In this moment of all round euphoria,
Hope lies in a honey-toned world-view,
A time for mass jingoistic hysteria,
All your aspirations are going to be true.
Do not question the carefully camouflaged,
Be pragmatic and erase the unpleasant past,
Or else you will be sorrowfully glued,
Missing the development that will come fast.
The other is dissent creating discordant,
An act that lacks sense or substance,
Trash it as an incoherent cynical rant,
Preach them vows of patience for penance.
Logic is given the go by, reason has no space,
A tall order there for pluralism to resurface.
(This poem or poetry is written in the form of a sonnet. It is a reflection following the counter-reactions to concerns raised following the results of the 2014 elections in India while its implication is general and goes beyond the elections. The poem espouses plural concerns and in that sense is philosophical and perhaps both Bayesian and Rawlsian.)
The renowned philosopher J. Krishnamurti in his Freedom from the Known (Chapter 8) said “Freedom is a state of mind - not freedom from something, but a sense of freedom...” From this perspective, an individual’s attachment to either physical or mental aspects would be a hindrance to freedom, or, rather, to a sense of freedom.
From a different perspective, Amartya Sen would suggest that doing away with hindrances that would improve physical or mental well-being will improve freedom. This is more in line with freedom from something and it is in this sense that poverty is an ‘unfreedom’. We will focus on this latter interpretation and try to understand the notion of poverty, as a state of mind with the help of two stories.
One story is about a landlord who was envious of his peasant neighbour, as the latter was content and never agreed to work for the landlord. One day the landlord left a bag of 99 gold coins at the peasant's house and when asked also denied that the bag was his. As there were no other neighbours, the peasant was happy to have got this bag of gold coins. But, this happiness was short-lived. Counting the coins led to a search for the 100th coin that was not found and the peasant took a decision to work hard and save so that she could add that 100th coin to the bag. She was now willing to work for the landlord and sacrifice small pleasures of life like spending time with her family. This change of lifestyle in pursuit of that elusive 100th gold coin also did away with her mental state of being content.
The other story is about a ruler who had difficulty in managing the affairs of the state. This left her worried and with many a sleepless nights. A well-meaning adviser suggested that if she were to stay for one day in the house of a person who had no worries then her worries would vanish. A search was initiated and with much difficulty a person who did not have any worries was identified, but to the ruler’s dismay, the person did not have a house. Of course, the person to take another term from Sen, did suffer from ‘physical condition neglect’, but this did not affect the person’s mental state of being worry-free. Over the years, the ruler learnt to be calm and as a consequence gave more time to improve the well-being of the people, which among other things included shelter for the homeless.
It is possible that a person who is homeless or jobless or sick or suffers from some other deprivations is content and happy about her situation. This, according to Sen, is an adaptive preference. However, this will not prevent the homeless person from valuing, and hence, desiring the possession of a house. In fact, a reliance on the mental state alone would lead to this ‘valuational neglect’ along with the earlier mentioned ‘physical condition neglect’. A welfare-state should address these neglects.
An aspect that is increasingly accepted in a discourse on poverty is that it is multidimensional. The multidimensional poverty index (MPI) computed for India by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) indicates that between 1999 and 2006 the headcount ratio declined from 56.8 per cent to 48.5 per cent. Though the reductions are impressive, yet the levels remain higher than the neighbouring countries of Bangladesh and Nepal that have relatively lower per capita incomes. The Global Hunger Index 2013 ranks India at 66 among 78 countries and considers the situation to be alarming. An estimate for 2010 used in the Human Development Report 2013 shows that less than two-fifths of the 25+ population have completed their secondary education. Thus, the material/physical condition neglects in India are serious.
One of the livelihood interventions in India, to address some of the deprivations, has been through the formation of female self-help groups. At the national level, this is being spearheaded by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) through Aajeevika - livelihood mission. Similar state level interventions exist in Andhra Pradesh (Indira Kranti Patham), Bihar (Jeevika) and Kerala (Kudumbashree) among others. There have also been initiatives by non-governmental organizations in different parts of the country. In fact, in August 2013, MoRD entered into an agreement with PRADAN (Professional Assistance for Development Action) that already works in more than 40 of the poorest districts largely located in the Naxal affected areas of the country to facilitate this. A recent impact evaluation of PRADAN that this author was part of indicates that their livelihood intervention enables capabilities of individuals to manage themselves, organises them into producers’ companies/cooperatives and facilitates forward/backward linkages. For instance, they have promoted the tasar silk product now branded as Eco Tasar that is being sold in Fab India and other outlets.
