The holy month of Ramadan once again ramped up news and reports about ration-distribution, and doling out of food and related provisions to the needy and deserving at various venues. The recipients taking these provisions are generally made to queue, reach the donor at their turn, receive the items, exude gratitude, and reverently retreat with the dole. The broken, needy and expectant receivers, including even several frail, shriveled beings, are sometimes shown live on TV, especially when the donor happens to be a big shot or a celebrity. The recipients, at times, are even made to endure a long, torturous wait, pending the arrival of camera crews, and the completion of corresponding publicity prerequisites. Stressed and lined up for this display, many emaciated and exhausted souls, sometimes, are even known to break down. No less pitiable, similarly, are the hopefuls who are forced to return empty-handed when the material to be distributed is finished before their turn.
These scenes certainly are not merely confined to Ramadan or Eid, but are also observed on several other occasions. The election seasons, for instance, are almost proverbial for the campaigners handing out various items to influence the potential voters. Such distributors certainly may be quite kind, caring and charitable persons out to proffer their resources to the less privileged and the destitute. Their motivation, mostly, is a religious zeal or obligation. Still, these practices also portray a public humiliation of the receivers, exposing their vulnerability, and inducing an evident element of ostentation by the donor. The ostentatious aspect of these lofty, charitable deeds evidently not merely impacts the human dignity but also refutes the real religious spirit, teachings and traditions that are believed to inspire and actuate these admirable actions.
The scriptures related to the action of giving alms and any other allied assistance are quite explicit and unequivocal. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), as reported in the sacred Bukhari compendium, is known to have said, “The best alms is what the right hand gives and the left hand does not know of it.” The emphasis on secrecy has also been an uninterrupted exhortation in the Biblical teachings. An almost similar injunction, “But when you do alms, let not your left hand know what your right hand gives,” is found in Matthew 6:3. The Holy Quran is even more explicit in this context, “…who spend their substance to be seen by men are the friends of Satan.” Yet another verse similarly enunciates, “One who works for men, his rewards lie with them, and one who works for God, his rewards lie with Him.”
The ostentation actually becomes superfluous as it is said in the Quran, “Allah knows whatever good you do. He is aware of it.” (2:215) The omniscience, omnipresence and the absolute command and knowledge even of the inchoate intentions as well as all that has happened and set to happen in the future constitute the very core of the Islamic belief. Several Quranic verses clearly reveal how even each human organ would be made to divulge the details of the deeds it was made to discharge (36:65). Another verse likewise warns, “Even their tongues, their hands and their feet will bear witness against them as to their action.” (24:24)
Presently, the exigency to observe secrecy in charity has become even more paramount as the growing social concern about upholding human dignity has been opted as a policy and practice not only by states but also by many private charity institutions, foundations and philanthropists in the developed world. Ignoring these explicit commandments concerning secrecy in charity in a country that so pompously and persistently pronounces to mould its entire conduct, policies and programmes according to the teachings and foundations of its faith is really a rank contradiction of the very spirit and strictures of the faith it flaunts. There are, of course, some institutions and trusts in Pakistan that follow the basic principle of decency about human dignity in extending their donations to deserving people. The recent news about Edhi sahib donating his eyes after his death, for instance, illustrates this assertion. The names of both the beneficiaries to whom his eyes were donated to were withheld according to the policy of the Edhi Trust, and its practice about the privacy of the recipients.
Some small-scale institutions or individual philanthropists, however, may claim some constraints that they encounter in identifying the genuinely deserving and eligible persons. Some may even think that a part of the resources reserved for redressing the problems of the poor may actually be unduly expended in the process of ascertaining the most appropriate candidates. Yet these concerns evidently are unfounded because small-scale donations are mostly meant for some selected neighbourhood or locality, and the extent of need of various residents in such closed communities is actually amply understood in these surroundings. Still, a better alternative for the kind-hearted donors, sceptical about information about the proper utility of their donations, of course, would be to stream their assistance through some larger, certified institutions.
This evidently brings us to the role of government in vetting and auditing institutions and organisations engaged in public charity operations. Public distribution of various utilities during electioneering in different constituencies is indeed a glaring violation of the ethics of electoral campaigning, and has to be effectively dealt with. Public institutions and officials, similarly, have to be directed to avoid such open distribution circuses. The Benazir Income Support Programme despite its several drawbacks has already undertaken an extensive survey and an assessment initiative to identify indigent families and supplement their income through banks and financial centres. Some mechanism to share and cooperate in its endeavours by philanthropists can thus also be devised.
Media can play an effective role in reforming this odious trend by declining to show such distribution dramas that impinge upon the dignity of the masses already affected by circumstances, and thus driven to humbly stand before donors. Media can also help in building public opinion to discourage this mode of distribution. Social media and civil society enthusiasts, ironically, have so far shown little or no interest against this common custom of patent humiliation. Our religious leaders can similarly lend their authority against this practice that not only negates the pristine religious strictures but also erodes the basic standards of human dignity.
The writer is an academic and a freelance columnist. He can be reached at [email protected]