The top 5 myths about the Food Security Bill

Myth #1: The Food Subsidy Bill is an epochal event - a 'game changer'

• Truth #1: The food subsidy bill is a reformed Public Distribution System (PDS), and some more (lactating and pregnant women, hunger allowance etc). In that sense, it can be called PDS+. The core of the program is the same as the existing PDS - a part of the population is entitled to highly subsidised foodgrains (earlier only wheat and rice; now including millets) which are provided by Fair Price Shops (FPS) across the country.

• Truth #2: The PDS has been in existence, in one form or the other, for the majority of our country's life since independence. We have tried several different versions of the PDS - targeted, universal and then back to targeted. Life's come a full circle, since the food subsidy bill is taking us back to a near-universal coverage.

• Truth #3: The significant departures of the FSB from the PDS are four-fold: (1) inclusion of millets - in my opinion, a long-due and impactful step (2) recognition of PDS food as a right - always existed but good to put it on paper (3) women to be holders of ration cards - was probably true in-practice even earlier, but women's agency within the household is further strengthened (4) equality of prices for rich and poor - this is seen to lead to higher efficiency because of reduced potential of cross-selling.

Myth #2: The Food Subsidy will destroy our fiscal stability

• Truth #1: The food subsidy bill is not astronomically more expensive than the existing PDS. The existing food subsidy bill crossed 1 lakh crore rupees sometime in the early 2010s. The food subsidy bill (which will subsume the existing PDS) is expected to cost somewhere around 1.25 lakh crores. It is a ~25% increase; surely a significant increase, but not one that is going to break India's back.

• Truth #2: The food subsidy burden (PDS + others) has been stable around 0.6-0.8% since when my generation was both. Even a 25% increase in the burden is going to take us to ~1% of GDP. I'm not saying these are small numbers; all I'm saying is that we've been living with these large numbers for a long time and we've both grown, and stagnated, with these numbers. Let's not portray the food subsidy as a cataclysmic event.

• Truth #3: Today I read news reports that India's debt to GDP ratio has gone below 70%. So, we've been reducing our debt/GDP ratio significantly in recent times. Also, debt/GDP ratio in India is lower than in several other major economics; in fact, it is close to the 60% that is required to be a part of the EU. India's fiscal situation is not alarmingly bad.

Myth #3: The bill is throwing money down a dysfunctional drain

• Truth #1: The PDS efficiency is estimated to be around 40% by various agencies. This is extremely poor, but does not compare too badly with existing cash transfers in India. Most Government programs show a similar efficiency level. The argument can then be made that the Government should withdraw from provision. Instead, I make an argument similar to the infant industry argument - live with an inefficient system, improve governance and then reap the benefits later.

• Truth #2: The PDS has worked very well in states such as Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh and Chattisgarh. The efficiency of the PDS in Tamil Nadu (where everyone - poor or rich, is entitled to 20kg) is above 90%. Hence, the PDS is a leaky drain that can be, and has been, fixed.

Myth #4: There is no point giving rice and wheat, instead of more nutritious food

• Truth #1: In any country, cereals are the cheapest sources of calories and proteins. Giving subsidised rice and wheat ensures that a minimum part of a person's daily needs are met.

• Truth #2: Cereals are the least perishable of foods, and hence best suited for long-distance transportation. The food security bill, in fact, is a positive step in that it goes beyond wheat and rice, and includes millets, which are lower than wheat and rice.

• Truth #3: By giving subsidised cereals to people, the Government is saving them a lot of money. This money can then be used by the households to diversify their food basket. Instead, if the Government were to transfer fruits and vegetables, then wastage would be much higher. Hence, the design and intent is to transfer the most efficient food and then let people save up and buy their own stuff.

Myth #5: The Government should restrict itself to creating jobs

• Truth #1: In an ideal situation, this argument works. But India is unable to create jobs for different reasons - primary among them being labour laws. Instead of arguing against food subsidy at this stage, argue for labour and land reforms and then talk about phasing out food subsidy.

• Truth #2: Wages as a percentage of productivity in every sector has declined in the past few years - i.e. lesser and lesser of our growth is being distributed in the population as wages. The growth we've been seeing is increasingly less inclusive. We can't wait till food reaches the poorest guy by trickling down. More active intervention is needed.

• Truth #3: Food is different from other goods and services because it is a fundamental human need. I believe that principally, something as basic as food cannot be left to economic systems, which are falling. Economic systems have shifted from feudalism to capitalism and might shift further. We cannot let the vagaries of our economics affect human lives. Practically, the Government is also the owner of all water in the country - hence, extend the same principle to food and the Government's intervention in food markets is not only justified, but also necessary.

Bhagwati V/s Sen : The Real Deal

Jagdish Bhagwati's attacks on Amartya Sen, Sen's own involvement in political discourse, and their supposed political affinities, have become topics of discussion recently. On one hand, of course, I feel glad that a discussion in this country is happening lead by two of the best intellectuals this country is supposed to have produced. At the same time, the sweeping brushstrokes painting this debate as Sen's Socialism versus Bhagwati's Capitalism, or Sen's Kerala versus Bhagwati's Gujarat, have been rather unfortunate. I have read a bit of what Bhagwati has to say about development themes, and am beginning to understand Sen's views. With that caveat, I would like to try to show that this debate is nowhere as sharp as it is being made to be.

Firstly, does either of the economists disagree that growth must benefit the marginal sections of society? No. Sen's views on this aspect are fairly well known. On the other 'side', Bhagwati repeatedly mentions that growth is a means to achieving human development. Moreover, his passionate defense of India's performance on development indicators betrays the centrality of human development in his world view. That Sen would have a lot of intervention in human development is fairly well known. But Bhagwati has discussed at length various methodologies that can be used to improve the standard of living of the people. Bhagwati at no point defends laissez faire or even the now-ridiculed trickle down theory. Hence, there is a commonality of human development as the 'end' in both their arguments.

So what is different? Given my limited reading of both, I have been able to identify two sources of 'discord'. The first is regarding the prioritisation, and the second regarding the implementation. Let me talk about the former first. Laymen have often rejoiced at the growth versus equity debate - and Sen and Bhagwati are seen to be at opposite sides of the spectrum here. But on closer look, the differences do not seem to be all that significant. Sen has merely said that growth (of the kind that India has experienced since 1991) is a great thing, but the lack of an improvement in human development at the same time is shameful. He seems to argue that growth for the sake of growth is immaterial, which I do not believe any sensible person would debate. At no point have I seen Sen argue that India should have grown at a lower pace, and instead redistributed its national income. On the Bhagwati side, he clearly demarcates 'Track I' and 'Track II' reforms. All of his Track II reforms are directly targeted at human development, and even his 'Track I' reforms around economic liberalisation, are supposed to eventually lead to human development. The minor divergence here is the prioritization. Sen would say that equity and human development will eventually lead to growth, whereas Bhagwati would say that growth will generate the necessary resources for equity and development. Neither of them would disagree, I assume, with the fact that growth and development essentially go hand-in-hand. I do not believe there would be any country which focused on any one while ignoring the other.

