I already said this in another post in this thread and also in another thread, but hey, I'm on a roll. A philanthropic organisation that bears someone's name normally does so because the original endowment for the organisation came from that endowment. This is obviously not the case here and therefore it is a public relations trick of the lowest form.But something else. Rich people like Bill Gates who start up foundations bearing their own names with their own endowment do so partly for PR purposes, but also because they feel that they owe society something for their great fortune. I have read this so often.
Even entrepreneurs who through their cleverness become very rich realise that a large part of it is luck but more importantly the contribution of the society around them. I think Gates for example talked about the fact that he was able to get such a good education and also build upon the technological infrastructure that others had created. (of course those that know the early history of personal computing will find some irony here but that is another post).
Rawat never seems to feel this sense of in(d)eptitude, but rather that he deserves whatever he has. Really for someone who became rich pretty much exclusively through donations from followers, one would think that he might be the first one to think about giving some of it back to people in need. But somehow the world just doesn't seem to work that way. The people who have done the least to attain their fortune so often are the ones that show so little gratitude or compassion. Maybe it is the way they protect themselves psychologically.
