Thank you for all the fish!

There is an old saying: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach the man to fish and you feed him for the rest of his life.

Evidently, the present day executives and members in the current Indian parliament with an average age hovering around 60 do not believe in the wisdom of the old. The irony is telling!

However, I don’t write this to highlight the ageing executive of a young country like India, or even remotely allude, accidentally or otherwise, to the possibility of some of them being senile. Any such inference, should you bravely venture to explore, is entirely at your own risk. I shall offer no support – moral, legal, ethical, logical, or mathematical – to such a misadventure. I may be spared for my new found selfish zeal to protect my life, family, property, and career in the wake of the new IT act introduced by the present incumbent in the Government.

My intention to write this piece is only to highlight the apparent lack of scientific rigour in the process of policy formation in the country. I don’t mean any disrespect to renowned economists like Dr. Sen or Dr. Bhagwati, but I do demand in the spirit of scientific inquiry, and to ensure that every rupee that I pay to the Government of India is utilized with utmost discretion and efficiency, that there be a due diligence done before the government starts investing money in any scheme.

What’s that got to do with fish, you ask? A lot, in fact. Well, mostly indirectly.

Let’s take the example of a person who does not fish. There could be several reasons for this and I shall illustrate a few below:

1.       There is no fishing cord/net

2.       There is no pond/water source

3.       There is no fish in the pond

4.       The person does not know how to use the cord/net to fish

5.       The person cannot use or doesn't have access to the cord, or pond

6.       The person does not have the ability to fish

7.       The person does not have money to buy cord/net

8.       The person is too lazy to fish

9.       The person is a vegetarian (well, what can you do!)

Imagine if I were to take up a research on “How to feed fish to everyone?”

Imagine now that at the end of my research, I submit a report that has a single line solution to this problem – buy fish for everyone and then sell it to everyone at Rs. 1. But in order to prevent people from over-consuming fish at what I deem to be a cheap price, I also put a restriction on the number of fish available to each person to 4 fish per day.

I guarantee you that in any self-respecting institute, and that includes the likes of IIPM too, such a research will be tossed out of the window, fed to a shredder, or be donated to a friendly neighbourhood vegetable vendor to wrap his vegetables in.

The reason is simple. The solution is absurd. The objective was never to personally feed fish to people, but to enable them to fish to sufficiently fulfill their nutritional requirements. Moreover, the choice of the price – a rupee per fish, in this case – and the quantity – 4 fish per person per day – is absolutely arbitrary. What if someone has a higher or lower nutrient requirement or cannot afford fish even at the price of a rupee? Does our solution achieve the intended objective?

Here is a table that illustrates the different scenarios and their possible solutions. There is an additional column with a solution that the current incumbent may have proposed in the fish universe.

Factors whose absence may adversely affect fishing									Possible solution	Incumbent’s solution
Money	Tools (cord/ net)	Natural resource (ponds / water)	Produce (fish)	Skill	Physical Ability	Access	Desire	Prefer-ence
X									Easy finance/ loans/ employ-ment	4 fish per person per day
	X								Tool subsidies/ Tool rentals/ Tools sale/ distr. channels	4 fish per person per day
		X							Altern-ate sources / artificial ponds	4 fish per person per day
			X						Cultivation techniques / pisci-culture technologies / conservation	4 fish per person per day
				X					Training / educat-ion	4 fish per person per day
					X				Machine aided-fishing / employ-ment in auxiliary services	4 fish per person per day
						X			Better proprietary laws / better infrastructure / pond-ownership reforms	4 fish per person per day
							X		Provide incenti-ves to fish / social awareness	4 fish per person per day
								X	Awareness on benefits of fish	4 fish per person per day

Absence of multiple factors would require several combinations of solutions to be devised.

Ideally, a study on these lines would necessarily require a study of a large sample of the population to understand why some people fish and why some people don’t; draw up different factors and variables and their influence on people's fish eating behaviour; enumerate and rank solutions based on their effectiveness in improving fish consumption based after due market studies and pilot projects. The final recommendation would be implement a portfolio of solutions for maximum impact with a provision to monitor, review, and revise periodically.

This brings us to the reality of our world. The Food Security Bill (FSB) was passed in great hurry by the parliament in the current session of Lok Sabha, and there has been a lot of noise in favour or against the bill. But nowhere have I noticed the government presenting any study that outlines the factors for starvation or under-nourishment of people in the country. Nowhere were the causes outlined, nor a study on how the current FSB was the best possible solution to alleviate those causes was presented. Heck, I don't even know what the original problem is that the current incumbent is trying to solve through FSB.

Almost everyone has referred to one’s ‘gut-feel’ to support or oppose the bill. Some have touched upon the issues of money, funds, and inefficiency of government etc. in discussion the merits of the bill, but where is the study of the most important variable in this entire equation – the people?