The second, and apparently more substantial difference, is their view on Government provision of basic services. Here, Bhagwati is distinctively right-wing. He praises the virtues of the private sector in provisioning (with the Government acting as a facilitator), and also suggests replacing the NREGA with cash transfers. I have not read Sen's views on different Government services yet, but on the food subsidy, for example, he openly confesses his lack of knowledge. His support for the food security bill, if at all, is a grudging realisation of no better alternatives. Sen says we need to intervene more effectively in the poor's lives, and if state intervention is the best way to do it, then so be it. For example, Sen extols the virtues of the Bolsa Familia in Brazil, a cash transfer that would be something even Bhagwati would praise. 

In conclusion, the differences between these two great economists is not as great as it seems to be. Bhagwati is by no means a capitalist, and Sen is even farther from being a socialist. A welfare state within the structure of capitalism is neither unique nor surprising.  We, as readers, can rationalise the debate between two great minds to hone our own understanding of the country we live in.

India's Turn : When?

I remember a chapter in the second year titled 'India's Turn' that presented a rather startling fact - that India's  economic growth had started in the 1980s, well before the reforms initiated in 1990s. The narrative was as follows: Indira Gandhi, chastened by her defeat in 1977, now returned with a more pro-business attitude. This 'attitudinal shift' alone was sufficient to accelerate growth, and was followed by piecemeal reforms in the mid-1980s, following by full-blown reforms in the early 1990s. In this story, the reforms in the 1990s, at best, helped in sustaining the momentum that had already been built.

I have started reading the book 'India's Tryst with Destiny' by Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya. In the book, they state that growth during 1980-1987 was only 4.6% p.a, closer to the 'Hindu rate of growth' of 4% than to the growth rates we are now accustomed to. The 'high' growth rate of the 1980s was seen during the period 1988-1991, well after piecemeal reforms had been initiated and the fiscal deficit had started ballooning.

My problem is that, to make our education more holistic, we should be presented with an academic debate, rather than an academic piece of work. A debate would have enabled us to understand the issue in more depth and then form a perspective on it. At the very least, counter-views should have been suggested for further reading (and not testing). 

Was Gandhi a Marxist?

This article was published in Satya 2013, annual journal of Gandhi Study Circle, St. Stephen's College.

Was Gandhi a Marxist? This question arises from the fact that both Gandhi and Marx had similar views. Gandhi fought against caste, race and various other social sufferings. He fought against economic exploitation and oppression of the poor by the rich. Marx fought against political subjugation and oppressed humanity in his own way. According to him, capitalism, where the workers are exploited is an unstable system and leads to crises.

Their views were similar but not identical. Gandhi’s approach was quite different from that of Marx. Both of them believed that social conflicts existed because of disparities between the rich and the poor. But, they differed on their views on how the conflicts would be resolved. Marx believed in revolutionary means while Gandhi believed in reformist means.

To elaborate further, Marx’s Dialectical Materialism explains his views regarding class struggles. According to Marx, it is the internal contradictions within the system that brings about a change. The people who are being exploited will organize themselves together and revolt. This revolution would abolish the existing class structure. The English Revolution and The French Revolution are the examples of how revolutions took place because of internal contradictions and finally led to the emergence of a capitalist class.

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” – Karl Marx

Gandhi, on the other hand, found class struggles to be quite superficial. His approach to resolving conflicts was through non-violence and Satyagraha. However, there is certain inconsistency in what he believed. On one hand he believed in harmonious co-operation between the poor and the rich, labour and capital and landlords and tenants. On the other hand, he also believed in struggling against exploitation.

According to Gandhi, the struggle against exploitation, unlike what Marx believed, will not take place through bloody revolutions, but through non-cooperation. If the workers can come together in the form of trade unions and refuse to co-operate with the capitalists, then they will be able to control the supply of labour. The capitalists will be forced to increase their wages. In Marxian terminology, Reserve Army of Labour is the biggest hindrance to the increase in wages and Gandhi believed that the only way to overcome this was non-cooperation.

"The idea of class war does not appeal to me. In India a class war is not inevitable, but it is avoidable if we have understood the message of nonviolence.” – Gandhi

What makes me believe that Gandhism is irrelevant today is the fact that people have become excessively self-centred and they are involved in an unending pursuit of acquiring more and more at the cost of the others. Gandhi believed in the mutual love between the labour and the capital. He wanted to convert the capitalists – the exploiters, which he thought could be done only through non-violence and Satyagraha. His theory of trusteeship was based on moral transformation of the capitalists, but we know that in today’s world, people do not give away their wealth (acquired through exploitation of labour and the poor) listening to moral preaching.

What Gandhi wanted to achieve was to educate and awaken the masses, make them conscious of their exploitation, bring them together into a powerful organization, so that they can struggle against the exploiters and fight for their rights. Even though Satyagraha and the non-violent ways might be thought of as moral preaching in the 21^st century, but we shouldn’t forget that it was this weapon which in part led to our Independence. Critics argue that Gandhi’s approach was applicable only to a specific historical context. True, but the need is not to side-line his ideas but to study them and revise them according to the changing situations.

Marx and Gandhi had very similar philosophies about what an ideal society should be. Both of them focused on a society free from exploitation. But again, their approaches to the achievement of this ideal state were different. Marx believed in a classless, stateless communist society which is described in the Communist Manifesto. On the other hand Gandhi believed in a non-violent, egalitarian and a democratic society where everyone is treated equally, irrespective of caste, race, and sex and where there is no discrimination based on income because the entire wealth belongs to the society as a whole.

According to Marx, we would reach communism because of the process of Dialectical Materialism. The germs of a future society lie within the present society and these opposites within the system contradict it and lead to revolution. Feudalism gave way to capitalism, because the germs of capitalism (the exploitation of the peasants and serfs by the lords) lay within the system itself. Similarly, capitalism will give rise to socialism and finally communism would emerge. It would be a society of dignity and freedom, a society with human conditions rather than ‘animal’ conditions of existence.

Gandhi asserted that one day moral transformation would take place which would lead to, what he called, Ramrajya. He explained the evolution through non-violence.  Violence and self-centredness are the qualities of a beast. Earlier we were beasts, wandering and hunting animals. Realizing the need to curtail violence, we took to agriculture. Hence Gandhi had faith that this streak of progressing through non-violence would continue till the ideal state is achieved. A man understands co-operation and is morally sound. This is what Gandhi believed we are heading to – from beasts to a man.

In today’s world, Marx seems to be winning the race because we foresee that communism might follow capitalism and socialism. China already claims to be a communist country. But, nowhere is Gandhi’s Ramrajya to be seen. The reason, I believe, Gandhi’s approach is difficult is because it is too ideal, it’s like bringing heaven on earth and converting the devils to angels. Marx’s communism might emerge as a future society because it’s not all that ideal and solves only those problems which can be tackled, given the current stage of human development.

