, the sense of satisfaction will not be complete, which is very well required for us to continue in our endeavours.
   b. On the other hand, if, at any time, we feel that our efforts are not going to bring fruits, that very sense would lessen our drive to help.
2. This needs to be a long term activity, which needs patience and continuous monitoring for the activity to succeed. (Patience of a group is different from that of an individual.)
3. On a different plane, I feel that such ‘groups’ have their voices heard / are being represented one way or the other, in the current society, with many NGOs coming up. Many ‘enlightened’ individuals are doing their bit through these NGOs. Why not represent somebody who still remains unrepresented?

I support these activities. But, as my points above would have given you a peek in my mind, my idea of this ‘charity’ is very different. May be, I should not call it ‘charity’ at all... And, may be, yes.

My activities are driven by the following two touchstones:

1. Is my little effort making maximum impact w.r.t to social and/or environmental considerations?
2. Is it making lasting impact? If it is solving a long existing problem; if it is curing the problem rather than its symptoms...

May be, I can give some examples to help you understand my view better:

1. A committed but struggling startup, which employs (or which could employ) many people. If that startup is trying to find solutions to societal/environmental problems, then its case would be doubly appealing.
2. A young mind unable to continue his studies because of poverty.
3. A brilliant mind with ideas for providing low cost solutions to existing problems, but lacking funds to put ideas into action.
4. Or, in the above case, lacking in enough contacts/information to implement his ideas (please note, in this instance, no monetary help is being provided).

And, I am not limiting myself to a single cause. Some kind of ‘freelancing’, ‘traditional routes’ inclusive...

The biggest problem with such an approach is that the process of deciding who needs help, if not everybody is involved, may seem to be arbitrary. But, this concept also has advantages, made important by the fact that we are a group. Most importantly, it relieves of our current dilemma on whether we can be together or not. Each individual would drive the cause closest to his/her heart, and others providing support in whichever way they can – monetary or otherwise.

If this concept is accepted, the question now turns into: whether each one of us want to do “it” or not?

This post warrants comments..!