No public entry, no passes, no participation—yet half-page advertisements splashed across leading newspapers. Why was donor money spent on publicity with no public purpose?
Bengaluru: Why would an organisation spend lakhs of rupees on newspaper advertisements for a programme that the public could neither attend nor participate in? This question has come sharply into focus following the extensive publicity campaign undertaken by the Van Bandhu Parishad for an event that, by its own admission, was restricted to a limited group of institutional members.
According to information available, the programme had no public entry, no pass system and no mechanism for wider participation. Despite this, prominent half-page advertisements were carried in major newspapers. The spending, critics argue, raises serious concerns about the use of donor and charitable funds and whether the expenditure served any legitimate public or organisational purpose.
A closer examination of the advertisements reveals another troubling aspect: nowhere do they invite public participation, seek donations, or explain how citizens can associate with the organisation. There is no stated social objective, no call to action, and no transparency about outcomes. Instead, the advertisements prominently feature the names of select individuals, giving the impression that the exercise was less about social outreach and more about personal visibility.
When office-bearers of the Van Bandhu Parishad were approached for clarification, no clear explanation was forthcoming. The only response offered was that advertisements were issued “to inform people about the programme”. The question that remains unanswered is: inform whom, and for what purpose, when the programme itself was closed to the public?
India’s charitable ecosystem depends heavily on trust. Millions of donors—many of them from modest backgrounds—contribute with the belief that their money will be used for education, welfare and upliftment of the underprivileged. Diverting such funds towards high-cost publicity, without demonstrable public benefit, amounts to a breach of that trust. Using donations meant for social causes to finance self-promotional advertising is being viewed by many as unethical, if not outright wrongful.
Social observers point out that spending charitable funds to secure publicity and prominence is a distortion of the very idea of service. When donations collected in the name of welfare are used to amplify names and images, the line between service and self-interest becomes dangerously blurred.
The controversy has renewed calls for stricter government oversight of societies and trusts registered under the Societies Registration Act. Experts argue that organisations like the Van Bandhu Parishad should be subject to regular audits to ensure that funds are spent strictly in line with their stated objectives. There are also demands that licences of organisations found guilty of misusing donor money be cancelled, and that office-bearers responsible for such expenditure be held personally accountable, including reimbursement from their private funds.
As a responsible newspaper, we believe this issue goes beyond a single organisation. It raises fundamental questions about transparency, accountability and ethics in the charitable sector. If institutions created for public good become vehicles for name-branding and publicity, public confidence in philanthropy itself stands eroded. In a democracy, donor money is a public trust—and playing with that trust is not a minor lapse, but a serious and systemic offence.