Though both Gandhism and Marxism are similar in spirit, they are very different in practice and it becomes essential to re-read them and make changes to them as the society progresses.

The Unequal Race

Economists, I say, are trained in the art of justifying everything. Perhaps that is what has enabled me thus far to justify inequality. Humankind has developed and flourished due to inheritance; inheritance is the raison d'etre of our race coming to dominate this world. Think of it, a tiger's life is no different from its mother's. A mother tiger teaches the offspring as much as she knew, and then the offspring passes on the same knowledge to its kid. Humans, however, are different in this aspect. Our collective knowledge is stored for eternity, and then added to by every generation. What our ancestors did enables us to do even more. Similarly, what our fathers and grandfathers did enables us to do even better.

For example, I wonder how different my life would have been had my father not decided to join the navy, and instead stayed on in Gorakhpur. There would have been no question of joining DPS, R.K.Puram, and hence no path leading to St. Stephen's. There would have been no exposure to debating and quizzing as much as I got at these two institutions. Probably, there would have been no economics in my life! I am reaping the benefits of a decision my father took. Between me and someone who is still living in a small town, there is not much difference in terms of what we have done. It is the different between what our parents did, their parents did, and so on. The difference between us would be one of inheritance. Perhaps this is what most of us call destiny, or kismat.

I have had the good fortune of being involved in Bandhan microfinance's education program. The more I think of it, the more impressed I am by Bandhan's recognition of the multi-dimensional nature of poverty and inequality. Here's a short film I had made back then (I apologize for the copyright violations, of course): Bandhan's development projects. This would give you a better sense of the inequality I'm talking about.

The fact that I can justify this inequality in educational opportunities doesn't necessarily mean that I support it.  While I have absolutely no moral issues with our educational system being competitive, I have a problem with the competition being unequal. Is the competition between a Delhi-educated student and a small town student, for admission into an IIT or an IIM, a competition between equals? I do not think so. This was, of course, the basic principle behind reservations.

The problems that reservations bring up are by no means small. Firstly, there is the problem of identification - a problem that plagues any social scheme in India. How does one identify people who are deprived of education opportunities? Our policymakers have taken an economic and caste viewpoint to this. While caste-based identification is an abhorrence to me, I am not too comfortable with economic selection too, especially in its implementation. Moreover, isn't inequality a question more of degree than of existence? For example, a person who is poor and rural is at a greater educational inequality than one who is rural but rich*. Thus, any policy that identifies people based on the existence of certain parameters is bound to be flawed. The less be said about people mimicking this parameter, the better.

How then can educational inequality be bridged? At a national level, I do not have anything of import to suggest. However, each one of us can contribute something to the cause. While I am usually skeptical of volunteerism, I cannot help but be impressed by Jalnidh's initiative Eclaire. We need more of this.

---------------------------------

* - this is similar to any economists' arguments against using the head count ratio (HCR) as an indicator of poverty. Head counts tend to mask the degree of inequality within the less privileged section.

Satyamev Jayate

Every Sunday morning, Indian television viewers get to see a social issue being discussed in Satyamev Jayate. I never got a chance to view any episode until today. Everyone is aware of the commendable response that this initiative by Aamir Khan has received throughout the country. It is claimed that the show has left a bigger impact on the society than expected.

So, today I was looking at TRPs of this show. The Television Viewer Rating has plummeted from 3.8 in the first month to 2.9 in the second month. I have always heard people talking optimistically about this show, but the popularity seems to be fading away. Obviously, these ratings are not a true indicator of what the actual situation is.

Though Aamir Khan seems not to be worried about these falling TRPs, his aim has been to improve the viewership. But what I see as a matter of concern is whether the very purpose of the show is fully achieved or not. Today at the end of the show, which focused on caste discrimination, Aamir Khan talked about how those freedom fighters made us free in 1947 because of which we remember them today and similarly, we should also make our society free from the evils of casteism so that the coming generations remember us. What I doubt is that if today’s show was vibrant enough to encourage the present generation to act? It was shown that how people perceived that casteism has almost come to an end at least in urban areas but it exists even today in well reputed universities and practiced by the youth of the country.

Yesterday, I was watching IIFA, which was too uninteresting except a couple of performances by Priyanka Chopra and Bipasha Basu. Not getting into all that, this IIFA was called ‘green’. Before and after every break, tips to conserve electricity and save environment by doing your bit was shown, but I doubt how many of the viewers actually followed it? Or even if they did, will it be sustainable? The problem lies here!

For viewers, Satyamev Jayate might be something worth to watch on a rainy Sunday morning like today, sitting in the drawing room, sipping a cup of coffee. What I think is that human memory is short lived. An hour and a half show on a Sunday is nothing to turn the stone upside down. Ofcourse, it is creating awareness among the masses but I feel there should be follow-ups the entire week after the episode is broadcasted on Sunday, to show more real-life stories, problems, experiences and the ways in which we can fight against them as it is our responsibility as the youth of the country.

I am not denying the fact that in rural areas, thousands of villagers gather in a place and watch the show, which definitely has a positive impact. Ofcourse, the show is doing something noble. Something is better than nothing! It would be wrong for me to say that it’s a half hearted approach, but with little more effort if something substantial can be achieved, it will be in the betterment of our very own society. 

Why perfection is never seen

All of us seek perfection from those around us - our friends, our families, our colleagues and so on. Some of us acknowledge that perfection will not be found, and hence we accept imperfections in those around us. However, our criteria for such forgiveness are often very blurred. There is no consistent framework within while we can put our life experiences.

I will put this article into two sections. The first will deal with the theoretical underpinnings of what I mean to say. The second is the practical application of these theoretical underpinnings. For those of the readers who aren't quite fans of deductive logic, I would suggest that you skip the first section.

----------

Hence, the sense in which I will be talking about 'perfection' here is not professional perfection, but perfection in our social interactions. Also, the 'framework' that I talk about is deductive logic - the formation of certain exogenously-given premises, and using a small set of fairly axiomatic steps, arriving at a conclusion based on those premises.

Beginning with this framework, the first step is to acknowledge that every human has a different set of premises. While I have said that this is exogenously given, we can qualify it better. I would believe that every human's set of premises is determined by his experiences, and also his reaction to these experiences*. Even if the experiences were the same, the reactions would most probably not. This could happen for several reasons - a person might be constrained in several spaces (especially true of children and women, the elderly, poor individuals, unhealthy people), there might be a 'random' component to any social outcome and that the external environment might not remain constant, such that the outcomes are not the same. While I have used a fair amount of jargon here, the point to be emphasized is simple enough -  no two individuals start with the same set of premises.

