Desicritics Author: Somik Raha

Ending Coercive Land Acquisition - Creating Options

Somik Raha — Sun, 9 Nov 2008 05:37:45 EST

The reaction by India's industrial titans to the Singur crisis has been unanimous. Big guns like Mukesh Ambani, Narayana Murthy, Azim Premji and others have supported the Tatas and warned that the state would become a desert for investment if the Tatas had to leave, which is now a reality. Even the Prince of Calcutta, Sourav Ganguly, has supported the Tatas. Mamta Banerjee seemed to be the lone voice in support of the farmers whose land had been acquired forcefully without adequate compensation. People have called her stupid and an enemy of the state. Her own party supporters have voiced their disagreement with her opposition. In this backdrop, I am going to take on the perilous task of finding logic in her stubborn stance and also to suggest a long term solution for the future. I ask the reader to bear with me and let me explain my position.

Not our problem alone

Land acquisition issues are by no means limited to India. In the United States, there exists a law called "Eminent Domain," which in plain speak says that Uncle Sam can throw you out of your property if it sees a public good that requires the use of your land. Imagine this: a Civil Engineer (from a reputed university) contracted by the government to come up with the most optimal road plan figures out that such a road would need to pass through your grandmother’s house. The authorities send her a notice that she will be paid a certain amount, which would probably be a little lower than the market price. She refuses. Even after the compensation is hiked some more, she refuses. The authorities invoke Eminent Domain and send the cops to throw her out. As the cops arrive, the poor old lady holds on to whatever she can to prevent being dragged away, all the while crying out that this is where she has all her memories, this is where she lived with her husband until he passed away, and this is where she wants to die. She wants to be left alone. But that cannot be allowed, and the official tells her, "Ma'am, you don’t understand. The most optimal road goes through your house, and therefore, for public good, we must have it." And her cries go in vain (unless civil rights groups get into the game and sue the government for doing this). This story plays out in every society in the world (see box 1, box 2).

People all over the world are generally nice and compassionate, and most people feel bad about a story like this, but they ask desperately, "What alternative do we have for building YOUR-FAVORITE-PUBLIC-GOOD?" There is an alternative that ought to be taught in high schools for its utter simplicity. It has to be understood that the only legal power of a government is the power of coercion. And every single time coercion is used for public good, it has unintended consequences. Note all the controversies of land acquisition that have come to light, from the Narmada Dam project in the West, NanoCity in the North, Singur in the East and now Reliance might make the same mistake in Maharashtra. In India, the police knows no better than to use their guns on protesting people, often killing many. The legal costs rise and big businesses get discouraged by the reaction. In the United States, as business after business got stung by the backlash to eminent domain, a path-breaking and simple alternative emerged.

Create Options

This alternative has its roots in one of the most powerful insights that the wise have shared about decision making: you can always create OPTIONS. Taking this insight literally, let us try creating options for land acquisition (not the unrealistic't know a financial meltdown until the train hit them but the decision analytic variety whose math is simple enough to be understood by an English major with a minor effort). Let’s say Reliance plans an oil pipeline that needs contiguous areas of land. If any one of the landowners in the path of the pipeline hold out, the project will not take off, leaving Reliance with several non-contiguous pieces of land and a large hole in their pocket. In an alternative scenario, instead of buying any plot of land, Reliance could choose to buy an option from the landowner. The option will give Reliance the right to buy the land at the prevailing market (or agreed upon) price within a period of three years (for instance). This option can be valued easily using simple decision analysis tools and would be an order of magnitude cheaper than acquiring the land itself. Reliance could then plan multiple pipeline routes and try to acquire options on each of the routes. The moment they have all the options on a particular route, they can exercise the options on that route and acquire all the contiguous pieces of land.

There are several benefits to this approach. First, as Reliance is a private party, they are not required to reveal the purpose of the acquisition. They can send out agents who don't even need to reveal that Reliance is behind the acquisition. The government, on the other hand, is required to reveal the purpose of their acquisition, resulting in landowners realizing that they can make a lot of money if they hold out. The cost of acquisition will now be based on a good deal between the private party and the landowner. Second, as exercising the option is a legal right, there is no necessity for state coercion on the individual landowner. If someone holds out even after selling an option, that will be considered contractual fraud, and we have a legal framework in place to deal with that. The government no longer needs to deal with mass protests, the police no longer needs to open fire on hostile crowds, and entrepreneurs no longer need to sink large sums of money in legal costs. Third, if some people (tribals/farmers/middle class people) have a strong connection to their land and don’t want to leave it, all they have to do is not sell the option to their land. There should be no legal authority on the part of the government or the industry to force them to do so, and any forcible or fraudulent activity on the part of the entrepreneur would be subject to our existing legal framework that prohibits fraud and coercion. Human rights organizations can shift their focus from protesting to educating the tribals/farmers, while respecting the choice of these communities to accept or reject the education.

Creating options is not a new idea, and you have likely already used it in your life. We shall define an option as "the right to a future decision." A little consideration should reveal that insurance is a very good example of an option, where you buy the right to a lower medical expense should an emergency arise. The price of the option here would be the insurance premium you need to pay each year, which is a fraction of the coverage cost that the insurance company is legally obligated to pay should the situation arise. If you have played in the stock market, then you might be familiar with "call/put options" which is the right to buy/sell a stock at a predetermined price.

Who's Doing Non-coercive Acquisitions with/without options?

If this method is so simple, why hasn’t it been tried already for land acquisition? Strange as it may sound, this has been tried – it just hasn’t been spoken about as most private firms don’t want to talk about their land acquisition strategy. I’ve heard from a reputed professor at Stanford that Disney used options to acquire most of the land they needed for their theme park at Anaheim, California, after which people got wise to the purpose behind the acquisition and hiked up the selling price. Even then, Disney saved a fortune in legal fees by using this method. (For other companies in the US, see Box 2)

The intelligent reader may point out that what works in the United States may not necessarily work in India. To which I wonder what is so special about the Indian DNA that it would not like to save lives and lower costs when it could. In any case, options has been in use in India for a long time, without us explicitly recognizing it. If you've tried buying land in India, chances are you've been asked to pay a "roka" as North Indians would call it. The "roka" is an advance that a buyer would pay a seller after which the seller would stop showing the land to others. The "roka" is an option, a right to buy the land within a specified time. "Roka" options are quite common in the real-estate market and are probably referred to with different words in different parts of the country.

Finally, I have anecdotal evidence that after Larsen & Toubro (L&T) had completed acquiring land for the third Howrah Bridge in (hold your breath) West Bengal, neighboring land owners who had been skipped were upset at missing the pie, and begged L&T to consider buying their land too. It seems that landowners in West Bengal also like good deals, like landowners anywhere else.

Challenges

There are some legitimate challenges to applying this solution, especially in places like West Bengal. The business climate in the state is highly interventionist, with entrepreneurs unable to operate without the blessings of the prevailing local political party. In such a situation, talking about free markets is a travesty. The current government needs to realize that it cannot replace coercive prevention of industry by coercive adoption of it. It needs to start with the fundamentals and shrink to a minimal form of government. But then, what will happen to the party ranks? Instead of employing cadre into what amounts to an organized land mafia, they can be encouraged to become social entrepreneurs who combine the best of capitalism (freedom) and communism (caring for the community) while leaving the worst out (greed and coercion respectively). While this might take some time, a first step for India would be people from all walks of life coming together to demand the revoking of Article 300-A so that no government has the right to take away private property through any argument of public good. In today's society, we should realize that governments claim almost any economic activity as a public good, and eminent domain laws become a vehicle for individual abuse.

