How would you improve your community?
Key Takeaways
- Good governance and community welfare charity have been key principles throughout Indian history, with rulers like Yudhisthir and Akbar remembered for their benevolence.
- Caste and community play significant roles in Indian society, influencing social interactions and politics over time.
- Community welfare programs often aim to support those in need, yet they can be shaped by specific norms and expectations.
- Charity should be selfless and genuine, avoiding self-promotion while serving the broader community’s interests.
- Crafting effective charity initiatives requires planning and integrity, ensuring that the act of giving remains focused on helping others rather than profit.
Introduction
History tells about compassionate rulers who did many works for the public welfare. A righteous king is the one who takes care of his people well and treats them with respect. Sobriquet “Praja Palak” (Public Guardian), they command respect and are remembered with affection. Just like a modern community welfare charity, they made sure the needs of the people were met. Despite their occasional acts of cruelty and barbarism, their good work outweighs their cruel actions. In ancient scriptures and epics, good governance has been referred to with esteem. After the epic war of the Mahabharata, Yudhisthir and his four brothers ruled wisely. They followed the rule of law and took full care of their people.
Medieval examples
Sher Shah Sur or Akbar of the medieval period are often remembered as benevolent monarchs. They are also considered generous. Nevertheless, they have pages of autocratic history as well.
(a) Autocracy viewed with disdain
Autocrats and cruel rulers have, since ancient times, been viewed with disdain. Great revolutions in world history underline the preference for good governance over autocratic and cruel monarchy.
(b) Setup changed with time
Time changes, and so are setups. The foreign invaders who came to India settled and ruled. They did what they felt fit according to their religious doctrines to proliferate religion and themselves. Jizya was imposed on the Non-Muslim population during the medieval period in Indian history. It was discriminatory and contrary to the principles of equality and fraternity, but it was justified under their law. In those days, Non-Muslims belonged to a different category. Though there was a feeble undercurrent of public good. Nevertheless, it was more of a religious cause rather than an organic wish to improve governance, community welfare and charity. Rebellious people and kingdoms used to be brutally crushed. The wishes of monarchs were the command.
(c) Era of colonialism
History testifies that warrior local kings fought bravely to keep their sanctity and the freedom of their land and people.. They did not deter but bravely faced the ire of autocracy. With time, the monarchy gave way to colonial rule by an imperialist force. They came here as a trader. Later, by adopting every scheming tactic, they colonised the nation and exploited it.
Good governance
Good governance and people’s welfare have always been the Indian ethos. People often eulogised righteous and immortalised kindhearted monarchs who were dedicated to community welfare and charity. Good rulers constructed roads flanked by shady fruit trees. They constructed inns with wells for public ease.
One thing that remained constant was the wish for goodwill and the betterment of people. This was true irrespective of their religious faith.
Stratification of society
(a) “Varnasram” system
The primogenitors aimed to regularise society. They wanted an equal share for people according to their ability and efforts. To achieve this, they divided the whole life period into four distinct groups. It was purely on the basis of their work and was interchangeable. Known as “Varna”, people were classified based on their work. It was not a birthright. This, though, was later solidified and made rigid. Gradually, other subgroups evolved by mixing the genetic materials. It was eventually termed a caste.
(b) Caste
Caste, also termed as “Jaati”, was later superimposed on “Varna”. It now plays an important role in Indian society and has become a favourite of politicians in India.
Etymologically speaking, the word community has come from the Latin word Commūnitās. It has a root, Communis, which means common. A community is a group of humans or animals with the same interests and bonds. It is used to denote a subgroup within a group or a large population.
(c) Communities
Other than used in denoting a caste, it is also used to denote a group with common traditions and interests. The members share a common cause, ethnicity, profession, or passion. It can be a community of working-class people, students, artists, nationality and the country. They can be referred to any further subdivision, like photography or the sports community. It can be said that a community is a broad term. It is used to denote a group of individuals with several commonalities. Nationality also conveys the same meaning but with a broader base.
Referring to an individual from an Indian community is like calling him an Indian. There is a slight difference. Referring to an individual’s community is tantamount to underlining some basic qualities about that person belonging to that community. It gives an outline sketch of his/her overall behaviour and style of living.