Even if we assume that all humans are rational (and I don't see any reason not to) and that they employ the same set of axioms (this is where disagreement is more likely), this will lead to different conclusions. Hence, conflict is inevitable in modern society. Note that we made barely any assumptions here - even the assumption of rationality and uniqueness of axioms is merely intended to show the power of the argument. Relaxing these assumptions will, in fact, further strengthen the argument that I have made. However, I must make a qualification here. Divergence of premises is no reason to assume divergence of conclusions. These conclusions might end of being the same. Here, I diverge from deductive logic in saying that the probability of such an occurrence is low.

----------

In practice, each one of us falls into several disagreements with our friends and colleagues. Since we do not know what premises/beliefs that lead to a particular action, we take the action itself as a proxy for the belief system. For example, if I convinced my friend to join me for a movie, and then my friend called me up at the last moment to say no, then I do not have perfect information as to what lead my friend to make that particular decision. I would use whatever knowledge I have of the action of his not coming to reach a judgement.

It would seem better that I should rather just acknowledge the lack of information and then move on with life, rather than being miffed with my friend. However, how many of us actually do that? None whatsoever. The reason being that, in practice, perfect information will never be available. Hence, we will never reach a judgement. Even if our friend is actually the bad guy in the picture and keeps repeating his actions, I will never have enough information to indict him, and to take necessary action.

For this reason, such an outcome is never observed. As humans, we all would have certain preferences between certainty and information. The example we have considered in the previous paragraph is one of a person who prefers 100% information. On the other hand, if certainty was the only thing I cared about, then to say that 'life exists on mars' would be the best outcome - since it is 100% sure. However, most of us would be quite uncomfortable with such an assertion. 

We thus choose a point that has both uncertainty and lack of information. This is where our preferences differ. Each one of us would accept different levels of uncertainty (and by corollary, of lack of information) given how much information we have. Hence, this is a matter of preferences.

For this reason, perfection in social relations can never be seen. Even if I personally want to be as rational as possible, I would never be able to be perfectly rational unless I am ready to accept being a weak, indecisive individual who can be taken for a ride by virtually anybody. All of us wouldn't, and this is why perfection is never an outcome in social relations. We all forgive some, and don't forgive some. How much we forgive is given by our own preferences. Our acquaintances will never agree to how much we forgive, because they have different preferences. Hence, conflict will always be present.

---------------------------

* this is somewhat similar to Karl Marx's dualism in that man's experiences and his response to those experiences form the complete set

World's cheapest Tablet - The Aakash

As far as memory serves, the tagline mentioned above was (and is) used when ‘The Aakash Tablet was first talked about. Not being a gadget-goer at all, this post coming from me is rather surprising. But what really compelled me to write about this issue was a recent article I read some place – ‘what really went wrong with the Aakash?’

For those who would like a mention of its features - The Aakash is a low-cost computer with a 7-inch touch screen and 256 MB RAM running under the Android 2.2 operating system. It was in 2011, that India's IT minister Sh. Kapil Sibal announced the launch of the Aakash tablet for Rs 2,500 with much fanfare. It is part of the ‘One Laptop per Child’ idea. That moment, I recall my brother telling me with much excitement, ‘And I shall book this digital leveler ASAP’. (Well, he is a computer engineer after all!). And so, he became one of those 1.4 million users who registered for the gadget. (:O)

But I guess, that was the ONLY happy part. A series of blunders followed. First, there was an IIT-Rajasthan versus DataWind quarrel over specification issues, making headlines. According to a statement by Datawind's CEO, Suneet Singh Tuli, the company supplied 10,000 tablets to IIT-Rajasthan which were part of an initial order of 1,00,000 tablets that Datawind was supposed to supply to the government at a price of $49.98 per unit. But after only a few hundred tablets reached the students, IIT-Rajasthan started rejecting the Aakash tablet, allegedly after reports that the device was failing during pilot testing and did not meet the quality criteria set by the institute. IIT-Rajasthan was then removed from the Aakash project, and IIT-Bombay was then chosen.

The process became murkier when DataWind entered into a war-of-words with its ex-assembly vendor, Quad Electronics. While the ‘registered’ customers awaited the delivery of Aakash, the Hyderabad-based assembler of the tablet, Quad Electronics, sued DataWind alleging that the British Indian firm failed to procure its contracted inventory or pay for the tablets. DataWind retorted saying it won't procure any more tablets from Quad and would settle the issue legally.

And to top it all, the prototype turned out to be a disaster. Some phones in the market worked faster than this contraption. The battery wouldn’t last two hours if a user tried to play video files on it. The touch screen, apparently, wasn’t ‘touchy’ enough. Similar computing devices with superior capabilities have been brought out of Chinese factories but India seems to have lost the plot; what could have been an incredibly compelling story is now nothing but a stillborn.

What I’m trying to put across through this post is that almost three years ago, when we first heard of an ultra low-cost tablet to be launched by the Indian government, then known as ‘the $35 tablet’, India made it to the headlines across the world. ‘Steve Jobs innovates for the rich; this is for us’, one of my friends had remarked. So what went wrong – Is it all the quarrels? Is it the MHRD, which claimed to come up with an effective program in too short a period? Or is it the failure of the initial prototype? Well, it is ALL of these.

And now the news shows the launch of an upgraded version of the tablet. The Aakash II is reported to have improved hardware with Google’s Android 4.0 OS, 256MB of RAM and 2GB flash storage. And it shall hit the market around December this year. So, lets just wait-n-watch on this one before commenting any further.

 

Cut-offs : Fallacies of the critics

Just watched the following discussion on the Delhi University cut-offs (click here for the video). Apart from Chetan Bhagat's revealingly thoughtless accusations and assertions, there are several other clarifications that are in order. I am in no way defending status quo. However, what I am saying is that we could see the education system as a set of 'markets' or domains - the high school domain, the graduation domain, the post graduation domain and so on. There are several 'market failures' in each of the domain. Trying to set right one of the domains without correcting the failures in the other domains would be inefficient. The familiar theory of second best is inapplicable here because the failures in the other domains are not intrinsically immune to being corrected. With this in mind, I begin my discussion of the DU cut off system.

Firstly, the appalling suggestion by Chetan Bhagat that SRCC and other 'good' DU colleges should set up more campuses. At one level, it is hypocritical on his part ('excellence is exclusive', according to Bhagat. Click here for the video) to oppose dilution of quality in IITs and to suggest something similar in DU. However, I do not intrinsically subscribe to the fact that excellence is exclusive, and hence leave such a shallow argument at that. More importantly, to set up new campuses for SRCC, Hindu etc requires a whole lot of infrastructure. While we can talk about diminishing returns to a factor, we must consider what exactly is the limited factor we are talking about. In view of my previous discussion of market or (in the case of education, when 'market' doesn't sound all that right) domain failures, the domain failure that I see here is one of post graduation. 

It is the most obvious thing to any Economics student at Delhi University, for example, that even India's best economics degree suffers from a severe and crippling shortage of quality teachers. One of my co-interviewees at the Rhodes Scholarship interview confessed that even fresh postgraduates with no teaching experience and unverified aptitude would be invited to teach at one of the colleges. If we go about increasing the intake without considering such factors, we will just create a situation where Economics, for example, will be the new engineering - lots of third grade institutions that add nothing to the students. New colleges cannot be set up unless we increase the quality of output from our postgraduate institutions. Period.