While economists would welcome the strengthening of property rights, they may raise several objections to entirely scrapping Eminent Domain laws in India. First, they will point out that there are "actual public goods" that a government must provide (e.g. roads, wildlife reserves, forested lands). How is the government to do so without laws that resemble eminent domain? Second, private parties cannot freely purchase agricultural land in India. We would need laws that allowed for land use changes, and we still need to consider if such a change is in public interest. Third, individuals sitting on vast natural resources ought not to have the right to refuse their commercialization - this is an argument for eminent domain laws. Fourth, there are thousands of land holders who have title to a small amount of land. This makes it infeasible for private parties to negotiate with so many, hence, the government is a good intermediary. Finally, you would need a sophisticated buyer and seller to be able to use options.

Lets take these arguments one by one. First, it is a 20th century idea that governments are responsible for public goods. There is ample evidence of societies that did fine in the past without government intervention in every sphere of life. As evidence in our present time, look at all the public goods in India and you will find those are the services that are most lacking in creativity and innovation. In the United States as well, the government builds roads as a public good. This is one sector which has seen so little innovation that you now have cars that are built to touch 200 miles per hour and roads that can only handle 65 miles per hour. Think about all the private toll roads you've been on in India and compare them to the government maintained roads, and the difference should immediately be apparent to you. India is full of examples of social entrepreneurs who have given up on the government's ability to provide public goods and provided solutions themselves, either as a for-profit or as a non-profit. Sulabh International builds public toilets(shauchalayas) that are financially sustainable and pay for their construction cost quickly, while generating employment. See Box 3 and Box 4 for further examples. Second, I agree that private parties should be allowed to freely purchase agricultural land and the land owner should have the right to decide how the land should be used. If the current land owner feels it is important that the land use should not be changed, this can be specified in a contract at the time of sale. The argument is often made that good agricultural land should not be used for non-agricultural purposes. If we truly believe that, then we should immediately proceed to demolish all the government (and other) buildings in Kolkata, which has some of the best agricultural soil you could find being on the banks of the Ganga. Third, it is possible to grant an individual the right to their property while one could also construct rights for what lies below the property and separate the two. Once this is done, there is an incentive for entrepreneurs to find ways to drill for oil or a similar natural resource without disturbing the landowner who is at the surface. Fourth, the argument of "too many land owners" is a terrible one, as the government does no better, and arguably worse, than a private negotiator. In fact, a private negotiator would not have the advantage of guns and would have to be polite and stay within legal boundaries. Perhaps, this is an area where an entrepreneur could provide negotiation consulting services. Finally, the argument of sophisticated buyer and seller is an argument for education, although the Indian market is already using "roka" options without doing sophisticated decision analysis. Companies that need help modeling options can hire decision consultants just like they hire tax consultants. I admit that companies will have an advantage in pricing methodology over individual landowners. However, this is a good reason for the creation of a friendly social venture that offers pricing services to individual land owners. On the topic of decision education in India, there is much that needs to be done. (See Box 5)

Philosophical, Economic and Traditional Reasons

Options should be used for both philosophical and economic reasons.

Philosophically, even if everyone around me says that murder and theft is the best way to get what I want, I refuse to do it, and I will argue that India, with its deep spiritual tradition of acceptance of all religions, systems and ideas, should stand firmly behind non-coercion. Just as the tool of coercive land acquisition is the use of a police force with guns, the tool of smart non-coercive land acquisition is options. Economically, let us be clear that while using options has lowered the cost of land acquisition for many, the method itself is not going to guarantee that industrialists will get the land they want, which is no different from the case of using coercion as we have just seen the Tatas getting thwarted even with government support. If both methods cannot guarantee success, and the coercive one consistently creates more headaches, takes lives and increases costs, then we ought to throw our weight behind the non-coercive methods.

Finally, traditionalists might point out that in the Indian tradition, the individual must sacrifice for the family, the family for the community, the community for the state and the state for the world (a maxim approved by Sri Krishna). While this is a noble spiritual idea, it is not what is followed today. On the other hand, a more accurate maxim for the practice of the modern day is, "the individual must be coerced to sacrifice for the family, the family for the community, the community for the state for the world." Every spiritual tradition in India recognizes a supreme internal freedom asks its followers to acknowledge and become aware of it. It is but natural that India lead the world in giving expression to this internal freedom in our external environment. We can start by recognizing that individual sacrifice is a decision to be made only by the individual, and coercion has no place in a society that wants to call itself free.

Almost every country in the world has a legal mechanism that resembles Eminent Domain laws. In the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland, these laws are referred to as "Compulsory Purchase," while Canada and South Africa call it "Expropriation." India used to consider right to property as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f). This meant that your land could not be taken away except under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, or a similar state law, which allows the use of forcibly acquired land by the Government "in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe". The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 empowered the Central and the State Governments to acquire lands that they felt was necessary for a "public purpose". Public purpose was defined so broadly that even land use by state-owned corporations was included, thus turning this law into an all-powerful mechanism for the British. While this British baggage continues to this day, in 1978, the right to property was shifted out of fundamental rights so as to make it harder to challenge land acquisitions by the government, and Article 300-A was introduced which said that "no person will be deprived of his property save by authority of law." In other words, the state/central government can take your land away if Parliament or State Legislatures make a legislation/order/rule to do so, in exchange for compensation determined under the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector. You can challenge the action of the government in a court if you think the government has acted unfairly, and in most countries (except authoritarian ones like China), this leads to protracted legal battles, civil rights headaches for the government and spiraling legal costs for the industry involved. The Land Acquisition Amendment Bill (2007) is an effort to reform the 1894 law, but how much band-aid can one put on a gaping wound? Senior Advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya recently outlined in the Statesman (Oct 29, 2008) how even passing a law under Article 300-A has been successfully challenged in court. How many people have the resources to take on the government when their rights are violated?

At this time, the United States probably has the worst eminent domain laws on the planet. In 2005, a controversial Supreme Court ruling upheld (by a 5-4 vote) the government's use of eminent domain powers to take private property from one owner and transfer it to another owner under the pretext of economic development. This ruling was criticized publicly by many noted people, including Bill Clinton. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted against the law in the famed Kelo v. City of New London case, warned that this new addition would "wash out any distinction between private and public use of property." For the first time in US history, governments could use eminent domain powers to declare ordinary private use of property as a "public use." In a report by the Castle Coalition (a network of homeowners and activists in the US determined to stop the abuse of eminent domain), there have been more than 5,000 instances of abuse since the Kelo decision. This figure includes cases where private property owners have threatened the use of eminent domain on reluctant sellers to agree to their price or risk having their property taken away by force. This situation is quite comparable to India where the government acquires lands for private parties under the argument of "economic development."

The report also goes on to debunk the myth that eminent domain laws are needed for economic development by citing several projects that did not use eminent domain. Walt Disney's construction of Disney World, The Rouse Company's construction of a new city in Howard County, Maryland and Focus Property Group's creation of a 3000-acre community called Mountain's Edge are some of the examples. Disney World is particularly interesting to us as they used options quite heavily. Further Reading: http://www.castlecoalition.org

Box 3: Social Entrepreneurs in India, a powerful force for public good
Arvind Eye Hospitals in Madurai (and other cities in South India) treats patients who cannot pay; free of cost and make up their money from people who can. Exnora in Chennai (and now several other cities) has created a system of garbage cleaning where an erstwhile scavenger now collects garbage from each home and dumps it in the proper place, for a fee. LaserSoft Info Systems in Chennai employs "disabled" people and puts them to work in the field of banking software. The Sangini Mahila Seva Cooperative Society is for, of and by sex workers in Kamathipura, Mumbai's oldest red-light district, where sex workers gain access to banking services and rise out of destitution. A similar and older initiative has been quite successful in Kolkata's Sonargachi district. The popular Lijjat Papad is made by a social venture, Shri Mahila Griha Udyog, founded by Sarvodaya members. This is an organization focused on creating a dignified work environment for women in a decentralized manner, and its success should inform case studies in any serious business school. Most Indians are familiar with "utterly, butterly delicious" Amul butter. Amul stands for Anand Milk Union Limited, a social venture inspired by Sardar Vallabhai Patel, which is privately run as a cooperative to give milk farmers a good deal and provide high quality milk products to society. Anandwan is a social venture in Maharashtra founded by the late Baba Amte, and run as a self-sufficient rehabilitation center for people afflicted with leprosy. Anandwan has incorporated environment-friendly processes into the local lifestyle without your tax money.