Nation first
So, while talking about community welfare, the first thing that should come to mind is the nation. It sounds like a right-wing thought. It can be uncomfortable for those who are not congruent with this thought, the least. Some of them pose like “Progressives” and are boastful about their thought. Any thought, nonetheless, can neither be good nor bad until it is translated into action. Thought is an abstract thing. “Progressives” follow a principle which can be unpalatable to those who oppose it. It can be debatable.
(a) Loving country is bliss
Loving the country and thinking about it is bliss. It gives a feeling of self-elevation. A nation provides an individual with their identity. A group of people permanently settled in another country is commonly termed a diaspora. They constitute a community on a foreign soil. Once they adopt another country, their identity changes. Calling a person “Indian origin” is like satiating oneself with illusion. It needs to be remembered that “Indian origin” has no meaning.
(b) Is the fragmentation of society good?
The nation comes first. Other things follow. The division of society into segments like region, religion, language, caste, and creed can have its advantages and disadvantages. Still, politicians worldwide use it as a powerful tool to attract votes in their favour. It is often seen, especially in democratic countries, which rely on the popular vote count to form a government. Electoral politics encourages the compartmentalisation of society for parochial vote gain. The political parties do it as a powerful vote-attracting magnet. It has its side effects, too.
Community programs
Many affluent people take up community welfare and charity programs. Ostensibly, the welfare programmes are for the general community, but their specific code of conduct draws a line. It must not be objected to. It is acceptable for a reason. A particular section may not like a different way in their organisation.
(a) Community kitchen
There used to be a community kitchen in some communities. It is done by some organisations or even an affluent section. Anyone can have food in the community kitchen. Yet, while using the facilities, one has to follow the norms and rules laid by the organisation or the body. There is absolutely no harm in it. Similarly, charitable hospitals or schools run by anyone need certain rules to follow. They even give concessions to anyone belonging to the community. Doing something for people, in general, is good. It is a constructive work for the deprived lots of a particular religion, caste or section. Still, it need not be a closed-door activity. Service does not see the categorisation of people on artificial grounds. Humanity must come first.
(b) Charity is selfless
A charity should not be for self-promotion. Nevertheless, it can’t be ignored altogether. A charitable hospital, for instance, uses the names of its members or the founder, but is open to all. Its services can be utilised by every section of society. Still, some individuals or organisations exploit legal provisions to launder money. There is a strict law to check such acts. Moreover, a veiled charity is no charity. It should come from the heart.
(c) Charity needs recognition
People do things primarily keeping in view for self-pampering. A common person wading through the difficulties of life will find it very difficult to donate money to a cause. Still, some people donate their entire savings for a cause they believe in. Similarly, a few spare money and adopt wild animals kept in zoos. It is a goodwill gesture and is out of their love for animals. It is conditional, but so long as it serves the wider interest of society, it needs to be recognised. Their help buttresses the authorities to manage the affairs of community welfare and charity in a better way.
(d) Charity with crowdfunding
Communities that are financially weak need help in various ways. A well-off organisation should not ask for a donation from common people. It is inappropriate to make an emotional appeal to feed the hungry. People’s participation is an argument that can be given in its favour, but it is like crowdfunding by an organisation.
Charity comes from within
Feeding the hungry is a noble cause. Yet, it must not be a money-minting process. Charitable organisations need to develop a foolproof plan. They must decide how to run the organisation without crowdfunding. “Charity” needs to be a bona fide act. The organisation needs to avoid crowdfunding until it is a declared programme of people’s participation. Similarly, a school run by a resourceful person needs to be considerate. Sometimes, people doing charity make it a means of profit-making. Mushrooming NGO (Non-Governmental Organisations) indicates the trend. The government has provisions to contain and balance such activities.
Helping others is a noble cause. It should stay a noble one, not only in words but also in deeds. It has manifold repercussions. Being like Santa Claus is difficult, so a middle and amicable way needs to be adopted.
Some other interesting reads:
-END-
Leave a Reply