Second is the system of cut-offs. I agree with critics that treating all state and central boards as equivalent is criminally objectionable, to state it mildly. However, we must realise that it is a court order that forbids colleges from taking out percentiles in each of the different boards (this is what I have read somewhere, but am unable to find a link right now). At best, Delhi University has committed a crime of inaction in not challenging such an order.

Secondly, to argue that we must de-link admissions from the Class XII boards is pointless. If admissions to even the liberal arts or pure sciences are de-linked from the boards, what is the purpose of having the boards in the first place? There is a domain failure in that the boards do not reflect the aptitude of students*. Do we correct it by making the boards more relevant, or do we correct it by having this pointless appendage called the boards, and then also have an entrance examination for various courses? Again, we must realise that there will be multiplicity of entrance exams, since an Economics (H) entrance exam will have to be different from a Philosophy (H) entrance exam and so on. The rot begins at the boards level, also because there is an incentive for state boards to inflate marks as as to better the lot of their students. Hence, basic economics demands that it is at this level that the problem must be addresses. Delhi University in this case is the victim, not the perpetrator.

Finally, we come to the suggestion of having interviews. Given my experience at St. Stephen's College, I believe that interviews are the best way of gauging suitability of a student for a particular course. I will not feign knowledge of why other colleges do not have interviews, for I am sure there must be some reason. In case the reason is some rule of Delhi University, then more autonomy must be granted to the 'institutes of excellence'. If there is some other reason, then we must address it.

A little footnote about media coverage of the issue. The way the media handles this issue year after year has something to say about the intelligence level of those running such shows. Remember the ruckus over the 100% cut-off at SRCC last year? Firstly, they failed to qualify the 100% cut-off. It was for science students who now wanted to pursue B.Com (H) now; hence, it was the result of a 4% gap between commerce students and science students that SRCC had committed itself to (this year's lower cut off, hailed by the media, is just a sleight of hand, with the 4% margin having been reduced). Even now, they say that the cutoff for science is 99.25% at Hindu, without qualifying that statement as to which course, and for students from which stream. Is such misleading coverage not worth condemning? Secondly, one student cleared the 100% cut-off this year. Even in my year when the science cut-off for the same course was 98.75%, only one science student cleared the cut-off (incidentally, my dear friend Manchit Mahajan). If one student cleared the cut-off anyway, how does it make a difference whether it is 98.75 or 100? The media certainly needs to be more intelligent.

-------------------

* - I have no hesitation in saying that my marks in physics and chemistry did not reflect my aptitude for the subject. The only justification I see is either that I worked hard, or that I severely over-estimate others' aptitude. However, hard work cannot always be a substitute for aptitude per se, as my CAT experience taught me.

Objectivism and Altruism

I just read this article that attacks Ayn Rand's objectivist theory at several levels. As someone who has barely read a quarter of The Fountainhead, I base my understanding of Rand on this (rather biased) article. Click here for reading the article.

Let me not even attempt a critique of Wikipedia claims was Rand's espousal of full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism. For even those with the most cursory knowledge of economics, it is not difficult to disprove such an assertion. There are so many market failures that unregulated capitalism cannot be optimal even in theory. Marx, of course, takes it further - he says that capitalism is a doomed regime that will one day fall under the weight of its own contradictions. In practice, the numerous crises have taught us that capitalism by itself cannot stand. However, trying to critique Rand at this point would end up becoming a lesson in basic economics, which I do not wish to detail here.

It is the second assertion, which I have accidentally dealt with earlier, that I will elucidate a bit here. As I have discussed in my previous article on norms and compliance (click here to read), many kinds of socially optimal behaviour can be made individually optimal using a set of incentives. In fact, according to the Folk Theorem, if an individual is patient enough, then any outcome in which the payoff to the individual is at least as much as his worst-case scenario, can be sustained. Given that a young person would not discount the future heavily, we can abstract away from the details and state that almost any social outcome can be sustained as a Nash equilibrium.

For our purpose of our argument, it is sufficient to say that Rand's argument that only selfish acts can be sustained, is false and myopic. Human society is a society of repeated social interactions. If interaction between any two individuals occurred only once, then Rand would be correct. However, since we need to interact at several times, we need to also consider how our action today would affect the state that will materialise tomorrow. While a more complete discussion can be found in my article I referenced earlier, let me give a simple example. When someone wants to photocopy my notes, then it would be in my selfish interests to not give those notes because the notes provide me with a comparative advantage that will help me score more. Sharing would reduce my comparative advantage. However, I might need notes in the future, and refusal to share notes today might jeopardize my chances of getting them in the future. Hence, the 'altruistic' task of sharing notes today becomes the Nash equilibrium.

Why I put 'altruistic' in quotes is because even this behaviour is selfish in that I still take the cost-and-benefit (to me) approach while deciding whether to share notes or not. However, the key thing to note here is that this selfishness differs from that of Rand in that it has a social context of incentives. In case the societal norms are removed and exchange of notes is made depersonalized (every person uploads his notes voluntarily on a network and others can download it, such that the uploader does not know who is downloading), then cooperation would break down and nobody would share notes. Instead, if anyone who refused to share notes was flogged, then everyone would share notes. The basic point is that seemingly selfish behaviour can also be modified and contained.

Going by my reading of Ms.Bekiempis' article, I can strongly assert that Rand was wrong - selfish behaviour isn't the only sustainable ones. Better outcomes can be sustained, and very often without the need for the Government.

Bollywood, Superstars and Signalling

Most of us with even the slightest affinity for sense and sensibility would cringe after having a look at the 100-crore club, arguably the most elite club in Bollywood right now. For every 3 Idiots and Ghajini, there are Ready, Rowdy Rathore and Bodyguard. The common thread running through these films is obvious - the presence of a 'superstar' - the three Khans, Akshay Kumar or Hritik Roshan. What is it that a superstar brings to the film? Why is it so elusive for films without a superstar to make it to this club, and why is it so easy for otherwise pathetic films with a superstar to make it?

Is it good acting? We would all agree that there are films with better acting than the ones listed above. Is it a good script? Except for Aamir Khan's movies, it can hardly be said about the others. Moreover, there are films with far better scripts that do not even aspire being in the club. I believe that the reason might be signalling. A superstar signals to the audience several things, that I elucidate upon for the rest of this article.

