Begging Prohibition Act
By Ravi S Ghosh
08 April, 2010
Countercurrents.org
Population of brahmins is about to decrease drastically and eventually
become extinct within the next one to two generations. Chief ministers
of flood affected states and the prime minister are soon going to
serve jail sentences. Political parties will have to go underground
and work like underworld as they will be tagged as unlawful entities.
Charitable organizations are on the verge of being banned. Places of
worship will be sealed down by law enforcers. Jails will be filled
with with beggars, sadhus, trans-genders, and hawkers. And they will
be in company of the top bosses of advertising firms and firms whose
advertisements were put on the hoardings. All this and more, thanks to
Begging Prohibition Act.
With March 22, 2010, the Begging Eradication Month comes to an end in
Bangalore. It was successful and one can see the signs of its success
on the street. No sight of malfunctioning human bodies can be found
asking for alms. No sight of non-malfunctioning human bodies (read
trans-genders) can be found asking (read extorting) for alms either.
Hawkers too vanished from the footpath. Indeed Bangalore has become a
better place to live. Now, the townsmen can save some small change
which found its way to beggar bowls and then in turn to police
pockets. What a relief during inflation!
Oh, my dear townsmen, don't forget to invest the savings as such,
however meager it be, in Ram Bharose Mutual Fund's freshly launched
Golden Alms plan. Multiply your savings and ensure all future bribes
to the traffic police.
Bowl Economics: Begging is an illegal business in India. Yet, it
employs about 7.3 lakh men and women (and child labors) with revenue
of Rs 180 crore (per 2001 census). With Indian economy shinning,
number of employees and revenue both might have sky rocketed now.
Attack on Your Culture: Alms seekers had a place in Indian culture for
time immemorial. Indian religions, be it Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism,
and many more, had advocated seeking alms as a means of livelihood for
seekers of enlightenment. Receiving and donating alms amounts to
"punya' to both the benefactor as well as the seeker. It is a
spiritual process, it satisfies the hunger of the beggar and the
spiritual need to donate of the donor, almost instantaneously. During
the sacred thread ceremony (kind of baptism), the brahmin boy has to
beg first from his mother and then from relatives and friends. This
symbolization reflects the deep association of begging and Hinduism.
With begging being interwoven in South East Asian cultures, banning it
would mean that many of the spiritual and cultural elements are
considered harmful to the society. It would be an attack on the
culture. And you, the savior of the age-old culture, the believer of
ancient practices, won't you come up against such heretic laws banning
begging? It is certainly anti-religious.
Beggars in Disguise: Wikipedia says; “Begging (or panhandling) is to
request a donation in a supplicating manner.” I believe, all including
the chair holders (they call it seat in parliament) would agree with
this definition. So, legally speaking, beggars request for donation,
usually monitory, to keep their lives going as they cannot support
themselves on their own. We can break down the definition of begging
in the following manner:
1. Its a humble request.
2. Ideally, someone resorts to begging on being incapable of
supporting self, to make the ends meet.
3. The donor gets nothing material in return for the alms.
4. Ideally, the act of donation is voluntary.
Based on the above definition, who else would fit the bill for a
beggar? The umpteen charitable organizations which coax us for grants
with grief stricken faces on life size posters (smiley's don't fetch
nothing). The wealthy and middle-class temples, churches, mosques,
gurdwaras that gladly accept our money. Those who seek donations to
Chief Ministers Flood Relief Fund. Those who seek donations to Prime
Minister's Drought Relief Fund. The political parties which thrive on
the juice of donation from corporates and at sometimes, commoners.
Doesn't all of them qualify for being tagged as beggars? After all
they fulfill all the 4 criteria mentioned above at least on paper if
not in practice. However, political parties are different on two
accounts. Firstly, donations made by the corporates to the political
entities are like stock future to be redeemed at a later date in the
form of business from government thus violating rule #3 and secondly,
the requests for donation are not humble in nature, overriding rule
#1.
In fact, Chief Minister of Karnataka took to the streets with begging
bowl in hand to collect donations for flood relief. It was October
2009 when North Karnataka was drowned by river Krishna. He turned out
to be very professional in this job, collecting hundreds of crores.
All the above characters fit the definition of a beggar perfectly even
though they are not covered by the law. There is another kind of
creature who do not resemble beggar by any logic and yet is
categorized as beggar by the law. They are hawkers. I have no idea how
hawkers qualify as beggars. Possibly, not being rich enough to afford
a shop is their crime. They advertise and sell their products on the
streets. Possibly, their shouts distract the drivers and cause
accidents. If that be the case, then the corporates selling soaps to
sex should be booked under the same law. Aren't the humongous posters
and hoardings with semi-nude bodies more distracting than hawks of the
hawkers?
A Form of Social Security: In a country where social security is
unheard of, begging offers a primitive form it. Money moves from the
"haves" to "have nots" straight without the intervention of state.
When the state cannot provide food and shelter, it has no right to
stop its citizen from asking for alms. It is like saying "Well, I
cannot save you from drowning but you should not shout for help as it
disturbs peace." What a man is suppose to do who has nobody to care
for, no money to buy food, and now no right to cry for help?
Q. What will be the implications of Begging Prohibition Act being
enforced in letter and in spirit?
A. Refer to first paragraph.
My View on Begging: You might have been taken to think that I'll be
making generous donations to whomsoever I meet on the street. Well,
you are dead wrong. I do not oblige to shell out a even a dime
regardless of the patheticity of the almsman. Why so harsh? Because I
believe that a man is responsible for his own conditions and there is
no room for pity. It is his responsibility to keep the unknown risks
in mind that can ruin his life. It is he who choose to live life as
beggar and make not enough efforts to come out of this misery. I
cannot have any respect or even pity for such a man, can you?
Then, I should be in favor of this Begging Prohibition Act, you would
ask. But I am not. Because I believe that it is a man's biological
responsibility to do whatever needed, moral or immoral, ethical or
unethical, clean or dirty, to protect his life, to feed his body.
One's life is of supreme importance and this responsibility comes much
ahead of the former. Everything is justified in order to the save the
body from destroying, to propagate the genes.
Now, these are contradictory views, ain't it? Yes, they are for sure.
But, thats why I call it "Perception of an Oxymoron."
PS: By the time I finished this article, trans-genders have already
started showing up on the streets as the first colonizers. Others will
follow soon.
