There is a famous Chinese adage which says "if you give poor man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you feed him for life". Once the person knows about fishing skill, he or she can function independently. On the other hand, doles or donation for charity will only empower him for the duration for which the charity lasts. Unless the person does not know how to use the charity in productive fashion, It will be of no help in the long term.
This wisdom applies to all walks of life. Consider the scenario of flood situation, Most of the time people open their wallet whole heartedly to donate for people who have become victim of flood. However, such doles are not put to its productive use most of the times. Instead, if people could come and help in managing services in relief camps then it could bring bigger difference to the lives of flood victim.
Doles are some times unnecessary evil. There are certain situations where we do not have enough hands to help people. In such scenarios, doles could act as stopgap arrangement for dealing with manpower deficit. A classic case in point is Indian employment sector. Today a large population is unskilled and state is not able to generate enough jobs. Even private sector is lethargic in this context. In such scenario, It would be better if we could ensure some minimum well being or we could provide some social protection to unemployed people. The problem occurs when people consider dole as their entitlement and donors use the excuse of dole as cheap way of shirking their responsibility in lending hand to people in need.
This responsibility-shirking behavior is visible in various dimensions. For example today rich nations are shirking off their responsibility towards poor nations. They provide some cheap loans for building infrastructure through institutional mechanism. However, when it comes to sharing technological competence, rich countries develop cold feet. Had they provided technological know-how to smaller, poor nations then poor countries could have use this in multiplicative fashion to build much more infrastructure.
Even in individual sphere, enabling some one with skills to use and generate money is much more transformational and empowering in comparison to simply giving money to some one. If person has skills then he can survive on his own. But if person has money but he does not know how to use it then it is certain be spent in unproductive manner.
Apart from the mental strength, a helping hand to some one in need, has much stronger emotional sentiments attached to it. According to a famous parable, once a person was attempting to commit suicide. An old man was sitting on the other bank of river noticed the suicide victim. He came and enquired about cause of sadness. The suicidal person said, he has lost job and he has no business. The old man introduced himself as Mr. Ford of Ford motors and asked the person to not worry about his success and failure. He is there to help him always. With these words, the suicidal victim started re-building his life again. Once he became successful, he came back to the same river bank and found the old man sitting on the other side of bank. He walked up to him and thanked him with words "Mr. Ford, your assurance helped me in rebuilding my life." The old man chuckled and told the young man, he is not Mr. Ford. He lied for the sake of igniting confidence and hope in young men's life. The moral of story is "it is not always the monetary help or physical support that helps people in rebuilding their lives". More important is the emotional connect and mental assurance that ignite the hope, and gives the desired purpose and focus to our life.
Some established political schools also opposes the concept of dole. According to neo-liberal school, doling out benefits and giving subsidies leads to wastage of resources in unproductive sphere. Political philosopher F.A. Hayek terms the concept of social justice achieved through subsidies and doles as mirage. He advocate free market and competition. He terms this as fight for struggle where only fittest should survive. By giving doles, We do not make some one fitter for competition. Instead we make people more servile and dependent. Therefore, lending hand in terms of imparting skills, giving mental strength and emotional stability is much more important.
In the Indian context, today We stand at an inflection point of our political-economic history. Today We have large number of poor population. Nearly 25% of population is surviving on daily remuneration of Rs. 26 in day in Villages and Rs. 30 in Cities. This is definitely insufficient for them to live a dignified life. Thus it is essential to provide various amenities as dole. However, such dole-out subsidies should be become permanent feature of our economy. With the scale of population which we have today, such dole is unsustainable. Therefore it is essential that we empower people by way of skilling them. Today nearly 80 Lakh Indians are entering into job market. Therefore it is essential to skill them.
Doles breed servility. While lending hand creates bonding among people. Doles induces responsibility-shirking behavior. While lending hand leads to responsibility sharing. Doles leads to hierarchy creation between donor and taker. On the other hand, lending hand helps in building friendships and relationships. Doles are some times necessary evil but they are only short term arrangements. In long term, lending hand to some one is better than giving dole.