Box 4: Environmental Social Entrepreneurship in the US
The Nature Conservancy (http://www.nature.org/) is a US charitable institution that acquires forested land using existing land acquisition laws as a private party in order to conserve it. Aimed at preserving bio-diversity, this organization has been voted as one of the most trusted national organizations in the US in online polls. Their work has led to the creation of several national parks. The Proactive Carnivore Conservation Fund is a private initiative by an organization called Defenders of Wildlife that finds innovative solutions to prevent people from killing wildlife (such as compensating farmers for the livestock they lose to wolves in return for sparing the wolf's life). The Property and Environment Research Center has an instructive article by the founder of this project, Hank Fischer, at http://www.perc.org/articles/article319.php

Box 5: Decision Education
It is a pity that most business schools in India either skip Decision Analysis or teach it as "Decision Tree Analysis," which is like stripping all the philosophy from yoga and teaching it as a bunch of stretching exercises. There is only minimal benefit in doing so. This is not just a problem in India but also in the United States (as you can see from the massive financial crisis). What is even more pitiable is that people need to wait till they get to a university (there are only a few that teach this as a philosophy) to learn good decision making. To remedy this, the Decision Education Foundation (www.decisioneducation.org) teaches high school children the basics of good decision making. Perhaps it is time to start a chapter of the foundation in India.

Here is a very brief introduction to the philosophical foundation of decision analysis (DA). DA does NOT help you predict the future or maximize the chance of the best outcome. For that, you are better off going to an Indian astrologer or a financial engineer (though I wouldn't trust the financial engineer - I recommend the book "The Black Swan" for people who call themselves statisticians or financial engineers). DA is an amoral method that helps you stay consistent with your preferences, information and alternatives. DA disabuses you of the notion of "objective decision making," making it clear that you can only judge the quality of your decision, not someone else's. Even more fundamentally, the quality of your decision must be judged before the outcome, as you cannot judge a decision from the outcome. If you knew the outcome, you wouldn't have a decision to make. Another fundamental tenet is the principle of sunk cost - the past matters only for learning, not for accounting.

Supreme Court Reiterates "No Goons For Collections"

Somik Raha — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:00:52 EDT

The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement on Thursday reiterated its earlier stand that banks cannot deploy musclemen for recovery of loans from defaulters thus forcing them to end their lives.

"We deem it appropriate to remind the banks and other financial institutions that we live in a civilized country and are governed by the rule of law," a bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari said.

This is indeed a landmark judgment. I have heard from time to time that banks have forced debtors to sell their kidneys in order to pay back their loans. While urban legends abound, the fact that the banks of India are unimaginative in their debt-collection practices is a cause of great concern.

However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. In an article that appeared in the Indian Express two years back, we learned about a company called "Adhikrut Jabti Evam Vasuli" with a website - vasuli.com. This company is headed by a team of women, and they write about their recovery operations in the following manner:

Managed by TEAM OF YOUNG WOMENS came into operation in the year 1998 and has a distinction of being first private agency of the country engaged in recovery on behalf of Govt. & Nationalized banks in structured manner. We believe firmly in Recovering Public Money remaining in four corners of LAW.

The most interesting part of their website is their transparent policy of collection:

* Dignity and Respect to customers is our Debt Collection Policy and we do not follow policies that are unduly coercive in collection of dues.
* Our Office of Adhikrut Jabti Evam Vasuli's dues-collection policy is built on courtesy, fair-treatment and persuasion.

By customers, they mean the customers of the banks who have defaulted. They will first contact these customers while maintaining their privacy and try ordinary means of communication to resolve the situation. When customers have closed all doors of communication, then they use unique methods to shame them. For example, a restaurant owner who had defaulted and refused to pay back saw people sitting with placards outside his restaurant informing customers that he was a defaulter. He settled that evening.

Perhaps it had to be a team of women entrepreneurs who wouldn't think like men to be able to come up with a humane and intelligent mechanism of debt collection. I would give my kudos to Vasuli for showing that we don't need bullies and violence to get the job done - a little imagination and sensitivity goes a long way. And I applaud the Supreme Court for coming down heavily on banks that cannot think beyond violence in debt-collection. ICICI Bank would do well to hire Vasuli for their services if they want to keep the trust of the people they serve.

Salman Rushdie and Freedom of Speech

Somik Raha — Sat, 10 May 2008 02:20:22 EDT

Noted and controversial writer Salman Rushdie gave a talk at Stanford University recently. The Stanford Daily report covers important parts of his talk but misses out on the ending. Rushdie, towards the end, pointed to the fundamentalism displayed by the Hindu right toward M. F. Hussain. He said that M. F. Hussain had painted goddesses in the nude, who had "always been depicted that way," and, Hussain had been hounded out of India for committing this transgression as a Muslim. Now, Hussain lives in London and Dubai, and is about to open an art museum in Dubai. India will lose the art works of its greatest artist.

Rushdie's support for free speech is well-known. I spoke to some close Muslim friends and tried explaining how much I liked Rushdie's talk. To highlight Rushdie's support for a Muslim artist, I mentioned M. F. Hussain. Immediately, my Muslim friends (who are not from India) quizzed me on what Hussain had done. When I mentioned the painting of Indian goddesses in the nude, the reaction was of immediate disgust, and I could not get my Muslim friends to support M. F. Hussain. They felt that Hussain had been highly insensitive and should never have done something like this.

I tried hard to explain that I wouldn't send my kids to Hussain's art gallery, but I would defend his right to paint whatever he liked as long as he didn't use taxpayer money. In the end, my friends reluctantly agreed that Hussain should not have been kicked out of India, but that was because both my friends don't like government interference in public life, like me.

This conversation was remarkable in many respects. While discussing Rushdie, one friend pointed out that Muslims ought not to waste their time with such things, for the Prophet had clearly asked his followers to ignore those who abused his teachings - it was better to do good in the world than waste one's energy to counter such people. Somehow, I find all my Muslim friends to have such an open and liberal attitude, and this isn't just at Stanford.

Moving on, I think freedom of speech by itself does not pass scrutiny. I wouldn't like someone to come into my home and talk about topics that were uninteresting or disgusting to me. I do have the right to ask people to get off my property. Then, freedom of speech is the prerogative of the property owner. In this context, it becomes much easier to tackle situations that seem like violations by examining the property rights of the individuals concerned. In Hussain's case, whose property was he on when he made and displayed the paintings? As long as the property owner is fine with it, no one else's opinions can have legal standing.

Finally, as Indians, we would do well to recognize that our forefathers really meant "freedom" when they fought for freedom. This means that people have a right to be jerks in their own homes or outside as long as they don't physically hurt or defraud anyone else. Those that get offended have the option of shutting their eyes, not buying books, turning off the television, etc. We need to attach ourselves to a much higher ideal of freedom. I would like to end with a reminder of such an ideal, from Tagore's immortal poem on the subject.

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high,
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action–
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father,
Let my country awake.

