[Buddha-l] Re: dana

[Andrew Skilton]

Amongst many others in the UK, I was upset by the ultimate response of several major charities to the generosity of British public that spontaneously raise 400 million sterling for tsunami relief (this aside from UK gov promises) - charities that some time later had not passed on the money and eventually either returned it (!) or diverted it to their more 'traditional' causes!  I give money to charities on the indirectly stated claim that they are better informed and situated than am I for directing this money to exactly where it is needed. The conduct of the charities mentioned seems like a substantial betrayal of this basic trust between donor and charitable institution. 

Having also travelled a little in Asia and, for example in Phnom Penh, witnessed the bizarre neo-colonial phenomenon of NGO culture there (lots of white men and women being driven around by a native driver in white SUVs with tinted windows , in pursuit of their personal career development * see how angry I still am?) I have no wish to give my money for the benefit of some middle class dope's career. Even last week I was outraged to hear a representative of a national charity on BBC radio saying that 'we' did the wrong thing by giving all that money earlier this year and that in such situations we should not just give * I think his name was Ars(e)burger.

Can anyone identify for me charities that performed well in dealing with the alleged 'surplus' of donations for those affected by the tsunami?

My wife has provided a welcome alternative to institutional giving in that she has travelled to Sri Lanka several times this year and has been able to give money directly to needy individuals and organisations within a particular community.  This is of little help to those who do not have relevant connections of course. But it is worth remembering that the normal channels of generosity within societies affected by such enormous disasters are themselves disrupted at such times.  This leaves a lot of worthy charitable work that is normally covered by local efforts effectively abandoned because of the more urgent effects of disaster.  For example, routine surgical procedures that might have been paid for by the local rotary club don't get done while the local community attempts to rebuild.  Interestingly the local vihara, itself partially demolished by the tsunami, continued to act as a 'clearing house' for this activity, establishing genuine need and documenting both gifts and the medical bills arising so that the donor had proof that their money has hit the spot. (If anyone wants to try this approach, I can put them in touch with my wife.)  Overall, this forced me to re-evaluate my rather cynical view of those guys in orange fancy dress.

Anyone have any interesting observations on the contrast (if such) between personal/direct giving and institutional giving? Erik seemed to be touching on this with his wish to remake his decision each time.

Andrew Skilton



***********************************
Andrew Skilton D. Phil.

email: skiltonat at cardiff.ac.uk

***********************************