This wisdom applies to all walks of life. Consider the scenario of flood situation, Most of the time people open their wallet whole heartedly to donate for people who have become victim of flood. However, such doles are not put to its productive use most of the times. Instead, if people could come and help in managing services in relief camps then it could bring bigger difference to the lives of flood victim.
Doles are some times unnecessary evil. There are certain situations where we do not have enough hands to help people. In such scenarios, doles could act as stopgap arrangement for dealing with manpower deficit. A classic case in point is Indian employment sector. Today a large population is unskilled and state is not able to generate enough jobs. Even private sector is lethargic in this context. In such scenario, It would be better if we could ensure some minimum well being or we could provide some social protection to unemployed people. The problem occurs when people consider dole as their entitlement and donors use the excuse of dole as cheap way of shirking their responsibility in lending hand to people in need.
This responsibility-shirking behavior is visible in various dimensions. For example today rich nations are shirking off their responsibility towards poor nations. They provide some cheap loans for building infrastructure through institutional mechanism. However, when it comes to sharing technological competence, rich countries develop cold feet. Had they provided technological know-how to smaller, poor nations then poor countries could have use this in multiplicative fashion to build much more infrastructure.
Even in individual sphere, enabling some one with skills to use and generate money is much more transformational and empowering in comparison to simply giving money to some one. If person has skills then he can survive on his own. But if person has money but he does not know how to use it then it is certain be spent in unproductive manner.
Apart from the mental strength, a helping hand to some one in need, has much stronger emotional sentiments attached to it. According to a famous parable, once a person was attempting to commit suicide. An old man was sitting on the other bank of river noticed the suicide victim. He came and enquired about cause of sadness. The suicidal person said, he has lost job and he has no business. The old man introduced himself as Mr. Ford of Ford motors and asked the person to not worry about his success and failure. He is there to help him always. With these words, the suicidal victim started re-building his life again. Once he became successful, he came back to the same river bank and found the old man sitting on the other side of bank. He walked up to him and thanked him with words "Mr. Ford, your assurance helped me in rebuilding my life." The old man chuckled and told the young man, he is not Mr. Ford. He lied for the sake of igniting confidence and hope in young men's life. The moral of story is "it is not always the monetary help or physical support that helps people in rebuilding their lives". More important is the emotional connect and mental assurance that ignite the hope, and gives the desired purpose and focus to our life.
Some established political schools also opposes the concept of dole. According to neo-liberal school, doling out benefits and giving subsidies leads to wastage of resources in unproductive sphere. Political philosopher F.A. Hayek terms the concept of social justice achieved through subsidies and doles as mirage. He advocate free market and competition. He terms this as fight for struggle where only fittest should survive. By giving doles, We do not make some one fitter for competition. Instead we make people more servile and dependent. Therefore, lending hand in terms of imparting skills, giving mental strength and emotional stability is much more important.
In the Indian context, today We stand at an inflection point of our political-economic history. Today We have large number of poor population. Nearly 25% of population is surviving on daily remuneration of Rs. 26 in day in Villages and Rs. 30 in Cities. This is definitely insufficient for them to live a dignified life. Thus it is essential to provide various amenities as dole. However, such dole-out subsidies should be become permanent feature of our economy. With the scale of population which we have today, such dole is unsustainable. Therefore it is essential that we empower people by way of skilling them. Today nearly 80 Lakh Indians are entering into job market. Therefore it is essential to skill them.
Doles breed servility. While lending hand creates bonding among people. Doles induces responsibility-shirking behavior. While lending hand leads to responsibility sharing. Doles leads to hierarchy creation between donor and taker. On the other hand, lending hand helps in building friendships and relationships. Doles are some times necessary evil but they are only short term arrangements. In long term, lending hand to some one is better than giving dole.
Boo hoo hoo...:'( having doubts on my essay after reading yours...
ReplyDelete