End the Textbook Circus - II

Somik Raha — Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:28:19 EST

I had written a piece titled End the Textbook Circus on Feb 26. The post received nineteen comments with varied reactions. I am going to try and put my finger on the underlying argument that I think some commenters were making and then attempt to address them.

One reason for doing this exercise is that the opinions expressed come from valid concerns. If we consider disbanding the Department of Education, isn't that a rather radical step? Would the same arguments not apply to the rest of government action? If so, why am I not commenting on military spending and instead focusing my lens on education? Others thought that social entrepreneurship takes time to succeed, given that the Grameen Bank took three decades to cover 7% of all women. Can we wait that long? Still others thought that free economies work well only under the purview of a regulatory watchdog.

These are all great questions. In the 1940s, some people wanted separate bathrooms for blacks as they claimed that black people sweat more than whites. These were called Jim Crow practices and created a furor, and researchers set out to prove that black people don't sweat more than white. In fact, most white people can't tell the difference and Chinese Americans find white sweat more distasteful. Everett Hughes criticized the researchers by pointing out a classic logic error (which is now immortalized in Howard Becker's Tricks of the Trade: How to Think About Your Research While Doing It). The researchers were challenging what is called a minor premise, that black people don't sweat more. But by doing so, they had accepted the major premise, that people who sweat more should have separate bathrooms. Where did that come from?

In our analysis, we are stuck with the minor premise that certain government actions are better than others to facilitate education. The major premise, that government action is necessary or beneficial, goes completely unchallenged. I will argue that if India has done well with education, it is inspite of public schools. Most people who can afford it send their children to private schools. Even in private schools, Indians have learned not to rely on the system. If they can't keep up with teaching in school, they go for private tuitions. This is a voluntary resolution of the so-called "learning disability" which acquires students in institutions that are unfortunate enough to recognize it. Students learn differently, and thankfully in India, we haven't yet turned this into a disease like the US has done, so children are able to catch up later on in life. The Indian culture encourages the Pull Model, where the onus is on the student to acquire learning. In contrast, in the West, the onus is often on the teacher to reach out and break learning barriers. This difference is also one of the reasons for the "success" of Indian education, in the eyes of many educators.

In Delhi alone, several private schools have mushroomed and are there to earn the business of the "poor." They provide education at a lower cost and parents prefer them to government schools. Yet, we insist that we need public schools to save our children. I will contend that one of the biggest barriers to the education puzzle in India is a regulation that prohibits entrepreneurs from making profit if they're in the business of education. If this barrier is taken off, the sky is the limit. In India, social entrepreneurship would abound if it were not for the umpteen limitations placed on the creative mind.

Let me rest some of my arguments for the moment, as I am sure opinions against it will abound. I don't think it is necessary for people to agree with what I've said so far, as what I'm going to suggest next should help us move beyond.

Let's leave the Dept of Education alone. And let's focus on creating a private board of education. A board that provides accreditation to schools that apply for it. Let this board function as a company and offer the accreditation as a pay-per-use service. Schools will undergo a rigorous testing process before they can get certified. The company (let's call it MySyllabus Inc.) specializes in providing multiple accreditations. One is the Communist accreditation for those who want children to learn Marxist ideals. Another is the Hindutva accreditation for those who want children growing up in Hinduism. A third is a Madrassa accreditation, teaching children the essence of Islam and packaging science within an Islamic context. A fourth could be a Christian accreditation and a fifth could be an Atheistic accreditation. And a sixth could be a Universalist accreditation that takes a little bit of all of the above. The big service by MySyllabus will be to teach transcendental ideas of scientific inquiry, truth, honesty and ethics through the cultural context that people currently subscribe to through different ideologies.

A school can figure out which accreditation it wants. Within it, there will be standards of teaching and as long as it meets them, the accreditation is provided. Parents can decide where to send their children. They alone have the right to decide this. Will such a solution work?

Now, you might still argue that this is too radical. Alright, alright. Opinions abound. Let's try another one. In the US, one of the best innovations has been the school voucher. The government spends a certain amount of money on each "poor" child's education. Through a legislation, the parent of the child has the right to decide where this check will go. Would it be to the public school or the private one? By doing this, public schools have realized that they have to provide high quality service or they will close down. And children don't have to pay the price for this. Why can't we try a similar system in India? Give the parents of the children the right to choose?

I would go one step further and give taxpayers the right to choose where their education tax goes. In other words, all the government has to do is to tell me what amount of money from my income is being dedicated to education, and I will tell the government which NGO or public or private education-related organization should receive my hard-earned money. Through this system, I can do the research on my own and fund a school of my choice. Or, I can trust an NGO or education-oriented organization that will use my money wisely.

At the end of the day, the question boils down to this - do you want the right to decide where your education tax goes?

Reservation: Our Downfall

Somik Raha — Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:51:07 EST

Roshan Krishnan, in a post, 'The Big Old Reservation Debate,' makes the following point, in response to government pressure on private companies, "I believe it's time we thought differently regarding this reservation policy of ours. It's time to come up with other methods to help the socially and/or economically backward of our society." I couldn't agree more.

The goal of improving social opportunities for under-served communities is a laudable one, and we must appreciate people in society who think this is a worthy goal. The question is, are laudable goals to be implemented in a coercive manner under the power of the gun, conceding that this is really the only power a government has? We must be very careful when involving the government in solving social problems.

China is a glaring example of what happens when governments get involved in restoring social equity - an era of unprecedented brutality under the euphemism of "cultural revolution", policies that were intended to control the population that have now ended up creating a huge vacuum in the workforce, and land redistribution that was supposed to be equitable that resulted in the deaths of millions of landowners at the hands of their fellow villagers, who died later by the millions due to a nationwide famine that devastated their "commune farms", which were surprisingly owned by the state (see the Economist, May Issue).

China has recognized this, given the smart and talented people that country has, and the government has recanted many of these steps, even going so far as to publicly acknowledge policy errors. At the time, they were making the best decision given the information they had. Does India have such an excuse today, seeing the effects of such government intervention?

Let's examine how India's latest move squares with the following maxim, "Peaceful, Honest People Have the Right to be Left Alone."

We define "peaceful" as people who do not use force or threaten the use of force against others, except in self-defense. We define "honest" as people who have not committed fraud over an implicit or explicit contract. We assume for the rest of this essay that this maxim is the hallmark of a free society until we find a better maxim, else we have more fundamental problems.

Entrepreneurs, who are in the business of making other people happy and getting remunerated in exchange, fit the bill of "peaceful, honest people" insofar as they have not coerced anyone into buying their services or products. Then, they have the right to be left alone and not coerced into hiring people using criteria that they may not share.

If there is social inequity, then it needs to be a problem that is owned by the people. We wouldn't want to be idle critics of the government, so here is a different way of looking at this problem. Most information technology companies in India compete at the global level today. Their biggest problem is finding talent as there is tremendous competition over the best individuals. Companies need to wake up to the fact that their battleground has to shift from capturing the best trained talent to training people to be the best with competitive contracts that secure their services.

While this has happened in the past with companies such as Tata Consultancies requiring new employees to sign bonds, with competition heating up, prospective employees have other options with companies that do not require bonds.

Then, it becomes a question of where the "bond" idea would be seen as a positive opportunity instead of a constraint. And common sense would tell us that it would be in under-served communities, whose existing options are much worse. Once this is recognized, our IT companies would look at under-served communities as a gold mine. Mind you, not all of the raw material in a gold mine yields gold. But the ones that do yield gold make it worth your while to get into the mining business.

Once this thinking sets in, companies will rush in to attract talented minds in under-served communities. Imagine a contract, "We will fund your child's high school and college education if your child agrees to sign a contract to work for a 2-5 year period. Should the contract need to be broken, here is the amount that will have to be refunded."