Does the government claim that FSB guarantees to alleviate starvation and under-nourishment from the country? If so, then in how many years will it fulfill this promise? Does that mean the government hopes to not continue FSB after the guarantee period is over? Where is the study on how the prices that were arrived at are the best prices? What if someone cannot afford rice at a rupee a kilo? Will the government consider offering rice free of cost then? Does the government guarantee that every poor person will benefit from this scheme? If these promises are not fulfilled, then what are the penalties for the government? Is there a scope for review of this scheme at a specified time in future?

The sheer lack of scientific rigour in the formation of this policy is horrifying. Should the executives of the Government not be subject to scrutiny and trial under criminal law if the scheme that has such an enormous social, political, and financial impact turns out to be a dud?

Need a fish, you say? Go fish yourself!

Economic systems, human behaviour, and survival

Ever since man[1] has discovered the ability to recognize his intelligence and apply it to his own advantage, there have arisen two distinct ideologies, residing at the opposing extremes of philosophical spectrum – self-interest and greater interest.

The proponents of the first kind simply state that every individual is responsible to further his own benefit and that a greater benefit accrues to the society, or to put simply, every other individual benefits as a consequence of this self-serving behavior of each individual.

The proponents of the second philosophical thought believe that individuals must always work towards the greater benefit of the society, and that individual interests are automatically best served as a consequence; an individual must work to other’s benefit and as a consequence, he himself will be benefitted since everyone else is doing the same.

The first kind of philosophy inherently puts conflict at the center of the Universe. Two individuals working towards their own benefit will eventually come to a point where they will have to fight for a common resource. In order to maximize benefits for themselves, the two individuals will necessarily have to engage in a conflict where one will prevail over the other. The one who wins gets the resource and draws the maximum benefit since the common resource is now entirely available to him. The loser, on the other hand, doesn’t get any benefit since he doesn’t have access to the said resource anymore. In a more dramatic consequence, the loser may wilt/die/disappear depending on the nature and the context in which the two individuals exist.

The second philosophy seeks to eliminate all kinds of conflict from the Universe. In their Universe, two individuals when working with a common resource, will try to use the resource for both of them, and in turn will end up with equal share of the benefit arising from the use of the said resource.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say, the said resource is a piece of bread large enough to sufficiently satisfy the hunger of a full grown human being. Suppose that the two individuals in question are two full-grown human beings, say X and Y on the verge of dying from starvation in the middle of a desert.

In the first kind of Universe, one of the two, say X wins the in the conflict and has access to the entire piece of bread. X satisfies his hunger, goes home happily and tells stories of his valour to his grandchildren. Y, on the other hand, gets no bread and dies.

In the second universe, X and Y divide the piece of bread among them, satisfy their hunger only partially, and move on with their lives.

While the second Universe appeals to the more humane and considerate emotions, the feasibility of the solution changes as soon as one tweaks the context to include one condition: the person needs the full loaf of bread in order to survive and cross the desert.

In light of this tweak, it turns out that the first approach is more beneficial to the society since at least one member of the species survives. In the second case, both die because none of them receives sufficient amount of bread to survive.

It becomes important to understand the primary factor at play that determines the superiority of one approach over another – likelihood of life (or number of survivors/population). Assuming that a life saved will perhaps go on to do or create something meaningful for the society in future, this seems to be a sufficient metric for us to measure the efficacy of these approaches.

Let us evaluate the two approaches in the two scenarios discussed earlier on the factor mentioned above.

Scenario 1

Approach 1: self to society	Approach 2: society to self
1/2	2/2

Scenario 2

Approach 1: self to society	Approach 2: society to self
1/2	0/2

Assuming that scenario 1 is as likely to occur as scenario 2 in the long term scheme of everything in this Universe, we see that both approaches are exactly equal (= 1/2 or 50% survival).

This of course can be viewed as gross simplification of the two philosophies. The proponents of the first kind will point us to the fact that in our assumptions we considered only two fully grown men when the world is made up of human beings not identical to each other in all respects. Therefore, the emergent needs of the two persons may not be the same and one may have a higher claim on the common resource than the other. While on the other hand, the advocates of the second philosophy adroitly direct us to consider the cost or loss that is incurred due to the conflict in the first approach. This loss, it is claimed, may undermine any benefit that may be accrued to the surviving individual.

What might be a better way to deal with such scenarios, and if there is one, what is it? Which economic model may result in greater benefit to be accrued to the society?

The answer may lie in a hybrid approach. In this approach conflict is considered as an undesirable inevitability. Undesirable because the losses arising due to the conflict are severe for everyone and therefore should be avoided as much as possible, for as long as possible. Inevitable because there will come a point where common resources will become so scarce that sharing them will no longer benefit anyone at which point a conflict will be needed.

