When the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare India’s hunger problem, India’s richest man was making Rs 90 crore an hour. The pandemic served as an unfortunate mirror reflecting the social, economic and political inequalities in our society that are further perpetuated by the biased and unjust policies of the rich. Half of the world’s poor look towards 25 of the richest people in the world for support and the rich have found a superficial way to address this problem – philanthropy. It is supposedly a kind, generous act responsible for a new, improved and equal world order.
But is it really what it sounds like?
Wealth is power and concentrated wealth is absolute power. The richest people in the world now have enough wealth and resources to be able to control all economies, polities and societies across the world. Moreover, consumed by the greed, they regularly use their wealth to make themselves even richer, which in an ideal case – with just and fair systems in place – wouldn’t have been possible. In reality, these billionaires have built empires by exploiting many below themselves. Therefore, the rich cannot claim to deserve or to have earned what they have really usurped. Philanthropy can then be seen as giving back to the people from whom you have unceremoniously taken far too much from. The privileged have a moral responsibility towards those that are lesser off because the policies of the rich have directly contributed to – and benefitted from – the deteriorating condition of the poor.
Philanthropy therefore is not an act of kindness but a duty. This requires philanthropists to move away from ‘feel-good’ charity and try to make a real difference in the world. The ‘law of the jungle’ where the tiny fish seeks to be rescued from the big fish, serves as a clear example of society where the minorities need fair systems to help them survive the injustices of the majorities. The attempt to save the little fish from the big fish, out of pure compassion, is what builds a civilisation where the weakest of the weak thrives without being dominated over by the strong. Unfortunately, human greed and concentrated wealth have created a world order where there is no system of help for the weak.
When individuals find themselves grappling with intergenerational cycles of injustice, addressing the cause is far more essential than treating the effect. However, many capitalistic organisations have played an active part in perpetuating these injustices for personal gains, and deliberately refusing to treat them. Their motto, as noted by Slavoj Zizek is “before you give all away, you have to take it”. Hence, under the garb of a helping hand is a hand that has been complicit in creating conditions of abject misery for at least one-third of the world’s population.
Also read: Are Billionaires Really That Great?
As individuals, each of us have equal moral standing in society and we cannot be used as instruments for somebody else’s happiness. It is a violation of a person’s dignity to be seen as a means and not an end. This ideal of upholding human dignity is at the core of Gandhian economic thought. He emphasised the development, upliftment and enrichment of human life rather than focusing on a higher standard of living that was accompanied by scant respect for human and social values. The Gandhian idea of ‘Trusteeship’ (custodian, not owner) therefore becomes an important alternative to the commonly practiced method of philanthropy.
Where philanthropy looks at the philanthropist as a benevolent person who used fair means to acquire his wealth and must therefore be allowed to do as he pleases, trusteeship aspires to limit private selfish consumption of wealth and resources for an egalitarian way of living. George Soros has argued that since all wealth is generated in a social and cultural context, it never really is private. The trustee thereby exists as a custodian of the wealth and not the owner of it. This encourages the present owning class to morally redeem themselves. It disallows individuals to hold and use wealth for selfish satisfaction. It aims to regulate production based on social necessity and not personal greed.
The capitalist way of choosing where to give the money based on their own discretion creates competition among the underprivileged societies. Instead of enabling them to use the resources for their upliftment, it pushes them into an endless cycle of pitching for charity. This causes them to be more accountable to the people from whom they’ve taken the money than whom they intended to serve. Philanthro-capitalism brings together charity and capitalism and seeks to establish capitalists as the prime creators of a good society. It seeks to legitimise capitalists through their charitable endeavours and in the process assist capitalism to make inroads into the domains of social, cultural and political activity, thereby eroding social responsibility. Injustice and inequality serve the goals of the rich.
The mere giving of money to treat an effect does little to improve the conditions of society. Their comfort in doing very little begets the question that how much of their way of dealing with the situations is coloured by the comfort of their lavish mansion, and would they think the same way if the position was reversed?
There is no system to hold philanthropists accountable to part with the money they pledged. This excuses philanthropists from responsibility and accountability and at the times when they do provide for the people, they’re regarded as messiahs. It is therefore important that philanthropy not be seen as a replacement for public spending but as an addition to it. The government’s dependence on philanthropy dilutes political systems.
In a world hugely dictated by a select few, for philanthropy to survive respectfully, it needs to restructure itself from a choice-based system of giving away wealth to a system of social justice that focuses on the root causes of social, racial, economic and environmental injustices. The deeply-affected beneficiaries need to be elevated to the position of decision makers. Donors need to act as allies to the social justice movement and contribute their time, energy and knowledge in addition to their monetary resources to improve the conditions of society as a whole. For even if the goal of philanthropist organisations is to improve the world’s conditions, without structural and systemic changes, the purest intentions cannot help them achieve their goals.
Remanpreet Sandhu is a lawyer and is currently pursuing the Young India Fellowship. She lives in Ferozepur with her mother, and often beams with pride at the well-oiled telecommunication network she’s established to keep up with her friends across the country.
Featured image credit: 愚木混株 Cdd20/Pixabay