In the interest of making the most money out of people in the shortest amount of time, companies would have to give the best training possible to such children, so that the work they do is of the highest value possible. Companies can also get creative. Instead of requiring a fixed number of years, they can provide training in a niche area which they alone serve, and ensure that they have a wide talent pool to pick from when the time comes.

One has to only see how corporates woo poor students by looking at them as valuable future options. For example, Microsoft provides its development platform either free or at heavy discounts at various universities so students can become experts by the time they graduate, and form a ripe pool to recruit from, thus lowering recruitment costs.

Many organizations give freebies with an intention to create a future market. For example, this was behind the success of Unix as an operating system with Sun Microsystems making it free for students, who would then want to use it when they started professional work, in addition to creating a pool of people who they could hire.

At Stanford University, every company provides steep discounts on student software in the hope that they are creating future communities for their products. Yahoo and Apple are engaged in a battle over the music download market and students get the best deal in the process, with Yahoo providing a year's worth of free downloads, with the hope of getting loyal future paying customers.

Now, pro-reservation thinkers will argue that people have benefited in the past from reservation. Their arguments are not without merit. Let us examine some of them.

First, people who have benefited under reservation are now doing things that they could not have done earlier due to lack of opportunity.

Second, we cannot have laws that are fair to all, it is the way of the world and if someone loses out, too bad. We can only try to be most fair to the least served communities.

Third, a non-coercive system will only benefit the smart, who can take care of themselves anyway.

Fourth, the fact that many beneficiaries of reservation have improved economically under reservation proves that reservation was a good decision to make and we should continue it.

The first argument is valid. Some beneficiaries of reservation are indeed doing desirable things that they would not have done otherwise. We must note that the idea of reservation is not being objected to. If you believe that reservation is important to restore equity in society, then more power to you! In your organization, you can have reservation based on sex, caste, class, height, weight and whatever other criteria you wish. However, the problem arises only when you impose your criteria on someone else.

For instance, cigarette smoking is bad and you don't like it. So you can abstain, and use your free will to ensure it is not permitted in your house. You will not frequent restaurants that allow smoking. But do you really have the right to decide that this standard must be coercively imposed in every house, however laudable it might be?

People making this argument routinely overlook the fact that reservation is eminently possible in private institutions on a voluntary basis. Most Catholic schools reserve seats for their community and open the rest to others. And that actually works great for everyone. Boys-only schools voluntarily commit sexual discrimination and it works great as do girls-only schools.

The second argument says that the least served people should get the most opportunities. Imagine the principal of a girls-only school deciding that enough was enough. As girls have traditionally been under-served, all schools in India must have 75% reservation for women in order to restore the equity, until the number of educated girls equals the number of educated boys (who knows how you would track that). After all, female education is a laudable goal, right?

If you were to make the second argument, then you really should not have a problem with this situation. You would be within reason to point out that this is an extreme extension. The only way we can test a universal principle is by taking it to the extreme. If you take the maxim to its extreme, all peaceful and honest people will be left alone. No problem.

But if you take social equity to it's extreme, we land into all kinds of difficulties. When people are quick to point out that you can't be fair to all sides in this issue, they are absolutely right. However, the conclusion that we must "live with it" is an excuse for not thinking deeper. If we can't have a "fair" law, then why must we have a law at all? What would a system without such a law look like? Are our conclusions based on scientific experiments or socio-political biases? If we truly care about under-served communities, we cannot afford to be unscientific about this. We must explore with a scientific mind.

The third argument that only smart people will benefit from a non-coercive system appears to be a convincing one. However, it is really a facade for a paternalistic and condescending view of society. It is easy to fall into this trap. The acclaimed philosopher Bertrand Russell once noted that when a piece appeared in the British press that only 10% of the population was intelligent, people agreed as everyone counted themselves in the intelligent 10%. Such self-deception is prevalent in all societies, including India.

It is high time we stopped assuming stupidity of the masses. Let's take a look at our neighboring state, Bangladesh, which almost everyone agrees is worse off than India. Every year, this country either suffers drought or flood or both. Decades of aid has only devastated the country further as the agendas of donor countries trump the real needs of the country, according to Dr. Mohammed Yunus, the man who turned the field of economics on its head with his experiment in this country.

Dr. Yunus believed that "poor" people were extremely creative and could solve their own problems. Their only problem was, no one trusted them. So he decided to trust them and lend them money. The result was the formation of the legendary Grameen Bank, which has by now disbursed over $1 billion of loans, and has a recovery rate of 99.1% (more conservative auditing brings this down to 85% which is still extremely high for its segment), matching some of the most astute banks in the United States.

Even the most basic study of this experiment will reveal that their process involves getting people to solve their own problems. The Grameen experiment is being replicated all over the world, including India, though it was botched up initially when the Government got involved. It is now being tried by private enterprises like Unitus and the reports have been very positive.

The final argument that because some people have benefited, it implies it was a good decision and should be continued is a highly fallacious one. One cannot judge a decision from the outcome but only from the process used to arrive at the decision. If we knew outcomes, we really wouldn't have a decision to make.

Once this logic is understood, we will quickly realize that we cannot condemn the creators of reservation - at the time, they thought this was the best way to introduce equity, hence it was a good decision indeed as they were consistent to their preferences and the best information available. But we know better now, and it is naive for us to ignore the evidence in front of us.

Affirmative action (or reservation) research in the United States has shown that reservation has not had the intended effect on the self-confidence or performance of beneficiaries. The evidence shows that under-served communities have not been able to utilize their opportunity and do poorly, even with the best of resources at hand. If these studies were to be repeated in India, we should not be shocked with similar findings, for these have been empirically reported.

One has to only wonder why it is that in Tamil Nadu, year after year, Brahmin children perform exceedingly well, while being a tiny minority (estimates put them at less than 3% of the population) and having all quotas against them?

Logic would have us institute reservation for Brahmins in Tamil Nadu as they are the minority. Strangely, reality does not concur with logic and the state offers 69% reservation for under-served communities. In spite of a much lower set of opportunities, how do Brahmin children do so well, an observable and acknowledged fact by all, especially the politicians of the state who clamor for more reservation? We need to find answers to these questions so we may replicate them for children of other communities and have them be as self-reliant.

To summarize, there is no objection against reservation of any form undertaken on a voluntary basis. However, coercive reservation is fundamentally flawed, ineffective and creates more problems than it solves. It also diverts our attention from non-coercive, voluntary approaches, that would have been tried a long time back had people not thought that the government was taking care of it.

The decision makers who introduced reservation made a good decision that was consistent with the best information available to them and their preferences. Why can't we follow their footsteps and be consistent with our preferences and the vastly better information available to us today?

End the Textbook Circus

Somik Raha — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:28:13 EST

Diganta made a post on the Great Indian Textbook Controversy, to which Sandeep responded.

Diganta's post presented one side of the coin while partially presenting facts. Sandeep's post presented the other side. What is interesting is that the two sides have existed for over 50 years now and our grandchildren will continue to fight over this unless we find a way of transcending the problem.

While I understand that the Aryan Invasion theory has been debunked, and one of the biggest proponents of the theory, Prof. Michael Witzel, officially acknowledged that he no longer believes in it according to a conference report by the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, this change of mind took over two decades, if not more.

History is, at the end of the day, an interpretation and any scholar claiming to own history is compromising their integrity. Besides, in keeping with the high standards of academia, scholars ought to mention their political biases so their readers can subtract the author's biases on their own. There is nothing wrong with a scholar admitting a soft corner for Hinduism or Marxism, and allowing the reader to discount the filter being used.

