& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Token charity or real charity?

GIGI ASEM
SINCE the traditional time for zakat in Bangladesh is coming up, it would be constructive to look at the Bangladeshi version of zakat a little bit more closely and without the rose-coloured glasses of custom, tradition, and "family values."
Zakat, the institutional form of charity in the Muslim world, is structured and shaped, like any other social institution, by the social environment and by the institution's relation to other social institutions such as family, religion, education, politics, economics, and the state. Since Bangladesh is essentially a developing country, it still retains those insular qualities of tribalism fondly called "family values" which shape the structure and eventually influence the efficacy of zakat in Bangladesh. Subsequently, zakat, which is essentially a religious institution, is shaped in Bangladesh not so much by Quranic Islam, but by the tribal values of a people who are dominated by rural values of personal contact rather than by urban values of efficiency. Since Bangladesh is a third-world country, we can ill-afford to practice token charity that costs lives in place of real charity that is geared towards alleviating poverty on a large scale.
Thus, because Bangladeshi culture is still rural based, the majority of zakat is given on a person-to-person level (or individual-level basis) because rural culture values personal contact. In industrially developed countries, where the concept of statehood is distinct from the concept of family, charity is given is so as to affect as many people as possible, and thus the majority of charity is given by individuals to a formal organisation which then disseminates those funds to anyone who fulfills their criteria for help. Such organisations have specialised in alleviating or eliminating poverty, and as such their every action is geared towards those same goals. But, because we in Bangladesh are living within a tribal framework, person-to-person charity is encouraged and lauded and involves having a direct relationship to every step of the charity-giving process -from buying the items to selecting the recipients for your charity to giving the donations to those same recipients.
There is nothing wrong with person-to-person (individual-level) charity as such, but in the view of Bangladesh being a developing country, and in the context of the Quran, which demands that we give to alleviate the sufferings of others, individual charity is in great danger of becoming token charity rather than the real charity advocated by the
Quran. Token charity or token zakat in Bangladesh (possibly in others countries as well, but I'm looking at my country) is a form of religious formalism to be gotten over as soon and painlessly as possible, with little concern for whether one's charitable actions are really alleviating or helping to eliminate poverty. Real charity, on the other hand, is motivated by a sincere and real desire to alleviate and eliminate poverty -- to "do good."
Charity that is mostly individualbased may be fine for a post-industrial country where the level of real poverty is low, but for a country where the population is estimated for 2005 to be approximately a little over 144 million and where 45 per cent of the population is estimated to be below the poverty line, there are at least 65 million reasons for zakat money to be spent carefully and judiciously.
There are various poverty studies and estimates of how many of our population is in need. The definition of need varies from study to study,
charity by local Bangladeshis is inexcusable if it is given carelessly or regarded as a piece of religious superfluity to be gotten out of the way as quickly as possible. Whichever way we look at it, we cannot escape one hard fact that close to half the population of Bangladesh is in dire need, and over three-quarters of the total population is in need. What the statistics essentially show us is that Bangladesh has pockets (or shall we say islands, if we think of Gulshan, Baridhara, Dhanmondi, and Uttara) of the haves surrounded by seas and oceans of the have-nots.
The reason why I feel so negatively about individual-level charity in the context of Bangladesh is because, as a third world country we cannot afford to play around with life-saving resources. We are basically Neros, fiddling while Rome burns (in the interests of accuracy and libel, I should mention that the story of the Roman emperor fiddling while his city burned is untrue) when we give the majority of our zakat to individual-level charity instead of to organised institutional charity. Family-centred charity, or individual-level charity is limited in efficacy and reach to the abilities and § resources of the individual or the o family. Such family-centred charity given on a person-to-person basis is charity that is frequently misplaced and wasted -- we end up sustaining poverty rather than helping to alleviate or eliminate it.
To illustrate how person-to-person charity is a hit-and-miss affair, with donations being distributed unevenly and inefficiently, let's look at the following. Submitting to the truism that charity begins at home, we might choose to donate food, clothing, and money in the name of charity to our household or office servants. Thus, those lucky enough to be servants in the households of the moneyed rich may get a plethora or food, clothing, and money on at least two days of the Muslim calendar. The gifts those servants receive might be further augmented by donations given by the employer's friends who might also be looking for some conveniently easy way of disposing of their zakat obligations. As a result, you get a lucky few getting too much on a few days of the year, who will then dispose of the non-perishable surfeit to their families and poorer relations. And then of
from organisation to organisation, but in spite of all the variance, an overall summary stresses that most Bangladeshis do not have access to those essential basics (such as clean water, separate sanitation, adequate housing, and a regular income) to dignify a life with. Having such amenities will reduce the death rate and raise the quality of life far more than the building of multi-crore hospitals that are a non-sustainable and completely impractical items on any poor country's shopping list.
Prof A I Mahbub Uddin Ahmed's study of the socio-demographic correlates of rural poverty quoted UNDP figures that estimated 78 per cent of the Bangladeshi population is classified as income-poor, if a poverty line constructed of less than $2 per day per person is used, and 29 per cent of the country's population can be classified as poor if the if the poverty line is lowered to $1 per day per person.
With such figures cropping up annually for Bangladesh, the giving of
course something similar happens with our distant relations or with our deshbari people. The trickle-down theory of economics is obviously coming into play here but nobody is directing the force of the trickles or where the trickles go.
Institutional charities on the other hand, and yes, we do have them in Bangladesh -- take, for example, Red Crescent, Islamiat Eye Hospital, Oxfam, etc -- stretch your money far more than individual charity does. This is because they are bureaucracies geared towards achieving certain goals, and those goals include saving lives or helping people on a mass scale. As such, all their actions are geared towards those goals. And since they are large-scale institutions, the economies of large-scale kick in. Most of these charities have accountability -- they can prove to you that a very tiny percentage of their funds is spent on administration. The bulk of it goes towards saving lives, giving sight or whatever the goal of that organisation is.
The power of the group is more efficacious than the power of one. What goes for prayer goes for charity -the contributions of individuals make a sum that is greater than its component parts. From an Islamic perspective, when token charity is given with an eye to impressing our fellow men rather than impressing God, it not only costs lives and the quality of life, but, from an Islamic perspective, we make a mockery of zakat and of God Himself. God is no idiot to be fooled by fine empty gestures.
"And whatever deed ye (mankind) may be doing, We are Witnesses thereof when ye are deeply engrossed therein. Nor is hidden from thy Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven. (Surah 10: Verse 61).
It's interesting to note that while we all recognise the power of prayer said in a group, we are more reluctant to acknowledge the power of charity when it is given as a group. The Quran lauds the action of the individual when the individual is working as part of the Brotherhood -- why are we so willing to follow this injunction of Islam when it comes to prayer but not charity? We demand value for money when buying food, clothes and the material pleasures of life. Is zakat a lost cause that we don't demand value for money here?
"The Believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Apostle. On them will God pour his mercy: for God is Exalted in power, Wise. (Surah 9: Verse 71).
The author is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.