Hello Ratan ji and others, I am not against the distribution of funds.
I am only concerned about the growing opposition of members for sponsoring medical cases that to when the case falls within the realms of our guidelines. If we compare, we will end up no where. How can we compare two indifferent things? Coming to education and sponsoring kids, did anyone show any interest so far or concentrated on particular aspect? When there is not much activity going on, what is wrong in spending money on a cause that we all feel as genuine!! For all the cases that we took up we have the consensus except for the Nellore kid case, there was not much time for discussion and few of our members responded positively. As that is a life and death issue, I had to proceed helping the case. Unfortunately the kid didn't survive. My question is when we do not have projects on hand and when there are no people who are ready to concentrate, take initiative and come with proposals, why to keep some money aside and reserved. If we say education, we will get more project specific funds for education. People will be ready to sponsor. We only have to show them that the case is genuine and so and so is the estimate. It is not so with the medical cases. Very few people come forward to help. (Again a comparison. Ofcourse with respect to money that can be raised). Our intention is to help people to whom no help reaches. (there are some donors doesn't mean their purpose is fully served. Again this doesn't mean we should help each and every case and we should raise more money.) I completely support the idea of classification of funds. But I am against the idea of a no to not helping medical cases financially. I am afraid that even after classification, we will get to listen that allocate the fund of Medical sub-group to Campaigning and Vaccines instead of on sponsoring a person who needs an operation. Kasyap already mentioned so yesterday saying that he can support spending money on campaigns and vaccines than to support operations. Ms. Renuka Chowdary told him that the ministry is interested to spend money on buying wheel chairs than helping a patient for operation (by thinking practically and considering serving a broader perspective). If everyone of us thinks so, who will consider the lives of poor people? We thought of BEING PRACTICAL and not to help old couple in need of operation taking the probability of life, rest of the years, BEING OF USE TO A FAMILY into consideration. If we reject and deny helping the youth, middle aged, we need not discuss of medical cases at all. No use. Then I request our members not to mail us the links from Eenadu saying that 'Can we help this case? Can we get the details from E-RK?' That means we deviate from our basic motto - reaching/helping people whom no help reaches. We must be practical. No one denies. When everything is relative and depends on the situation, why to oppose something when we are assured of taking decisions based on consensus. If people feel that the decisions are not based on consensus, I cannot help and we need serious contemplation. -- Thank you. with regards, PRASANTHI. ---- When you want something, the whole universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.