The first problem is the problem of asymmetric information. To see the power of signalling, take a simple example. Would you rather buy a television from a rickety, old, desolate shop or a swanky, new, branded shop in a crowded mall? I believe most would choose the latter. The need for some kind of guarantee that the shop will be around tomorrow to fulfill its warrantee is pressing. There are two similarities between this example and our movies example. Firstly, a television is a durable good, which we use very often. Similarly, we watch movies very often and would prefer to watch good movies than bad movies. Secondly, even though we have no prior information about the quality of the television, we would place our bets depending on the decor of the shop that sells it. Similarly, in situations of asymmetric information, we would tend to choose our movies based on the star. There is a certain standardisation that superstars bring - lots of song and dance sequences, good cinematography and so on. As risk-averse consumers, we would prefer to compromise on the expected quality as long as the variability in quality is reduced.

Secondly, there is the question of correlates. Producers who can afford to have superstars in their films typically can also spend a lot more on marketing than smaller films can. They can bombard our senses with custom-made promos. They can afford the most prominent billboards. They can hire the best musicians, get the most popular actresses to do item numbers and so on. Five years down the line, would people remember Agneepath more or Chikni Chameli more? My guess is the latter. In this sense, I look at films with superstars as behemoths. Yes, they do fail very often too. However, as a percentage, I am sure the chances of success are greater. At the very least, the music stays. Sheila ki Jawani, anyone?

The third and last theme that I explore (or rather, leave as a puzzle) is why the allure of the superstar doesn't wade after delivering several crass films one after the other. On one hand, I can assert that even Shah Rukh Khan needs a Chak De India to make sure that his stock doesn't sink too fast. However, how does one then explain Salman Khan's unfettered run? Why people would subject themselves repeatedly to such films escapes me. Maybe for a large majority of the people, the theater is an escape from reality, and a laugh, no matter how silly, is still a laugh. That requires us to dig deeper, something that I do not do here.

IITs, IIMs and the Signalling Race

The first time I read an interview with this year's JEE topper, I felt a certain degree of deja vu. At the end of the day, any 'success story', be it the boards, JEE, Civil Services or CAT, bears a strong resemblance to each and every other 'success story'. Of course, much of it is due to the media trying to highlight the same set of attributes, and hence it would be unfair to blame the toppers for being conformists. However, when I talked to my friends about it, something struck me as especially alarming. While we all know that much of the intake of our top business schools comes from the top engineering colleges, what was striking was that this year's IIT topper said he wanted to go to an IIM even before he entered an IIT.

The tragedy, unfortunately, is that it is unfair to single him out for criticism. Perhaps lots of students have the same aim of going through the IIT-IIM route. There is certainly a tremendous 'brand value' associated with this route. Going to the best institutions in the country in their respective fields is certainly a very difficult task. It is perhaps the most effective signal that a person can offer to potential employers in the labour market. I can also think of how this is the best way to humour one's ego. In an education system that is geared towards mass production (and here I am not being critical of India in specific), the fraction of students who can qualify for both these institutions is indeed very, very small. Truth be told, I would have considered it an honour to be in such elite company.

That said, what I am unable to grasp is why somebody who wants to do an MBA eventually would want to spend four years studying engineering. My experience at the IIM interviews this year has convinced me that it is easier for a non-engineer with the same aptitude (read CAT score) to clear the interviews than it is for an engineer. What sense would it then make for someone who eventually wants to go to an IIM to spend four years at an IIT?

There are two reasons that I can possible think of. Firstly, the person might intrinsically enjoy engineering as a discipline and even though he does not want to pursue a career in it, he might enjoy studying it. I am not sure how far this is the case for engineers, and hence cannot make a statement on it. Secondly, being in an IIT might expose a student to a plethora of activities that are unheard of in other institutions. For starters, the scale of cultural events at IITs is far beyond what one can even imagine at Delhi University. Being able to access such opportunities can help an individual hone one's skills and hence not only improve his career prospects, but also help him grow as an individual. Hence, even though I doubt how many students actually rationalise it in this way, it does make sense individually to follow the IIT-IIM path.

Does it make for a social optimal? Most signalling devices are pareto inefficient - they are a drain on resources that are now used to create signals, but could have instead been used for productive purposes. An IIT is an effective, but expensive signal. The kind of money spent on a single IIT student is exceptional for a country at India's level of development. Certainly, this is a case of individually sensible decisions to become socially sub-optimal. There is thus a pressing need to devise better signals that drain fewer productive resources on those whose eventual aim is to get management education.

Imperfections in Education

Here is a thought-provoking article by Manan Vyas about how complete education is a luxury:

http://www.mananvyas.com/thoughts/why-complete-education-is-a-luxury/

There is certainly no disagreement about the fact that for most of our population, complete education is indeed a luxury. The purpose of this article is to further expand on what Manan says, and also introduce certain disagreements with the referenced article.

While I have no disagreement with the advocacy of a dual education system, it must be noted that there are two more fundamental market imperfections at play here, one of which supports the broad-based education system that we currently have.

Before I deal with those those issues, a subtle clarification must be sought: I am a firm believer in the fact that education has an intrinsic value - not only does it get me a good job, but it makes me feel good about life. Of course, the article does not seem to disagree with that at any stage. It accepts this by calling complete education a luxury, in the sense that this intrinsic value of education is important but out of reach for a majority of our population. However, it must be noted that a good (in this case, education) is not a luxury forever. At some point, with rising incomes, it becomes a necessity. Hence, are we arguing that the dual education system will be progressively dismantled over time as complete education ceases to be a luxury? Why is it that Germany, a fairly rich country, would still find complete education a luxury? It is the most basic of economic phenomena - the Engel's law - which will ensure that education cannot be a luxury forever. Why then do we see this paradox?

Now returning to the two market imperfections that I referenced to earlier.

Firstly, there is the issue of imperfect capital markets. Why can't Sushil borrow to finance his children's educational expenses and then use the higher income potential to pay off this loan either himself or through his children? Of course, such loans in themselves are a luxury for most Indians. However, it is an aspect of education that I saw was not discussed in the article. Rather than provide the agent with an X (broad-based education) or Y (vocational education) choice, financial inclusion will provide him with a whole gamut of choices. This change is, of course, not going to happen any time soon, maybe not even in the next quarter of a century. Moreover, given the long gestation period of such loans, it might even be difficult or impossible to enforce such contracts. However, my point is that it is theoretically possible for Sushil to want to send his kids to school, given his low current income.

Secondly, there will be imperfections even if financial market imperfections are removed. There are benefits from a well-educated workforce that an individual agent is unable to internalise. Of the top of my head, a person who is able to explain much of how the world around him works will be happier and more motivated - hence more productive. Even as a financial analyst, it would make someone happier when he knows himself how electricity works. However, since these positive externalities are not internalised by the agent, there will always be under-investment in education. Hence, leaving the agents to make choices on their own will produce a level of education that isn't socially optimal.

Another problem that I realised while writing this response, is one of agency. If you propose that a dual education system be introduced, do note that in the presence of imperfect information regarding the aptitude of the child and uncertainty regarding the job prospects after a particular stream (since all industries go through phases of growth and stagnation), some subjective choices need to be made. Who makes these choices? In a society such as India's, these decisions will often be made by the parent. It is not certain, and not even likely, that the agent's (parents') interests coincide with those of the principal (the child). Once introduced to a particular stream at a young age, the child faces high costs of making a switch. In such a case, having a monolithic educational system till the age of 16 might not be a bad idea. I am not, in any way, saying that this WILL happen. What I am saying is that this is another aspect to be considered. 

