CHARITY or INVESTMENT
Twitter has turned into a basket full of hot topics to pick from. Recently I bumped into some blind supporters of one of the world’s most powerful actors, Mr Shahrukh Khan. To be very frank, I am not much of a fan of any actor and the reason behind this lack of fondness is that I find them doing nothing exceptional or ‘GREAT’ despite their ability to do so. They are just people with pretty doing what they do best.
Before going further and deeper into how these actors and their charity is not laudable, let me define a ‘Great’ act. A great act is one which is done to potentially benefit other humans and humanity despite the fact that the actor (the person doing the act) is to gain almost nothing out of it. However, the charity done by these globally renowned actors is but an investment to further improve their brand value. Hence, if Mr. Shahrukh Khan donates, let’s say, 25 Crs of Indian rupees and if the act is publicized in almost all national newspapers and news channels which would certainly lead to manifold rise in his and his company’s brand value, then such donations do not really qualify as donations but as smartly packaged investments.
Let us now do some mathematics and look into numbers to weigh the laudable charity done by our actors.
1. MR. Shahrukh Khan
In the year 2016 Forbes estimated Mr. Khan’s income to be around $33 million
$ 33 million = 33* 1000000 = $33000000 = 33000000*65 = INR 2,14,50,00,000
Mr. Shahrukh Khan has been named the Bollywood’s most charitable person by China’s Hurun Research Institute as Bollywood’s most charitable actor as he donated INR 25,00,00,000 in the year 2014 towards a social cause. Now, without devaluating the worth of this 25cr INR over two years, let us subtract this exact amount from his 2016 earnings to find out how much would have he been left with.
Hence, INR 2,14,50,00,000 – INR 25,00,00,000 = INR 1,89,50,00,000 = 11.66% of Mr. Khan’s income given as charity.
Forbes also estimated around a couple of years back that SRK’s net worth is around $600 Million i.e. INR 39,00,00,00,000. INR 25crs given as charity forms a mere 0.64% of his net worth
2. Common Indian
According to a wage report issued in 2012 by the United Nations' International Labour Organization (ILO), India ranked 69 out of 72 countries listed, with the average monthly wage equivalent to $295 U.S. dollars or just over 18,117 rupees.
Annual income = 18,117*12 = INR 2,17,404 = $3345
11.66% of 2,17,404 = INR 25,350
i.e. a common man will have to spend INR 23,250/12 = INR 1945.83 only each month from his already low and par subsistence income in order to beat Mr. Khan’s donation.
2,14,50,00,000 (SRK’s annual income)/2,17,404 (Common man’s income) = 9866.42
WHAT DO THESE NUMBERS TELL
These numbers and calculations reveal a number of interesting facts; facts which will make these generous donations from actors seem extremely low.
1. The huge amount donated by SRK is actually only 0.64% of his net worth. Not that of his family which includes his extremely hardworking and renowned wife Mrs. Gauri Khan. Thus, there is always abundant money with such actors.
2. 11.66% of SRK’s annual income given as donation does not risk his subsistence whereas, 11.66% of annual income as donation is possible for a common man but it can definitely risk the common man’s subsistence.
3. The numbers are only from the accounted sources. There is a possibility that actors have an unaccounted source of income as well. If so, this 11.66% can come drastically down.
4. Not to forget, the 11.66% donation was highly publicized which would have increased his net worth manifolds. Thus, the 25Cr of donation would have been recovered.
5. If today SRK stops acting and earning, he would still have enough money to survive a couple of lifetimes as a rich man.
6. What 9866 people earn together in a year in our country, Shahrukh Khan manages to earn it all by himself in the same time.
7. Much of SRK’s income is a result of his positive image amongst Indians created by his ‘generous’ donations.
Charity is giving and not giving to earn back. There is another term (investment) for it. I do not say that the amount given by these actors is any less. It is a huge amount capable of transforming numerous lives. However, what I do not like is the usage of the term ‘CHARITY’ at a place where the term ‘INVESTMENT’ should be. I am against glorification of actors for their investment in humans.
Many would now contest and say that my idea of charity is an extremely demanding one and by this idea, no charity by an actor would ever qualify as a charity. My answer to such pessimists is that nothing is impossible for men who can run faster than a leopard and that too horizontally. All that matters is the intent. Stay anonymous and then do good.