However, no matter how much care is taken, India is run by politicians who need issues and find this as a convenient ground to fight. We cannot blame any one political party for this as they are both involved and each have political agendas. They both hate each other and the general population is unfortunately stuck in the middle.

To understand this circus better, let's take a look at a report where Sri Ramakrishna was labeled as "mentally unbalanced" in history textbooks. I am selecting this piece to demonstrate how emotional this could get as revered icons are publicly brought down to score political points.

First, lets talk about our rights in a free society. Anyone has the right to verbally abuse any one, as long as it is not physical. You reserve the right to abuse me. I reserve the right to reply in kind or stay silent. Under no circumstances can we fault Government of India for abusing Sri Ramakrishna, Hinduism or Indian deities. Government is not a concrete building, it is made of people with biases and opinions. If these individuals want to perpetuate their opinions, they should be free to do so. If anyone objects to it and starts counter-propaganda, they are equally free to do so. So where's the problem?

The problem starts when we bring coercion into the picture. Lets say I've had a field day abusing all that you hold dear. While you're shaking with anger, I calmly inform you, "Oh, by the way, I am going to teach all these children to repeat what I just said and you are going to fund this effort." Huh? So you think I am crazy? No, sir, that is exactly what you have been doing everytime you pay your taxes. We've all paid the salaries and infrastructure costs for a group of people to decide what our textbooks should teach us, regardless of our faith in their ability to do so.

This coercion has been around for almost sixty years. And I will fool myself if I think its an issue only with the present government. Any government that comes by in the next fifty years is going to continue to rely on coercion. And its not just in history. For, the more research that has gone on in the field, the more options and opinions there are. History is just the most visible bone of contention. What style of education do we choose for our children? Who should decide? What if I totally disagree with the decision makers? Must I be forced to pay them to continue their activities?

Most people will shy away at this point, for this is a very simple question. Simple questions are the hardest to answer. If we do call ourselves rational, maybe its time to wake up. How do we remove the coercion in the present system? Einstein said, "You cannot solve a problem at the level it was created." What is the higher level where this problem does not exist? Can Education work without Government interference or control?

To answer these questions, we must start to look at voluntary systems, where people act only out of motives of personal gain. Lets start by disbanding the Department of Education. What would such a society look like? While the blood pressure of collapse theorists will surely rise up, their first question might be - how will India provide education to the underprivileged?

My answer - India will not. Education and healthcare are positive rights - for which you need to do something. (Negative rights are ones where you don't need to do anything unless the right has been violated, like, "Peaceful honest people have the right to be left alone"). Any country with positive rights has ended up with a devastated economy. The erstwhile USSR is the biggest case in point where they tried to guarantee a whole bunch of good things and didn't get very far. China is another example. They wised up and withdrew all their positive rights. When asked recently what they were doing to drive their economic boom, an official remarked that they had decided to step back. Where are the collapse theorists when we need them?

The question remains, what's to happen to underprivileged children who cannot afford private education? The question is a loaded, biased one. First, public education is highly overrated by those who support it. The Finance Minister of Punjab, Surinder Singla, narrated a story at a conference at Stanford in 2006.

A beggar came to his home and asked for a reference and money to send his child to a private school. The minister refused the money and asked the beggar to send the child to a public school, which was free. The beggar replied that his child would not have a future in the public school system. So, if the minister would give him a reference, he would do extra begging shifts and raise the money.

A senior researcher once told me how mothers in a village in Gujarat would rather keep their children at home than send them to public schools. Even the underprivileged don't seem to harbor illusions about public schools that are unfortunately shared by our public policy makers.

Second, there are no absolutes. There are very few people who cannot pay a single dime for education. Nothing stops a smart entrepreneur from starting a school that is targeted for such children and operates at a low-cost. In fact, this is the business a lot of NGOs are in. And when we look at children who truly come from destitute backgrounds, that does move you, right? Well, what stops you from starting a fund or an institution that caters to such children? If you publicize your message, others who share the vision can contribute. And insofar as society cares, the mission will survive. If society does not care, then it dies. There is no room for coercion.

At this point, classical economists might use their biggest argument for coercion - efficiency, and point out that it is inefficient for lots of different people to be funding lots of different missions. In an ideal society, a perfectly centralized system will run smoothly and ensure everyone gets the best possible resources. In the real world, people are diverse with differing opinions, values and interests. One size does not fit all. The argument for efficiency is tenuous, at best. Government-funded endeavors are not accountable - they will simply get more funds the next year (through our taxes). Private endeavors will go out of business if they are inefficient.

The classical economists will now argue about people not having a "long-enough vision," and so we do need government involvement to produce such a vision. First, the government is composed of people who have the same malaise of lacking a "long-enough vision."

Second, this argument stands unsubstantiated by our history. There is hardly a "long-enough" vision we've had beyond the five-year terms that our governments struggle to complete. In the age of coalition politics, it is quite surprising that they get anything done at all. I haven't yet heard of a visionary coming from the Department of Education.

I have, however, heard of voluntary visionaries, like Asha. Started by students at the University of California, Berkeley, Asha has gone from being a daring and naive experiment to a serious effort that focuses on bringing primary education to all children of India.

Having addressed the efficiency and vision argument, the next big one is that of standards. Standards are a good idea. The question is, who should evolve them? Why should I pay the folks whose standards I don't agree with?

If we accept this line of reasoning, it is not hard to imagine private bodies that evolve standards for economic benefit. Private schools can agree that there is a demand for standardization. These schools can select bodies that design standards and pay them for their services. If children come home with learning that is inconsistent with the values of their parents, the latter can take their business out of the school and into another one that is consistent. That drives the school to care about good standards, for business reasons. They will change the standard if they don't like it. That will keep the standards bodies on their toes, trying to do their best, again for business reasons.

The effect of opening up standards is that we'll have more variety to choose from. One size, again, does not fit all. There will be competition, and with that, comes quality. Colleges, for economic reasons, would do well to accept many standards, or they will lose out on their customers. In turn, employers would do well to accept students from varied backgrounds for reasons of diversity and innovative thinking. If they don't subscribe to it, thats fine. A company that does will eat their lunch.

Finally, it's the turn of the nationalists, who will point out that our efforts on National Integration will suffer if we cannot get everyone to speak the national language. Regional boards of education can choose to do away with Hindi, and then where would we be?

Well, we'd be exactly where we are today. If you think imposition of Hindi is working, it's time to visit Tamil Nadu. The whole idea that you can force people to learn a certain language, or restrict them to one of your choice, is a coercive and counter-productive one. First, Hindi may be the national language, but the reality is that it is spoken in a few states in the North. The East, West and South have different languages altogether. While having a common language is a good idea, its imposition has led to politicians jumping up and claiming danger to their regional heritage. Suddenly, "protecting" regional language is the means of coming to power.

The same politicians have also tried to do away with English, the unofficial common language in India. If one were to do a census, one would find more people knowing English than Hindi. Why is that? It is out of economic benefit that people have voluntarily learned English. There has been a backlash in states that have tried to impose local languages alone (like in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu).

We really have to start waking up to the fact that you cannot force anyone to do anything. There are sufficient intelligent people in these states that will realize the benefit of being multi-lingual. Knowing Hindi will provide access to several Northern markets and also invite people of those regions to come and trade in the South. If that is a sufficient argument, people who see it that way will be free to devise a curriculum that caters to the learning needs of non-native speakers.

In fact, currently, Hindi is taught the same way to native and non-native speakers, making it difficult and resulting in regional disadvantages in competitive examinations. This is one of the main reasons of protest and will be resolved by a customized, voluntary approach. By the same token, people outside the state can (and do) voluntarily learn local languages to improve their business prospects. Through entirely voluntary means, we will find language diffusing organically.