Norms and Compliance

Very often, we find ourselves in a conflict situation - a conflict between our personal (and often, primeval) desires and social norms. By the very fact that 'norms' need to be enforced through a variety of legal rules, religious beliefs and psychological conditioning, it is obvious that breaking these norms would be the more obvious thing to do in the absence of such norms. I sometimes feel amazed at the superstructure of social norms that we have built for ourselves. To me, it is quite surely man's greatest creation. Everything else - including finance and technology (arguably two of the greatest inventions of the last century) - could not have been possible unless we got together as a society and built these norms that could sustain cooperation.

Some of the basic ideas of this short article are from a chapter in our course in Development Economics (which most of us decided to skip for the exams, though).  The idea is simple - if we as humans did not coordinate (and by coordinate I encompass things such as trust and cooperation), then even basic activities would be impossible. Take even a simple barter economy. You make handicrafts and sell it for food. What forces you to ensure that you are exchanging good quality handicrafts? Once you get the food, even if the handicrafts turn out to be of poor quality, you have already made whatever gains you needed to. However, we observe adherence to a certain quality in our society. This is caused due to the repeated nature of the interaction. If I do not supply good quality handicrafts, then very few farmers would be willing to exchange their food in the future.

Take something more private. Why should we be kind to others? Here I am not considering the 'feel good' associated with being kind. Often, the 'feel good' is a part of our psychological conditioning, and is in no way 'good' by itself. However, we would, generally speaking, still find it in our interest to be kind, because of the hope of reciprocity. If I am kind to people today, they would be kind to me tomorrow, and that would be beneficial to me. Similarly, faithfulness. If there was no stigma attached to not being faithful in relationships, then our primeval urges would take over. In this case, I do not quite see why human society would find faithfulness as a useful virtue. Probably a bit more thinking would make it obvious.

Now when you come to think of it, every type of human society, and every activity in human society, is based on such social norms. It is exactly like a repeated form game. The Nash equilibrium in any one game might be for all players to do the socially imperfect action. However, because human society is based on repeated interactions, we are able to sustain socially optimal outcomes even when there is an incentive for individual players to renege.

Take a simple example - driving. Consider that a driver has to actions - follow traffic rules and don't follow traffic rules.  If all other players are following traffic rules, then your not following traffic rules doesn't make a difference and hence it is in your interest to not follow traffic rules. In case all other players are not following traffic rules, you would be stupid to be following traffic rules. Abstracting away from the intermediate outcomes where some people follow rules and some don't, we find that it is in every player's interest to not follow traffic rules (in the language of game theory, a dominant strategy). However, the outcome where nobody follows traffic rules is socially imperfect. Hence, we have a system of rules and fines that make it optimal for every individual player to follow traffic rules. This is the only way that the social optimal can be sustained.

Think about it - where would we be if socially optimal outcomes could not be sustained? The need to make coordination optimal has made humans create such an elaborate system of norms. In one word, it is simply mind-boggling.

A natural corollary of what I have argued, and one that I do not always agree with, is religion. Religion is probably the greatest of these social norms that has survived centuries. What is religion but a means to ensure that all of us behave a certain way? Is it not religion that is the last-ditch effort to ensure that we place an intrinsic value on traits such as truthfulness, honesty etc that are otherwise only functionally important? At this stage, I would leave this argument as such and leave it to the readers to think about it.

Returning.....

‘You’re looking outside as if its Delhi you have come to visit!, papa said, as I stared through the car window. I widened my grin and continued doing what I was. But much dense was the streak of thought jumping up-and-down inside my little head!

I was finally able to figure out ‘what’ it was that had been missing, all this while, when I had been away. NO, It wasn’t some-’one’..(:p)… rather, it was ‘the feeling’. The feeling of being home, cozy in my quilt, listening to the neighborhood kids howling-and-shouting (Ben!!!) and utilising their holidays in the hope of becoming the next Sachin Tendulkar; of the aunty-next-door, gossiping with her maid every morning at exactly 8:12:32 am, and the Funday-Sunday beginning with melodies of Shammi Kapoor, Dev Anand, Madhubala, and so many more, which only my maa can guess correctly! (now u see why, eh, Ghosh? :p)

My mind keeps going back to Priyanka’s post on Christmas; and how we all want to be together, at some times of the year. Well, why am I not surprised? Coz it is these beautiful moments spent, which count at the end.

I enjoyed Goa, truly. With the serenity of the water, and enthusiasm of the beach, nothing could have made my Christmas ‘merrier’!

But at home, well, IT’S DIFFERENT !! :D

Suhani

The magic of Christmas is with us...

When I was a kid, I was never the sorts to believe in the existence of Santa Claus. I knew my parents were the Santa Clauses… but nonetheless I was always excited to find my box of chocolates under my pillow. I always looked forward to walnut cakes, puddings and turkeys (yes, we do have them here) and just the noise and the buzz and of course the zillion TV shows during the time. December was always special.

Today, I have forgotten what it’s like to have the ‘family time’ at this season. It’s either with friends in some club or huddled in the room, under the blanket with lots of hot, crispy KFC chicken. I miss sitting idly with Mum in front of the numerous ‘Award Givings’ on the TV… it meant nothing but I just miss the sheer joy of being so secured.

                                                          

These times have always got me security, warmth and love which is very rare once you get out of home in the big, bad World to make something out of yourself.

This festive season I would be away from home… probably with friends, partying some where, as we popularly call it, but what I have realized is as much as we are in denial, home would always be a secured place for us. We can never replicate it with anything else. In all my fifteen years away from home, I have realized that what we mean to our parents, we can never mean the same to anybody else.

This Christmas and New Year, I urge you guys to say a silent prayer with all your heart to all the people whom we take for granted and to the Almighty for giving us what many are deprived of… the warmth and security of a home, loving parents and the knowledge that no matter what, we have a place to go back to.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Years!!!

This too shall pass!

Fellow bloggers….whatsup?????.....long time (:D)

Well, just felt like asking, no offence :p

Has been a long time since I posted, I might have forgotten how to write (:P). So, since I wanted this post to be ‘GOOD’, I thought of not experimenting, and sharing with the (not many) readers we have, a story my grand-mum told me when I was 7 or 8 yrs old.

“A king once, sat in discussion with his advisors.

He said to them, “When I’m happy, I fear a mishap might sadden me the very next moment. And when I’m upset, I wonder when next would I be glad. This mind-block allows me, neither to enjoy the former moments, nor to look for a solution to my problem in the latter. Can u think of a way to sort this out?”

His advisors pondered on the query, but could not come up with an immediate answer. The question, they admitted, wasn’t an easy one!
One of them came back to the king, the following day, and gifted him a ring. He said, ‘My Lord, I think this will work!’

