A society that has more justice is the society that needs less charity

 

“The world has enough for everyone's need, not for everyone's greed”

– Mahatma Gandhi

While this quote signifies the importance of minimalism and warns about the limited availability of resources in the world, it is unfortunate that greed, which is one of the seven sins according to Catholic Christianity and also called as one of the residing places of the demon Kali post-Mahabharata, has already taken over the minds of many. This has not only led to over-exploitation, but has also brought in disparity of resources, both material and intellectual, where some possess unlimited access while others left in shadows!

Here, to obtain parity and to satisfy each other’s needs, there should be mutual sharing of resources, which is justice. Besides Government actions, from historical times, this has been achieved through charity, also called as ‘Dhaanam’ in Sangam literature. Even Vedas that were composed earlier than that proposes – “Daanam Nyayam Sthapitham” (Charity establishes Justice).

While many have considered the need for charity to bring justice, the below quote flips the coin: “The society that has more justice is the society that needs less charity”. This implies that once justice is established with the help of charity, it no longer needs charity to sustain. But is that possible? If charity is gone, can justice still survive? If so, how? If not, then should charity reform itself to stay? Let’s explore!

But before any of that, we need to understand what justice truly is, since it is claimed to self-sustain without charity, right?!

Justice as multi-faceted

Justice is a narrowly viewed, if its definition is confined only to the economic angle of money and material wealth redistribution.

Justice should be seen also in terms of social angle where it tries to bring in equal opportunities in education and employment. Government through various schemes like RTE, Skill India, etc, provides such opportunities. But if they were effective and equal access was present to all, there might be no need for free YouTube video lectures, crowdfunding for various educational institutions, educational scholarships, all these various kinds of charity.

Also, we can take the environment sector where if there was environmental justice in terms of responsible use of environment adhering to Governmental standards without over-exploitation, the green donations collected by the NGOs, another form of charity would be needless.

The justice also transcends to global issues like climate change in terms of climate justice. If the rich and the industrialized nations would have reduced their exploitation of global commons like air, sea, etc., this would have not only reduced pollution, but also could have reduced the persisting dependency of the poor and developing nations on rich and developed nations for funds and technology transfer, another form of charity to better cope up with climate change.

These cases clearly illustrates that the charity is not needed if justice was established earlier, and actions of various nations and Government are effective in sustaining them. But unfortunately, this multi-faceted justice is a dream to be aspired for, rather than a living reality due to the actions of human greed taking over as discussed before. However, this does not mean that charity is required for justice to sustain, i.e. it is again a tunnel view if we believe that besides making government welfare actions effective, charity is the best way to attain that kind of multifaceted justice and sustain it in this globalized society.

Redefining Charity

First-of-all, let us try to understand why multifaceted justice is not what we are born with i.e. why are we all not born as equals?

If we ponder into the philosophy altogether with logical reasoning for the answers, we can see that if all are born as equals, with equal resources and abilities, then, there will be barely any relationship. This is simply because no one needs the other, thus no respect for others. This leads to arrogance, which in turn breed conflicts and clashes, eventually ending humanity!

Since we are born with interdependency, we must aspire to establish justice through mutual helping of each other. This will not only breed communitarianism (sense of togetherness), but also strengthen our social bond leading to growth of all.

But to attain it, charity is not the best way. It is not because of its nature of giving, but due to the common understanding of its definition. The commonly accepted definition of charity is to voluntarily donate the excess of something that one may have to one who lacks that, expecting no reciprocity. The problem with this commonly accepted definition is that, the donor develops a sense of pride over their noble actions of donation over time. This pride, another sin in the Catholic Christianity’s seven sins, manifest into arrogance, followed by the birth of psychological hierarchy and further leading to expectations of loyalty from receiver in reciprocity (while actually charity doesn't expect reciprocity at all!).

That is why we need to redefine the word ‘charity’ as per what Gandhi has said. Also, Quran has this same concept – ‘trusteeship’. It redefines charity, from being perceived as a help or service to others, to social duty. That is, the wealthy are just a guardian of resources and they must distribute the excesses of that to the needy as a matter of their duty, not of generosity.

This definition not only eliminates the ego of the donor, but also makes them feel the gratitude for the opportunity to perform their duty of donating, rather than being prideful for it. This is well articulated by Bhagavat Gita – “Karmanyae vadikarasthe, ma faleshu kadhachana” (You have the right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of the action). Thus again, only duty, no reciprocity!

Also, while charity can become a burden in the long run, considering it as duty won't make it feel so, as the duty is the primary job of a person (like a habit). But charity is an extra-voluntary effort which fades the interest away eventually.  Just like how a business that pays regular tax and follows corporate governance practices with CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) won’t feel burdened, when done as a part of duty. One example of this is the Mitti Cafe, run by Alina Alam, who employs physically challenged in her restaurants, and has brought social justice through her social duty.

Beyond economic and social justice, true political justice can be attained in if there is better political representation of different sections of society, or else, the Government initiatives will be a mere empty & irrelevant set of actions. Through political representation, the needy will help themselves by drafting inclusive policies. Thus, bringing this political representation becomes the social duty of politicians and advocating for the same is the duty of citizens. Examples of the same includes Women reservation act, Gender budgeting, JANMAN yojana, NCSC establishment, etc.

Similarly, in context climate change, the rich and developed countries must abide by UNFCCC's CBDR (Common but Differentiated Responsibility). Through this, the fund and technological transfer becomes their moral duty which helps not only to establish, but also sustain the environment & climate justice.

Thus, when charity in generosity is transformed into social duty as a moral imperative, the justice self-sustains in the society, leading to happiness of all – Loka Samastha, Sukino Bhavanthu!

Let us bring justice to democracy and start an discussion. Share your thoughts below.