Now comes the question that is being discussed openly. What about education that is provided by fundamentalists, be it Madrassas or those by Hindu or Christian fundamentalists. Well, what about it? We have a government right now. That hasn't stopped them from sprouting. If we talk about taking our guns and forcing people to teach a standardized syllabus, we might have a better chance finding our way home intoxicated. We must remember that societies are not violent by nature. They become violent when their identity is denigrated and repressed.

Let's look at Hindu society as a case in point. Bride-burning by greedy individuals was rampant in Bengal in the name of "Sati." This perversion was aimed at obtaining the land and property of the deceased, as in Hindu laws, women would inherit the husband's assets. The British passed laws through the activism shown by Raja Rammohan Roy and other stalwarts.

However, the laws themselves didn't mean much without the work on the streets - where the people in this society stepped out, educated the masses and developed an awareness of the injustice. Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar and Rabindranath Tagore were notable in their efforts. Today, Bengal is free from this evil.

It would be a shame if we don't analyze the reason for their success and apply it in other areas. The primary one was, they stood right in the middle of the society they belonged to and touched people's hearts, in a non-coercive manner. No gun or taxes had the effect of Tagore's words or Vidyasagar's actions. While some might be quick to suggest that we don't have the heart of that generation, I would suggest it is because we think the government is expected to solve our problems that we don't rise up to the occasion.

If education in madrassas is a big problem, then the reformers cannot come from an alien community that reacts with fear; no, they will be educated Muslims who feel in their heart that it is time to modernize while keeping the best of their traditions. They must stand up and take the lead, for it is they who will understand their context the best. What is more important than criticism is where you stand when you give it. We cannot hope to reform any society by looking down on them and passing judgment. It is being tried and the failed experiments are for all to see. Our only hope is a voluntary approach.

In conclusion, coercion in education has been tried for decades and has failed to meet our expectations. When something does not work, there is no point doing more of it. Why must we pay for a circus we don't like to watch. It is high time we asked ourselves - how do we stop coercion in education and act like a free society that we claim to be. Any thoughts?

What is Honor?

Somik Raha — Thu, 8 Feb 2007 00:39:22 EST

I was asked three interesting questions today: What is Honor? Who should we honor? And how should we know whom to honor?

That set me thinking, and here I present some thoughts. In order to understand honor, we have to make a distinction on its movement. It can be either offered or received. When it is offered, it is usually a selfless act, else we classify it as flattery. A selfless act is always beautiful. When received, it is a dangerous temptation, for that is when we stand the risk of identifying ourselves with our ego. In Sanskrit, the word for honor is "Maan." And the word for bruised ego is "Abhi-maan." They are deeply connected.

Honor is the recognition of selflessness. When we see someone who has gone beyond the little self, we are reminded of our own potential or self-imposed limitation. It is to acknowledge this potential or limitation that we recognize one who has gone beyond. A teacher who has gone beyond the call of duty and truly cared for the student is worthy of honor, for they have used their work (karma) to transcend their ego. We can draw a similar analogy for all work.

We have answered what is honor and who we should honor. The third question, prima facie, seems to be the same as the second. But it is distinct and also the most interesting one. For honor is meaningless without the perceiver of selflessness. A perceiver must transcend their own ego in order to recognize the selflessness of another. A philosopher-friend once told me that the one who gives honor is greater than the one who receives it. For the perceiver has chosen to see the good while having other options and has recognized the good. In so doing, the perceiver has connected deeply with the divinity in the other through the divinity in their own self. One knows when to honor when one makes this connection. This connection often happens involuntarily when we see great acts of selflessness.

Once this is accepted, it is clear that receiving honor as one's due is a disaster. The receiver must understand that it is the giver's greatness that they choose to see the divine, and must in turn honor the giver. To think otherwise is to walk down a path of great self-deception.

The astute reader will point out that we are then engaged in cycles of honoring. This is quite true, and signs of this are to be found in all cultures. The anicent Indian civilization has brought this idea into their cultural routine by greeting one another with joined palms and uttering "Namaste." Namaste comes from "Namostute," which implies, I recognize the divine in you and bow to it. Please wish me that I may realize this divinity in my heart. If we explore other cultures, we will find similar routines.

Resolving The Cauvery Dispute: A Market-Driven Approach

Somik Raha — Tue, 6 Feb 2007 00:01:12 EST

In a recent report, some organizations in Karnataka are upset about the tribunal's decision to award water to Tamil Nadu.

Thus begins another round of xenophobia with the usual platitudes thrown around on each side without any clarity being achieved. And as usual, analysts will begin making political commentaries on either side, further entrenching positions.

Is it possible to think differently about this problem? What is the real problem? Why would a group of fine, large-hearted people turn narrow and violent when asked to share water with their neighbors? I have always been taught that the greatest sin a Hindu could commit was to deny water to the thirsty. Such ideas exist in all major religions, and yet, their followers forget the highest teachings and are ready to demonize each other.

One might say it's all well to talk about spirituality, but you cannot solve practical problems with a spiritual frame. I beg to differ. Let's see how that might be possible. To do this, we have to go to the highest ideal of India - the unity of all existence. If we are all one, then the idea of states would melt away. For a moment, ignoring political realities, let's assume that there is no Karanataka and there is no Tamil Nadu. There are only people. People who need water. I am willing to bet that half the problems we face now are owing to water distribution agreements between state entities as a matter of public policy, rather than need. If these entities vanish, then it is a matter of the farming community uniting to figure out what to do.

Alright, you say, there might be some potential here for a solution, with the politicians out of the way. But we still don't have a practical solution. What if the farmers can't reach an understanding? I agree - let's go deeper.

This is a question of property rights, or a question of how we want property rights to exist. When one finds virgin land, one can claim it only by mixing one's sweat and labor with it, to add value that did not exist. It might be by erecting a fence and one could claim the land. This would work as long as there were no previous claimants. For instance, in the United States, Native Americans used to rely on hunting for food and during certain parts of the year, they'd be hunting certain animals taking them through territory that was being claimed by the newly arriving whites.

Guess what happened? Both parties realized you couldn't wish away the other. The whites realized they had to respect Native American hunting rights, and they worked out agreements which were respected. The Native Americans and whites were discovering how to live in harmony, until the army happened, and the whites found that a great way to acquire land was to let the army loose and clear out a village. And as they say, the rest is history.

In our context, we are hopefully not at a point where the army will be let loose for private gains. So, if we go into the property rights question, we might find a good answer. Who owns the water from the river? Who has mixed their labor with it? Right now, it is the government that has dammed it. If the government were to relinquish it's authority to the people around it, then there is a possibility of making smart decisions. Let these people take ownership of the Cauvery Dam Co. Water supply should no longer be free. Cauvery Dam Co will need to be paid a fee to transfer water to the fields.

Suddenly, there is a market, and it is a question of being entrepreneurial. If the water is to be transported through someone's property, then passage rights have to be paid, which can be negotiated. A farmer in Karnataka would find that passage rights are easy money and if they disallow it, their neighbor who allows it will make easy money. Then, it is a question of Tamil Nadu farmers creating the incentives for transporting water to their fields. It might turn out that certain crops in Tamil Nadu are so profitable that it is well worth the investment. It might also turn out that getting water from Karnataka is not feasible.

You might argue that this won't be fair to the farmers of Tamil Nadu. First, let's not use words like "fair", for it's not possible to define what is fair. Second, it would be logical to point out that the farmers of Tamil Nadu had access to the river water and this could not be shut out by those upstream. That is correct, and it would be a violation to breach the implicit contract. Those coming in later cannot introduce something new or take away something from the environment without negotiating these changes.

