PHILANTHROPY AS I SEE

Today after reading an article about the federal case against ex Mckinsey CEO Rajat Gupta two very contradictory yet very complimentary ideas about morality reckoned my mind. First came as a reaction to an appeal by Bill Clinton and second was a reaction to appeal by Kofi Annan. Though both of them appeared in same sentence but we shall deal with them separately.

                                Now the first feeling is a thought about the philanthropy efforts of the richest men. It’s a sacred task sanctioned by the infallible Vedas and all other religious treatise around the world. Yet, whenever I read about it something seems amiss to me. The basic objection I have is that when the way of earning didn’t included philanthropy and means were not as honest as they should, then how come the end that is the liberal act of donation considered as philanthropy. My question is having its origins in a quote of Gandhiji in which he has said that the purity and sanctity of an action depends as much on its means as much on its end (product). Thus, when our means includes robbing the downtrodden of their little yet precious wealth in the name of profit as a cost of our entrepreneurship, how could our end in which we share our leftovers with them can be treated as an act of generosity. Well let me put in another way, we can say that this act would be quite similar to the act of feudal lords until last century where left overs were offered to scavengers as a feast. That way we can say that today’s act of philanthropy certainly is feudal in nature which has just changed its clothes.

                                Further, we have the educated middle class also resembles the bards as we also goes on praising these efforts and then in process we inflate their image and make it larger than life. Many would question my thought on the line that it is against the very ethics of the business and a business needs to follow this suit to survive in this world. In that case my reply is very simple that before advent of Europeans and even after their advent before they were a political power Indian merchants with different ethics use to be more richer than them as Virjilal Vohra’s example can be quoted who was suppose to be the richest men in the 16^th century world. These men though were not so honest yet when compared with today’s businessmen they were almost saints as their rate of charging profit was not exorbitant as today but a modest 10-20 %. It was not that they did it suo moto but rather Indian Legal system had over the century considered 10 % as a genuine rate for profit and over and above that was considered illegal.  Actually the act of today’s industrialist was started in 1870’s by many American industrialists who included greats like, Carnegie, Rockefeller etc. Even today we can see that the institutions established by them are considered the base rock of philanthropy but what we tend to forget is that the era in which they flourished is called “Age of Robber Barons” which proves my contentions.

                                                Now coming to the second thought which arises out of Kofi Annan’s remark in which he suggests the federal court not to forget the deeds done by Mr. Gupta in the upliftment of the mankind.  This thought was actually given to me by my father during my upbringing that son always remember that you may do hundred good deeds for this world but it will discard you on the hundred and the first if it’s not up to its liking and your past deeds shall not hold any good what so ever . In this case same words echoed in my mind and I was left wondering that these golden words will never grow old. Since the days his involvement in Graft only good thing I heard about Mr. Gupta was that he has successfully authored struggler’s story achieving all that he wanted but anything about his philanthropy was generally kept under wrap including his work for United Nations. And here I am talking about the Indian media which has no pressure at least visible pressure from Federal authorities of USA.  Such absence of his philanthropy in general manner proves the heights of the materialistic culture we have reached in which we only salute the rising sun even if its redness is out of blood. The moment we realize its setting we leave it faster than rats can leave sinking ship.

                                Well after all this discussion I am really in a dilemma as neither acts of philanthropy can be decided which can be said morally upright nor its end as it will be considered an honour till you are shining high and after your time is over even your best efforts in helping mankind shall be ignored including your past efforts.