The king looked down at the ring.
 Its stone read ‘THIS TOO SHALL PASS’
He smiled. Not further an explanation did he need.”

I was confused when grand-mum finished, probably being too young to comprehend with the depth of what she was trying to explain to me. Sensing this, she followed it up by elucidating. She said.”Always remember, everything in life is a phase—fame, glory, sorrow, power, everything—they all begin, and as time passes, come to an end. Hence, never hold on to the idea, that life is static.”

Today when I think about it, this is how it comes to me- The phrase coined implies that knowing our hardships ‘shall pass’ gives us hope; knowing the happiest of times ‘shall pass’ helps us cherish them; and knowing that even the best of riches shall part someday, helps us to live life fully.

Simple and straight -It’s the day, and the dark, and then the day again! So, keep smiling (:D)

-Suhani :)

Notes EHI Occupational Structure - Eureka

Eureka123 is a business plan by students of economics, St. Stephen's College. Our aim is to reach out to the college students through quality notes and educational videos in their respective subjects. If you want to contribute or pour help, do write to eureka123.ssc@gmail.com. Thanks! Happy studying!

Occupational Structure - j. krishnamurty EHI

How important is a 'Brand-Name'?

Somebody asked my father the other day, “aur Dr.Sahib, bachche toh bade ho gaye honge? Kya karti hai bitiya aapki?” (Dr, Sahib, your kids must’ve grown by now, isn’t it? What does your daughter do?)…to which my father said, “She is pursuing Eco hons from St. Stephen’s College”.

And YES!!!!! Most of you can guess what followed; a lengthy discussion about how good the college is, how the Delhi University cut-offs are rising to the impossible-mark with each passing year, and how difficult it is to get to the so-called ‘worthy’ colleges these days. Not that I don’t agree with them, but really: is a brand name that important? Just because someone did not do well in some 3-hour examination, and ended up in one of the ‘not-so-well-known’ colleges, does that reduce what s/he is worth? Just because someone works at a company you haven’t heard about, does that make him/her less accomplished?

When one hears about ‘Steve Jobs’, there is only one word which comes to mind: ‘APPLE’…he was a high school dropout, but who cares? All we know today is that, he is one of the most successful businessmen in the world. 

‘Shiela Ki Jawani!! ’…reminds me (and I’m pretty sure you too!) of Katrina Kaif, recently called the ‘Barbie Doll’ of The Hindi Film Industry. I haven’t heard of anyone asking, “How much did she score in her Class XII boards?”

What I’m trying to basically prove here is that one doesn’t care, because it simply doesn’t matter. I’m nowhere trying to say that doing away with ‘Brand Names’ and the value the common man, including you and me, associates with them is the way to go! All I’m saying is, it isn’t the world which decides your worth, it is you :) Just like wearing a brand name pair of shoes will not give someone style, going to a brand name institution of higher learning will not, by itself, give someone a good education or make them successful.

You might not be big, at present, but it’s your life, and with work and will, nobody can stop you from ‘making-it-large’.

I concur. Do you?

-Suhani

THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS

I like Nehru. Wasn’t non- alignment an awesome strategy in the wake of cold war? Reading a bit on game theory, I realized that in any two party game, the ‘third way’ could be better for any third party as opposed to aligning with one of the two in which case one invites the wrath of the rival camp.


India’s policy wasn’t that of neutrality or isolation in the sense that we never ran out of the battle ground feigning to know nothing about the cold war politics. We were active and we were strategically important and we were not aligned. Both US and USSR as a result were involved in novel enticement tactics – there were entreats and connivances. We got food from the US in our ‘ship-to-mouth’ woes in the 60s while we countered the China-Pakistan-US axis in 1972 by signing the Treaty of Friendship with the USSR for 20 years.


Over the years I have learnt that middle ground is mostly better than extremes – it gets you sympathy from both ends while you end up making no enemies.


The other day, listening to an IDG talk by Mr. Vinod Raina, I discovered a similar viewpoint in this sense in another field. Think of India’s Constitution. It mentions the word ‘socialism’ in the Preamble as a reflection of the spirit of the Constitution while at the same time Article 19 (a) gives every citizen the right to engage in any trade, profession or occupation reflecting highly capitalist goals. Isn’t it a beautiful balance? Of course, I admit that these double views can end up creating more confusion that mere allusion – but it certainly is a good enticing tactic to keep all the groups in a diverse country happy and content!


Lately I have been highly impressed by the views of Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen on markets and equity. The logic goes thus – there are two types of common errors any human being or system commits –

1. The error of omission i.e. not doing something one was supposed to do
2. The error of commission i.e. doing something one was not supposed to do

I find the errors similar to the statistical errors in hypothesis testing. You may end up rejecting a right conclusion (Type 1 error) or you may end up accepting a wrong one (Type 2 error).


These errors pop up everywhere in our lives and around. So as the saying goes, ‘to err is human’ – it follows that all systems made my humans must also be prone to errors. Capitalism and socialism are man-made systems, afterall. While capitalism traces its roots to Hobbes’ social contract theory and views on individualism and liberalism, socialism evolved as Karl Marx’s solution to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie under capitalism.


Dreze and Sen believe that neither extreme is flawless and both capitalism and socialism come with their own kitty of errors of omission and commission, which can sometimes be big bloomers than minute errors. While markets may fail to discourage parallel evolution of black markets, government may fail on grounds on distributing commensurate rewards to the most hard-working people.


So the word of the day is CO-OPERATION – in other words an amalgam of both the systems. Let the market take care of efficiency at the micro level while the visible hand of planning sees to the long term macro goals of the economy.

India, as always, went for a mixed economic model – enjoying the best of both worlds.


So the most important question is, why am I talking of this ‘both world theory’ at this time of the year?

The answer is SUS ELECTIONS at college. Its probably the best time of the year for students especially fuchaas when their views are heard and an uncanny respect for every single student of the college (excluding the opposition camp) evolves out of thin air. Suddenly our inboxes are full of election promises and suggestions. There is lively canvassing on the campus – its more like a ‘power mela’ where both camps are multicultural and claim the other to be a bigoted and regionalized one!

It seems like a battle between the ‘most hardworking candidate of the SUS last year’ vs. the ‘most hardworking candidate of the SUS last year’!!!

While I sit back deleting the bulk ‘vote for bla bla bla’ messages from my overflooded inbox, I wait for the open court tomorrow. I sincerely hope I am able to find some substantial difference between the agendas of both the camps so it becomes easy to decide – the most difficult decision to make is ‘choosing between equals’ or ‘perceived equals’!

In this scenario, what does the ‘best-of-both-worlds’ theory teach me, then?
Getting my demands fulfilled and my personal utility maximized from the either of the two winning!

...and btw yeah, you guessed it right…I plan to walk to the open court tomorrow wearing a white shirt and a black pant! :P