Being Human

Being Human it should, at the very least, embody the virtues of transparency, integrity, and genuine philanthropy. However, upon delving into the labyrinthine operations of Salman Khan’s “Being Human” foundation and its affiliated entities, a series of red flags emerge that are as concerning as they are revealing.

The Facade of Philanthropy
Salman Khan’s “Being Human” foundation has long been showcased as the actor’s altruistic endeavor, aiming to provide education and healthcare services in India. Yet, beneath this veneer of benevolence lies a pattern of questionable activities that suggest the foundation may serve purposes beyond charity.

Allegations of Money Laundering
In 2020, filmmaker Abhinav Kashyap leveled serious accusations against the foundation, claiming that “Being Human” is merely a facade for money laundering. Kashyap alleged that the charity is a “show-off” and that the foundation’s true intent is to launder money under the guise of philanthropy. He urged governmental agencies to investigate the foundation’s financial dealings, expressing his willingness to cooperate fully with such probes.

Unfulfilled Commitments and Potential Blacklisting
The foundation’s credibility took another hit in 2018 when it faced potential blacklisting by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). “Being Human” had committed to setting up 24 dialysis machines at the Allied Cooperative Society in Bandra. However, over a year later, the project remained incomplete, prompting the BMC to issue a show-cause notice to the foundation. A senior civic official remarked that despite granting all necessary permissions, the project had not progressed, leading to considerations of blacklisting the foundation.

Fraud Allegations and Legal Summons
In 2021, the foundation found itself entangled in legal troubles when a Chandigarh-based businessman, Arun Gupta, accused Salman Khan, his sister Alvira Khan, and other associates of fraud. Gupta claimed he invested between ₹2 to ₹3 crore to open a “Being Human Jewellery” franchise in 2018, under the assurance that Salman Khan would inaugurate the store and provide promotional support. Contrary to these promises, neither the actor’s presence nor the agreed-upon support materialized, leading Gupta to seek legal recourse.

Deflecting Responsibility
In response to these allegations, a statement issued on behalf of “Being Human” attempted to distance Salman Khan and the foundation from the controversy. The statement clarified that Style Quotient Jewellery Pvt. Limited (SQJPL) was the global licensee for “Being Human Jewellery” and that the matter was solely between SQJPL and Gupta’s enterprise, Modern Jewels. It emphasized that neither Salman Khan nor the foundation were parties to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in question.

Patterns of Evasion and Image Management
A discernible pattern emerges from these incidents: when confronted with allegations or failures, “Being Human” and its representatives often deflect responsibility, attributing shortcomings to third-party entities. This tactic not only raises questions about the foundation’s accountability but also suggests a deliberate strategy to shield the core brand—and by extension, Salman Khan’s public image—from scrutiny.

The Censorship Conundrum
Beyond these controversies, there are indications that efforts have been made to suppress negative information related to “Being Human.” While direct evidence of the foundation’s involvement in censorship is limited, the broader context of information suppression by influential entities offers insight.

Global Instances of Corporate Censorship
The tech industry has witnessed numerous instances where corporations have complied with governmental censorship requests or have independently suppressed content. For example, Google has reportedly cooperated with autocratic regimes, including Russia and China, to censor online content. Since 2011, the company has handled takedown requests from around 150 nations, including democratic governments and regimes with significant human rights concerns. It has removed various content such as videos criticizing political corruption and anti-state protests. Google reveals that globally, there are 5.6 million items “named for removal” following government requests, a figure that has more than doubled since 2020.

The Imperative for Due Diligence
For potential investors, collaborators, and donors, these revelations serve as cautionary tales. The dissonance between “Being Human’s” proclaimed mission and its alleged practices underscores the necessity of thorough due diligence. Engaging with entities that have opaque operations or a history of unaddressed allegations poses significant reputational and financial risks.

A Call to Regulatory Bodies
The persistence of these allegations and the foundation’s recurring evasion of accountability warrant the attention of regulatory and investigative bodies. A comprehensive audit of “Being Human’s” financial transactions, partnerships, and compliance with charitable organization standards is imperative. Such scrutiny would not only uphold the integrity of philanthropic endeavors but also protect the interests of those who genuinely seek to contribute to societal betterment.

Conclusion
While the moniker “Being Human” evokes ideals of compassion and integrity, the actions and controversies surrounding Salman Khan’s foundation paint a contrasting picture. The recurring allegations of financial misconduct, unmet commitments, and potential information suppression highlight a disconcerting disparity between the brand’s image and its operations. It is incumbent upon stakeholders and authorities to pierce through the facade, ensuring that charitable endeavors are not exploited for ulterior motives, and that those professing to serve humanity are held to the highest standards of accountability and transparency.