The recent melodrama in the media regarding a social service icon Dilshova comes as a harsh reminder of the day and age we live in.
The main issue was that the credibility of Dilshova was attacked in a very heinous manner - accusing her of sexual misconduct on the very children she gave her life to serve. This was the worst slander and defamation of character that was possible and the involved media chose to publish such harsh judgment on her character without any kind of verification or sense of responsibility. Even the name of the journalist making the accusation has not been published.
It is a shame that many highly qualified educated individuals are seemingly participating in the blame game instead of trying to understand the gravity of the situation. The point is that a selfless individual who was doing an immense service to the needy was attacked in a moral and personal manner, and the so called educated elite is trying to make it about the 'management', 'record keeping' and 'healthy living conditions'.
They forget that this is Dilshova's home, and how many of you know homes where they need to have a big management for record keeping and meeting specific requirement? This is not the US or some developed country we are talking about. In paper it looks good to say we have this many educated and this many hospitals, but
in the street and village level, we have the majority of Nepali population living in worse conditions than the one provided by Dilshova. You cannot blame her for making their lives better off than it would have been without her intervention.
Legally, maybe she's required to file papers and such, but you cannot blame an unlicensed surgeon for saving a man dying of heart attack. However, if it is in your character to find fault you can always find fault saying 'He was not even licensed.' 'He had not taken a bath for a month.' 'He was not using sanitized equipment or gloves.' and the list can go on. But, the most important point here is that a life was saved. Whether it was a legal thing or not is not important specially in Nepal where murderers roam free with protection from higher echelon of the legal entities.
So dwelling on the legality of social service is a ridiculous stance that anyone can take. The sanitation is an important issue, but then again, how many Nepali families have access to good sanitation? Someone living exposed to the street is worse off than someone living under Dilshova's house. Would it be nice? Yes, obviously! It would be nice if everyone in Nepal had access to fresh drinking water, access to medication, sanitary living environment and all that, but we cannot force the ideal scenario onto harsh reality.
As far as the establishment reeking urine and feces, anyone who have been to a daycare of infants will know that it is only normal for such smell and similarly when there are numerous elderlies with low control over their bowels and bladders, then such smell is only natural.
Having said all this, obviously some better management would be nice, but then again, there are many things in this life that would be nice. I am sure this comes as a good lesson to Dilshova in the need to manage more - as long as she has the finances for it.
All I am saying is that let's not put excessive undue stress on trivialities, and appreciate the big picture. A social service icon's character has been defamed by the greedy media who want to sensationalize everything so that they can sell well. Instead of focusing on 'good to have things', can we look critically at these irresponsible media for their false claim, trying to discredit a known figure to gain negative publicity for their own establishments?
