Lending hands to someone is better than giving a dole

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
– Maimonides

When people voluntarily cultivate a sense of considerate contribution to the society, nay, the underprivileged, the world unquestionably improves. However, the means of assistance are what really count, and they decide whether we save or destroy lives.

Giving someone money is much worse than assisting them in providing for themselves. The former is an example of giving a helping hand, whereas the latter is giving money. Both demonstrate a want to help others and an act of generosity, but giving someone “free” money would unavoidably leave a permanent stain on their mindset.

Giving out handouts could seem like a good idea, but in the long term, it could be just as harmful as limiting someone’s potential. Such an act undoubtedly elevates, yet it falls short since we have cultivated reliance and discouraged personal development.

It makes sense that helping a slow student acquire information more quickly would be preferable to spoon-feeding him exam answers. Giving a dole is based on a sense of superiority, but lending help is based on a fellow feeling, maybe on much equal terms.

We are all aware of the devastation brought on by the relentless rains in 2015, which resulted in floods in Chennai. According to statistics, more than 18 lakh people were displaced. Giving funds to flood victims would have been preferable to helping with infrastructure upgrades and storm water drainage system improvements before this calamity occurred. Ironically, it appears that states would rather give out subsidies than provide assistance when a calamity may be avoided.

The government has recognised the need for such talents and is now launching multiple initiatives through various programmes. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act is one such instance. It is a demand-based initiative that aims to give unskilled manual labourers at least 100 days of guaranteed pay employment in a fiscal year.

In Article 21 of the constitution, the right to life is defined as include the right to a dignified existence and the right to subsistence. Numerous studies have revealed that the programme has decreased people’s chances of falling into poverty. The programme adds to agricultural incomes and enables the underprivileged to live moral lives.

Another programme that merits mentioning is Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY). In an effort to provide the impoverished with a stable source of income, the Indian government created it in 1999. By forming the villages into self-help groups, it aims to reduce poverty through self-employment. Based on a person’s skill, activity clusters are created and developed to their full potential. NGO’s, banks, and other financial institutions all provide money.

Mohammed Yunus and his Grameen bank’s motivations have not only had an influence in Bangladesh but have astounded the entire world. His goal was to provide loans to the underprivileged on terms that would enable them to overcome poverty and to educate them on basic financial concepts so that they could take care of themselves. Around the world, there are more than 100 copies of this bank model. He received the Nobel Peace Prize and is renowned around the globe for being a microcredit concept pioneer.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is startlingly true that India values Russian technology transfers more than Western financial assistance. Giving individuals a sustainable means of subsistence is much more valued and advantageous than just giving them subsidies. So let’s all start doing our part now by helping those in need and allowing them climb the ladder on their own.