In this approach, in scenario 1, the two individuals in our example would have equally shared the piece of bread, not out of any great love for each other, but only to avoid the unpleasantness of a conflict, however minor. However, in scenario 2, they would have undertaken a conflict because not undertaking it would not have increased their chances of survival. The result is better chances of survival, 3/4 (or 75%).

Scenario 1	2/2
Scenario 2	1/2

How does this translate to an economic system then?

Theoretically, it may be argued that the first kind of philosophy, the one from self to society, is a capitalist model of economy while the second kind is a communist model of economy.

The hybrid approach follows an “enlightened” model of capitalism where the capitalist invests in ensuring that its activities do not hurt the interests of other groups of humans (or stakeholders) – the employees, the society, the state etc. not out of any great love for them but purely from an intention to avoid a showdown with them. This carries on until a point where resources become so scarce that survival of the whole organization is at stake. Then, the capitalist has no choice but to enter into a conflict with the other stakeholders. This may either result in the organization shutting down or emerging as a stronger company for the future at the cost of the society, the environment, or some other resource.

It may be noted that by trying everything in its capacity to avoid a conflict with any of the other stakeholders, the company ensures that the need for conflict, if ever it arises, remains a rare event.

ps: In subsequent discussion with some people, I have realized that there is a possibility of one of the parties taking the advantage of another party by a series of little incursions and emphasizing the need for avoidance of conflict every time the latter complained of escalating the conflict. By doing this repeatedly, there is a possibility of the former weakening the latter to the extent where the former can completely eliminate the latter by undertaking a full-scale conflict. The proposed model of "enlightened capitalism" is insufficient to handle this case and needs reworking.

---

[1] In the interest of simplicity and a desire to avoid the inconvenience of writing him/her, and to avoid reducing the readability of the content, I will stick to the convention of addressing males and females and every other gender in between with a common, all-encompassing noun – man and refer to this entity as him and so on and so forth.

Why do Indians crave for the Oscars?

No. This blog does not make any judgment on people’s desire for international recognition. Neither does it underplay the importance of the Academy awards, or the superiority of national recognition.

This is an attempt to understand the psychology behind the crave for international recognition and whether it is rooted in some deep-seated malaise within our society that we seem incapable of noticing, leave alone addressing.

The craving for recognition by our filmmakers does not limit itself to just the Oscars, it extends to any recognition from any international film festival, howsoever obscure. The recognition is then displayed as a stamp of quality of work done by these filmmakers.

And this is where the truth hides!

Why is it that an award received in one of the innumerable award shows in India does not carry as much worth as one award at any international level?

The problem may reside in the brutal compromise of merit that pervades across all these award shows in India. There simply isn’t a mechanism to recognize, appreciate, and reward meritorious work. The award functions have become a ceremony of fraternal back-patting.

There are a few factors for this and I am going to list some of them here:

1. Most of these award shows are sponsored by a corporate house which has interests in the industry itself
2. The award shows simply fail to include non-popular work known more commonly as ‘art movies’ in their consideration set
3. The focus is more on the dance and song routines to build TRP ratings than on the “awards”
4. Popular voting: where every tom, dick, and harry, mostly ignorant of the art of filmmaking gets to have a say in the awards 

There are probably a lot more reasons, but the above factors, I believe, play a far more important and detrimental role in the merit of the awards. When merit is compromised, the charm of the awards for the filmmakers disappears as quickly.

The Oscars, or other international awards, unlike the indigenous ones, place a high importance on the merit of the art. Of course, some of the decisions of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences have been disputed in the past, but none of them have been extrapolated to doubt the credibility of the process itself in awarding merit. The nominees’ work is so exceptional that picking one over the other becomes a matter of academic opinion. Indeed, to be nominated itself is considered a remarkable achievement by the artists in Hollywood.

Merit in India, in the present circumstances, is a far-fetched idea because of its socio-political circumstances. Not just in movie awards, but the vehement decimation of merit has spread across education, jobs, promotions, arts, literature, music and academia also.

Various reasons to subdue merit are professed and are followed relentlessly – caste, language, gender, pedigree, dynasty, affluence, class etc.

It is no wonder that Indians in general do not trust the systems in place within the country to recognize talent. We constantly look outside for an external confirmation of our abilities as we have come to believe that external systems place far more worth on merit than the considerations listed above.

If we need to start making any progress, we would need to create a generation that is energetic, enthusiastic, and confident; we need a generation that believes in its abilities to make a mark and take India to greater heights; we need a system where the brilliant shine and where mediocrity is abhorred; we need a country that values merit over everything else.

The question is – do we have the courage?