1) Setting up and running an unknown NGO that saves 1000 extremely destitute people's lives, but not earning any recognition for it.
2) Becoming famous for working in 'poverty and development'...writing and publishing wildly successful books and with seminars attended by people in the tens of thousands, being nominated for the Nobel many times - maybe even winning it once!
Which would you choose? The too-much-work without recognition? Or the too-much-recognition that appears not to be derived from any work that has made a major difference in someone's life?
Which life path beckons you?
Number 2 ) when you are famous for saving life, people will ping you often to save some more and also you will have a satisfactory feel of doing something good.
ReplyDeletei don't wanna be a robin hood, i wanna be a BILL GATES :D
I think I would do the voluntary work as a side job..and continue writing and publishing too afterall your talent needs to be enhanced and also it's so important not to loose one's identity.
ReplyDeleteWorking in development is frustrating irrespective of which option you choose. You're always going to be confronted horrific situations you can't do a single thing about.
ReplyDeleteI think the real triumph would be in bridging option 1 & 2. The one thing policy-makers and practioners continue to fail at.
I think to be successful in writing about "poverty and development" one will have to have strong, appealing ideas. If so, they definitely are making a difference, albeit not at the grass-root level as in case 1.
ReplyDeleteQuestion is: are you utilizing your complete potential through choice 1?
Why are choises 1 and 2 mutually exclusive?
Number two option would suit me and then I might consider doing the number one option when I have money and fame. ;)
ReplyDelete@Dee, @Kajal, @Vindi, @mohitparikh, @vinay:
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your responses! I was in a cynical frame of mind when I wrote this post - a very popular Indian spiritual guru and social worker was visiting near my place and there was great excitement to attend his sermon, but I didn't think he was really doing anything that great at the grassroots level. But now I understand, thanks to your responses, that being #2 is not necessarily wrong. Fame brings with it another kind of potential to be able to affect change. Those in #1 can't always be successful either - often due to lack of resources. That's where #2 comes in - has the popularity and funds, and can partner with #1 to bridge the gap.
@Dee, @Kajal, @Vindi, @mohitparikh, @vinay:
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your responses! I was in a cynical frame of mind when I wrote this post - a very popular Indian spiritual guru and social worker was visiting near my place and there was great excitement to attend his sermon, but I didn't think he was really doing anything that great at the grassroots level. But now I understand, thanks to your responses, that being #2 is not necessarily wrong. Fame brings with it another kind of potential to be able to affect change. Those in #1 can't always be successful either - often due to lack of resources. That's where #2 comes in - has the popularity and funds, and can partner with #1 to bridge the gap.
Awesome work.Just wanted to drop a comment and say I am new to your blog and really like what I am reading.Thanks for the share
ReplyDeleteHey keep posting such good and meaningful articles.
ReplyDelete