So, for the affected farmers of Tamil Nadu, we'd have to work out compensation - water that does not reach them has a certain economic value. This can be determined by finding the best alternative for getting water other than the Cauvery to the Tamil Nadu farmers. This is the amount which the Cauvery Dam Co has to pay out every month. It might be that the transportation costs for the water are lower and it is hence a better deal for the company to let the Tamil Nadu farmers have the water.

One advantage of following this process would be to put a monetary value on water. The Cauvery Water Co can finance research to find cheaper ways of getting water to the Tamil Nadu farmers, in order to make more money. This would create a market for alternative water resource exploration, and someday a smart entrepreneur will come up to fulfill this need.

By now, I hope to have provided an insight into the underlying philosophy. We need to get the Governments out of the way or our grandchildren will be arguing about the same problem without having changed positions. The negotiation has to be between the parties affected, and not by the artificial entities like the States, which have entirely different motivations in the dispute.

Saving Whale Sharks

Somik Raha — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:46:39 EST

Indian Express reports, "For a fisherman, nothing is perhaps more painful than to let go of a big catch with his own hands, especially if it happens to be a 30-ft whale shark that would fetch at least Rs 80,000.

But that's exactly what fishermen of Saurashtra are doing -- often cutting their expensive nets and releasing the whale shark they once butchered by the hundreds as the gentle giants came to breed in the warm waters of the Arabian Sea."

They are doing this on the instruction of a spiritual leader, who has likened whale sharks coming to give birth to their children as a daughter comes home to her family, not to be killed but to be protected. This has gone down well and had great effect. However, the financial pressure is mounting. Fishermen are complaining that they lose up to Rs. 10,000 when they have to cut their nets to release the fish.

While it may be a matter of time before the fishermen start killing the whale shark again, as the article points out, what is not commented upon is the action of making whale-shark fishing illegal.

This reminds me about a great story that took place in the United States, at the Yellowstone National Park. Farmers used their guns and killed the wolves in the park in order to protect their livestock. After which, the government spent a few millions of taxpayer money and airlifted wolves from Canada to restore the ecological balance. The farmers took out their guns again, and were at loggerheads with the coservationists who wanted the wolves to survive.

A smart conservationist, Hank Fischer, decided not to use legal means to fight the farmers but to instead understand their problems. Hank created a fund and contacted all the organizations who cared about saving the wolves and got them to donate money. Then, he promised the farmers that for every livestock killed by a wolf, he'd compensate them. He even got an artist to paint up a wolf at yellowstone and used the artwork to create a sustainable fund. The farmers stopped fighting and were fine with this arrangement, saving the public millions of dollars of litigation costs. At a more fundamental level, the farmers were no longer footing the bill for something that other people wanted to have - wolves.

Taken to the whale-shark situation, we could scrap the law in recognition of the fact that it can hardly be enforced, and enforcing it costs money which comes out of the pocket of the Indian taxpayer, whose money isn't free. Then, concerned organizations could create a voluntary fund, get an artist to photograph or paint a family of whale sharks, create a calendar and sell it to the elite in the cities. The fishermen could then be told that if they ever caught a whale-shark, they'd be compensated for cutting their nets for the amount of getting a new one. Such a message, in addition to the spiritual leader's advice, would be acceptable as it takes care of the interests of the fishermen. It also does not add the burden of other people's interests on their shoulder - "the whale shark and ecological balance."

I would not mind buying such a calendar if it helped the fishermen and aided preservation of whale sharks.

Bollywood: Taran Adarsh - A Dependable Critic, In His Own Way

Somik Raha — Mon, 8 Jan 2007 02:30:49 EST

A whole year is past and I have slowly started placing confidence in a few directors' ability to salvage the pride of Indian cinema. However, the process is quite painful. I cannot watch trash for more than ten or fifteen minutes, by which time I am confident that my head will hurt if I continue watching. Even ten minutes on trash is painful, which leads me to hunt for reviews. It is quite rare for us to discover a reviewer whose tastes completely match our own, and hence can be depended on every time. But how often have you found a reviewer whose tastes are the exact opposite of yours, and hence equally dependable?

Yes, I am writing about Taran Adarsh, the highly-quoted reviewer from IndiaFm.com. Some years back, I was quite amazed to see a high-quality movie like Swades and was stunned to see Adarsh's review on the subject. He gave it a 1.5 out of 5, on the grounds that it was boring! At first I was angry. Then, I started looking at ratings he's given to other films I really liked. And I discovered a pattern. Every film I consider great cinema is trashed by Adarsh on the grounds that the "aam junta" will not be able to appreciate it, while most movies that I consider trash end up with his glowing approval. I found this correlation so fascinating that I decided to dive in deeper.

Using AllBollywood.com, I obtained ratings from different sources in one go and assumed that IndiaFM and Taran Adarsh are synonymous (this may not hold and I will stand corrected if someone points it out). Shown below are the ratings Indiafm gives films that I consider good cinema:

Parineeta: 2.5, Swades: 1.5, Yahaan: 1.5, Black: 2, Raincoat: 1, Iqbal: 2.5, Rang De Basanti: 2.5, Dor: 1.5

Now, let's see what he says about films that don't qualify as good cinema (in my opinion).

Krish: 4.5, The Rising: 4, Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna: 4.5, Golmaal: 3.5

The numbers may not tell the entire story. So we need to look at the reviews themselves. In the review for Black, he writes,

Fine art - an abstract one at least - might be appreciated by those who understand it. But for the common man, who does not comprehend or decipher it, it's an exercise in futility. That's the problem with BLACK.

The common man did end up deciphering Black and turning it into a hit. As for Swades, he writes,

Unfortunately, SWADES disappoints big time. The story of SWADES would've been ideal for a documentary, but for a feature film with a running time of 3 hour plus and starring the country's biggest star, it just doesn't work.

Swades did well abroad but flopped in India, perhaps due to reviews like this one. I found it to be deeply inspiring.

Let's turn our lens to the not-so-great films of our time. Adarsh writes about Krrish, "The film works, and works big time." Three of the first four paragraphs focus on the pedigree of the film and much less about the film itself. Before even beginning with the story, we're told,

In a nutshell, KRRISH is a terrifically exciting and compelling experience. Move over SUPERMAN, BATMAN and SPIDERMAN. KRRISH, the Indian superhero, has arrived!

Let's see what he had to write about Raincoat. Here's how he begins his first paragraph,

Certain films are targeted at the festival circuit and also to win critical acclaim. The story and the execution are so abstract that you actually wonder whether an avid cinegoer of today would be able to comprehend it.

Raincoat was in fact my favorite film in the list and a movie that made me believe Ajay Devgan is one of the most underused actors of our time.

One may argue that reviewers are entitled to their opinions. Sure. Let's be clear that we understand what the expectations are from a reviewer. Consider a wine taster, who recommends a good wine for the rest of us who don't have the time to taste every wine in the county. Imagine our wine expert finding an exquisite wine and remarking, "This wine cannot be appreciated by the common man, so I will give it a poor rating." This is the logic that Adarsh uses most of the time when criticizing what I consider good cinema. It is the job of the reviewer to help educate the common man, so we may appreciate art and beauty. We are let down by a reviewer who keeps us from that goal and instead confines us to the crudest sensibilities.

However, there is good news here. Taran Adarsh is actually a dependable critic. All I had to do was reverse his rating to figure out if a film is worth watching. I tried this with a new film - Kabul Express. And sure enough, Adarsh gave it a 2.5 rating. In his review, he wrote, "A film like KABUL EXPRESS is more for the elite and the thinking viewer than the aam junta."

I knew immediately that this would be a movie worth watching. As expected, I was deeply impressed, both with the film and with my discovery of this correlation between Adarsh's ratings and good cinema. As long as Adarsh does not upgrade his taste, I know how to filter trash and get to the gems.