Wetshokhrolo Lasuh
“Donations” Galore: There are plenty of newspaper reports in Nagaland stating that elected representatives of the people (in all capacities) “donate” money and things to projects undertaken or events organised by individuals, groups, enterprises, or religious vis-à-vis non-religious communities. Such reports are found in the local newspapers almost everyday under one or more titles.
Truly Donations?: But are these actually donations? At best they can be proper utilization of funds and at worst they can be utilization of misappropriated funds that belong to the people, under the stewardship of the above-mentioned officials. In the viewpoint of this writer, money or things given away for such projects or programmes cannot and must not be considered donations, unless the elected officials have given hard-earned money from their own pockets or things bought with such money.
A donation is or should be a gift. It is a forgoing the giver makes. X cannot be said to have given Y a gift with money that belongs to Y, or by grabbing from A or B or C for that matter. If money is borrowed to make a donation, it has to be repaid. In other words, it costs the giver! And that is the beauty of a gift, the meaning of donation! What belongs to the people concerned and is given to them cannot be called donation. For instance, if while being the Chief Guest of a football tournament at any point of time, an elected representative gives Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees) to the organisers, it is a donation only if the money was earned by him. It is not donation if the money given is from the fund of any government department. It may be proper utilisation of fund if so acknowledged or use of misappropriated fund as “donation” if the source is not disclosed. If there were any such incident at all, perhaps it would not be the only one. It is left to the imagination.
So Who’s At Fault? : First things first. The people at fault first and foremost, one might say, are the recipients of such funds. They give press releases in praise of such “donations”. Second at fault, if not all, are the elected representatives themselves who with great pleasure announce such “donations”. Third at fault, perhaps in no less degree than the first two, are press persons. Apparently without verification they reproduce such press releases as they are, or in abridged or quoted or paraphrased forms.
Causes: Concerning recipients, they give such press releases most likely with the desire to (what may be called) “grease the minds” or “inflate the ego” of the elected dignitaries. Every human has an ego that can get exploited. One can also suspect fear factor in the minds of recipients: fear that they will be called ungrateful or the fear that they will be given no “donations” in future if they fail to make such proclamations. The third cause must be the fact of ignorance: ignorance of what the term donation signifies, or is supposed to signify.
As for the media, could it, first of all, be carelessness? Or could it be owing to the race against time to meet deadlines which leave no room for further investigation? And as in the case of fund recipients, might some reporters and copy editors not know what attributes and limitations the term donation has?
As for the elected representatives, in whatever capacity, announcements of such “donations” must be owing to the desire to parade themselves or to gain political mileage. In some cases, as is presumed to be true of the above two, it may most likely emerge out of ignorance.
Consequences:
a) Prayers answered! If it is the desire of fund recipients to inflate egos of the elected representatives, they succeed so well. One might say fund recipients through incessant press releases badly spoil many elected representatives and turn them into brats. One might also say that some of the people’s representatives are fed to grow so big they cannot be approached any more. Such recipients (too many to be numbered or known!) turn human beings into callous monsters! It is a shame they apparently end up suffering in the hands of monsters of their own creation.
b) Facts are submerged. Because of the fears writ large in the minds of beneficiaries, because of the pleasure of the representatives to make grand announcements of their supposed generosity, because of the careless attitude of some press persons, and because of ignorance.
Remedial Suggestions:
a) One must become aware that the term donation has certain attributes, that one needs to appreciate it for what it is worth, and that one ought to be cautious concerning its limitations.
b) Subsequently one must become more accountable in the usage of the term. One must not hesitate to make use of the term donation when one knows that any kind of income or acquisition is of a nature true to it. One must acknowledge the generosity of givers. But when one knows it is not truly donation, the terms allotment or allocation or utilisation of funds must be used according to contexts in consideration. One must not fail to acknowledge the judicious and efficient acts of people in the power to do so (The question of “ruling” or “non-ruling” political party does not arise here. The emphasis here is on the power of the office). One must not refuse to acknowledge that funds are properly assigned or utilised for causes, thus discrediting them even when they make appropriate exercise of power!
c) Recipients of funds must not needlessly be scared of being called or considered ungrateful when they refuse to employ the term donation wrongly.
d) Press persons in Nagaland need to be more careful about the use of the term. More investigative effort needs to be given to ascertain facts. Now, one may feel pained about proclamations made by people’s representatives and recipients/beneficiaries on “donations”. But wouldn’t it be more painful if the press, the watch-dog of the society, continues to ignore this vital issue?
Now What?: Shouldn’t an elected representative of the people be most happy if people with gratitude mention that he has allotted or utilised funds if he really has done so? For if that is the way things happen, he would more likely sleep with peace of mind knowing he has not taken his people for a ride. O, wouldn’t that be honourable? And shouldn’t people appropriately acknowledge their leaders and keep them honourable (hon’ble)?
It must be noted before this write-up concludes that though the office of elected representatives of the people assumed major attention here regarding the issue of donation or fund allocation, the principles remain the same for any public official.
Giving and receiving must continue in various forms, for progress must go on. But the mode of such process must be appropriately termed. After all, the issue is not about problem in giving or receiving but about correct or incorrect usage of terms. Now it is only a matter of time to know...
