Originally posted by: hima_123
Just curious...do you, on everyday basis, do a lot of things for underprivileged children as well --as much as you do for your own child? (an officially adopted child is definitely your own child-he is not paraaya in any sense) Do you make sure that some other under privileged child goes to the same school like your own child goes to...will you ensure that he gets the same facilities like your child does? We all have seen a real Mannu somewhere, sometime, and felt for him..and moved on. It would be great to know if some of us have actually given a real life Mannu...opportunities equal to their own children.
I am sorry if I am asking too many questions; I am just curious--you may choose to ignore.
At some point the adopted child started out as 'paraya'.
With that in light, if someone chooses to do good in a small way, is it necessary to ridicule that good by citing volume as a quantifier for quality of the good. So it's not the calibre of good but how many have been helped that becomes the cornerstone of doing good. If that was the case then nobody would help anybody.
In another thread I mentioned that everyone has their own school of thought on how charity should done. Just because someone has an idealistic thought on this does not mean that this person needs to be ridiculed on the basis of, 'hey you think like this, so how many have you really helped.'
By the same token one could say that the opposite mindset has 'given up' because of practical reasons.
It reminded me of this story:
While walking along a beach, an elderly gentleman saw someone in the distance leaning down, picking something up and throwing it into the ocean.
As he got closer, he noticed that the figure was that of a young man, picking up starfish one by one and tossing each one gently back into the water.
He came closer still and called out, "Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?"
The young man paused, looked up, and replied "Throwing starfish into the ocean."
The old man smiled, and said, "I must ask, then, why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?"
To this, the young man replied, "The sun is up and the tide is going out. If I don't throw them in, they'll die."
Upon hearing this, the elderly observer commented, "But, young man, do you not realise that there are miles and miles of beach and there are starfish all along every mile? You can't possibly make a difference!"
The young man listened politely. Then he bent down, picked up another starfish, threw it into the back into the ocean past the breaking waves and said, "It made a difference for that one."
At the end of the day, Sumitra had a choice to decline helping Ganga. A choice she did not exercise. Her silence was taken as compliance in her family. If she changed her mind she should have vocalized it properly without natkhras and 'I told you so's. Jagya is her young son who is striving to be a better person, a better citizen. He has the idealism prevalent very much in youth. He has also seen his parents' consistent and patient support of Anandi during her crisis and also during her samaj seva, so it was safe for him to assume that he would also be afforded that same support now that he is back in the family fold. If Sumitra was still adamant about her rights within the house to not 'do good' for practical reasons then she should have been honest with Jagya so that he on turn could exercise HIS rights, by deciding to persevere or not. He could have chosen to move out in order to still help Ganga and not violate Sumitra's rights. But Sumitra did not even recognize his right either nor did she offer him a choice by just being honest in the first place. Her duplicity has landed her at the brunt end of all the criticism.
Book Talk
Anupamaa
