To help or not to help
When finishing off my work yesterday, I came across the news of Baba Ka Dhaba owner accusing the YouTuber of financial fraud. For those who don’t know, Baba ka Dhaba is a local food outlet in Delhi which was all over the social media last month. A video presenting the after-effects of COVID-19 on eateries took social media by storm. Media outlets, influencers, companies, non-profits, and netizens like you and me quickly jumped on the bandwagon.
With so many of us working from home, scroll breaks have become the new smoke breaks. Online conformity has become a new thing now. This is somewhat similar to what happened with Baba ka Dhaba. People were sharing their views on it, a lot of them supporting it and a small population questioning the means to an end. In the latter category was one of my connections who asked if it was actually people’s duty to help when it should be the state’s duty to support its people.
He made a valid point, but it was neither heartwarming nor shared by many people who we listen to. So, we did not buy it. This made me think deeper and recall one of the statements that is being often used (sometime in its literal sense, other times in new packaging). More or less, it speaks about empowering people to take care of themselves rather than giving them charity.
I believe many donors for Baba ka Dhaba must have thought about the above. But, somehow, the force from the other end was stronger. Or maybe, it was the convenient feel-good option available. Whatever it was, with the latest news coming in, they might be thinking that perhaps, it was best just to re-share it.
It might take some days to know what actually happened, to establish who is right and who is wrong and who lost the most. Was it the guy who brought this in public or the vendor or the concerned netizens? We are yet to know the loser, but we have our winner here. Those companies who take days in proceeding with a decision made no delay here. They visited the place, only to cover it with their branding left, right, and centre. Does not matter if they pledged any support to the vendor, endorsement was right on point. Alas, Baba ji did not have anyone to give him financial/ legal advice to tap on this money-making opportunity. Maybe, some of the donors were eligible to give that advice, but again, who does not want to use the easiest option around.
Now, netizens would assemble again, revisiting their thoughts and actions. National news channels would organise debates and similar scams that happened in the last 20 years would be recalled. The press would invite legal advisors/ consultants to preach us how to detect frauds online. Some would come up with theories as to what Baba ji could have done. If only, it could come a bit early. Then again, the channels would not have gone this viewership then.
Different people will raise different questions. How legitimate are our influencers? Should we indulge in online charity? Are charities a sham in India? How reliable are the videos we see and the people behind them? And between these, lost some questions asked in low voices. Why did not people care to check the other alternatives to support vendors sustainably? Why did not we hold our government liable to help the self-employed? Would it be any different if this was a campaign endorsed by the government, supported by private corporates and PSUs alike, and be eligible for RTI?
