The boy, Bhim Gurung, is one of those whose education should have been funded by social service agencies. There are many Bhim Gurungs in Nepal. They are picking rags from the streets and garbage heaps of the main cities. They are undergoing ordeals of domestic and sexual violence. They are wailing and begging on the pavements. Why has it happened? I wish to account two reasons; first, and more shamefully, is the state’s apathy. And second is the social service agencies—NGOs to be more specific—which are there to advocate for their rights, prosperity and welfare but which largely tend to misuse the donated funds. It is the latter aspect that I want to talk about.
That which we call foreign donation or NGO money, in fact, comes from those who cut down their personal expenses and save.
NGOs tend to do business in the garb of social service. Here is an example from my experience a few years back. I had a five-year-old boy – his father died before he was born – to place in an orphanage. The relatives of his parents were extremely poor and his mother was living in her maternal home. Affording education being virtually impossible for her, I accosted three NGO runners I knew of—after this I became sure that there were scores of others to follow suit. Now I wish I had never gone to them.
First I went to a Child Care Center boss who has set up an office in his own luxurious house in Kathmandu. He was busy talking to foreigners, possibly his donors. When he finished, I told him of the boy. First, he proudly announced the ideals of his NGO. And then, he said “we take in only absolute orphans but your boy has his mother.” Next, I tried the chairman of a private school in Kathmandu, which supposedly offers free education for orphans—I had already learnt that in the name of school for orphans, he had filled the school with children of his own relatives. I was having my patience and his honesty tested. He saw the same fault: “Your boy is not an absolute orphan.” The third NGO boss had a somewhat similar pretext to make. He said he worked exclusively for Dalits and janajatis. Later, I learnt that his orphanage was housing some children on recommendation of local politicians; such children who came from a considerably well-off family and whose parents could fairly pay for their education. I was not surprised, therefore, to learn that he had staffed his office with his own relatives.
These bosses had become successful entrepreneurs in a few years since they began running NGOs. They had turned social service agencies into a means of earning, which brought them good houses, good cars and “good names.” I can imagine the secret of their success. Perhaps, they had drafted an impressive proposal; perhaps, they had taken the snaps of poverty-stricken village children carrying grass or firewood on wicker baskets and shown them to the donors; perhaps, they had published the success stories of their organizations and failure stories of the state. Thus, they may have won the hearts of the donors.
Turning social service agencies into a means of earning for personal comforts is unethical. So far as I know, NGOs depend for their economic survival on INGOs and other foreign donors. Donors give for charity and social cause by cutting their daily expenses. One can read John Wood’s Leaving Microsoft to Change the World to learn about the difficulties an honest social worker faces in collecting funds. It is really hard for donor agencies to persuade people to give. That which we call foreign donation or NGO money, in fact, comes from those who cut down their personal expenses and save a few cents of their hard-earned money everyday. There is no comparison of Wood with those I described above. They may never have read him. Even if they ever do, I apprehend, they will learn methods of raising funds to misuse. But when the generosity of donors is misused, it is a sin—a deadly betrayal and blackmailing.
There are thousands of social service agencies—I/NGOs—active in Nepal. If Social Welfare Council’s statistics are to be believed, there are around 20,000 registered NGOs and 210 INGOs operating in the country. Going by this, then, each district can claim around 266 NGOs and three INGOs for its share. Each Village Development Committee/ Municipality— there being 3973 in total—gets five NGOs in its share. According to an estimate, billions of rupees pour in through them every year. In fiscal year 2064/65 alone, six billion rupees had come to the country through INGOs. Drawing from this, anyone can infer that if these I/NGOs really contribute to national development and poverty alleviation, they can change the fate of the country overnight.
But, as we know, the country’s fate has only deteriorated over these years. And the fate of the people I/NGOs are meant to work for has not changed. The fund does not really reach the targeted community. Barring some exceptions, I/NGOs only amass money to serve beneficiaries that include the staff who run the organizations, the luxury hotels and resorts. NGO heads, like those from my example, live in sumptuous houses and enjoy luxury. They have continued to earn bad names even for other social service organizations that are genuine and committed to social service. Unless their activities are restricted and strictly monitored, the number of I/NGOs will keep increasing and Bhim Gurungs and their likes will keep on multiplying, making wonderful stories for segments such as Republica’s “Unreported Lives.”
mbpoudyal@yahoo.com
Related story
Infographics: Measuring generosity
-1200x560-1774606010.webp)