To sum up, being content, worry-free, and happy are essential aspects of mental well-being, but these will not help us identify the poor. It is the civic, economic and other deprivations (being without food or home or job or health care or social dignity or rights among others) that should be the basis for identifying the poor. Organizing the poor and enabling their capabilities, which could include their mental strength and self-confidence, should be important aspects of implementation, but only after the poor are identified and the interventions focus on their deprivations. We end by referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman – “whenever in doubt think of the poorest person and you will find your doubts melt away.”
I have already discussed about the elections under a veil. Now, let me open the veil a bit and discuss the ABC of Indian Elections 2014. A is for AAP (Aam Aadmi Party), B is for BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) and C is for the Congress or INC (Indian National Congress).
The Congress has a national following because it is identified with the country's independence movement. It is this identity that made the Congress to be the ruling party for about 50 year's in the nation's 67 years democracy. The Congress party of yore was thought to represent all kinds of views - the left, the right, the centre, the left of centre. the right of centre and so on and so forth. Over the years, the party's leadership got identified with a single family - the Nehru-Gandhi family (they have no relationship with Mahatma Gandhi) and its current President and Vice-President are Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi respectively. They have also been the leading party of an alliance that has been ruling for the last ten years that was marred with corruption. In the current election the Congress faces serious anti-incumbency on account of corruption and dynastic politics.
Taking advantage of this, the BJP and its allies have made a head start. They have announced Narendra Modi to be their Prime Ministerial candidate. This itself charged the adrenalin of many extreme right wing party cadre and supporters while for some others it brought back the memories of divide and misrule aligned with one of the worst communal violence of India that rocked Gujarat in 2002 only a few months after he was sworn in as its Chief Minister. Today, after being in charge of the state for more than 12 years, he is being championed as a poster boy of development whose report card by Arvind Panagariya drives the punters with one feet in the share-bazaar gong-ho, but independent analysis by Maitreesh Ghatak and Sanchari Roy show that the claims of development do not add up.
The BJP is not leaving any stones unturned and has set up pre-poll alliances, taken back into its fold people who were recently distanced on account of corruption and given tickets to candidates who are turncoats from the Congress and other parties. Thereby, making it obvious that it is NOT a party with a difference. What is more, BJP's campaigning has made use of Modi's persona to such an extent that many supporters are not keen to know who the party's candidate is from their constituency. This should be an important case study in marketing, but then the basis of representative democracy is made to stand on its head.
To bolster the case for representative democracy, to be a party with a difference, to question dynastic politics and to rake up the case for corruption is a recent entrant in India's democratic polity, the AAP. For many, this party is identified with another poster boy - Arvind Kejriwal who was the Chief Minister of Delhi for 49 days as a minority government. His sudden resignation from this has become a scoring point for the other parties and a sore point that its candidates have to answer the electorate. But then those interested in these answers should keep a watch on Varanasi where Kejriwal has pitted himself against Modi and it is dubbed as the mother of all battles for elections 2014.
While many opinion polls have dismissed AAP in the current elections, my lay guestimate is that they could reach at least 10 to 15 per cent of the popular vote share. Many of my friends and colleagues with whom I discuss may not agree, but let me explain the reasons that I have.
First, AAP is beyond Arvind Kejriwal. It is a conglomerate of views. There are people who are to the left, some other with views to the right and many others that are spread between the two. While this may look like cacophony to someone at one end of the spectrum but then this is what democratic polity is all about - reasonable pluralism. It gives space to deliberations for a wide spectrum of views. It is like the Congress of yore. Different political entities, including the BJP to a very limited extent, tried to take this space that Congress lost long back, but they have not been successful. This space is being taken over by AAP.
Second, being open to a conglomerate of views has allowed AAP to connect to different kinds of movements that various groups have been independently spearheading - anti-nuclear, crisis in agriculture, displacement, slum housing, and tribal rights among others. This may not lead to an outright increase in votes for AAP by all these disgruntled groups, but it cannot be ignored that there is a consolidation happening.
Third, some people would be interested in a candidate's capability to address issues that matter for the constituency. Many candidates of AAP have done this - they have made attempts to directly engage with their voters and this will be an important motivation for some to vote for these candidates.
Fourth, AAP is contesting in 434 constituencies that is spread across the country. Given the limited resources (time, people and money) they have spread themselves thin and if voters would not like to waste their vote then they may cast it in favour of an winning candidate. While such an impression creation is possible, but this does not cut much ice because most of the winning candidates could get less than half the vote share (say, around 35-40 per cent) indicating that more than half the voters still may not cast their votes for the winning candidate. In short, those who have decided to vote for AAP because of the first three reasons could still vote for them and this would be spread across the country and this will add to their vote share.
Fifth, because of efforts by the Election Commission of India, the Association for Democratic Reforms and Satyamev Jayate there has been an increase in people coming out to vote in this elections. If this increase is by people who did not want to vote because they were disillusioned by the system then it is quite likely that many of these first time voters may cast their preferences in favour of AAP.
It is possible that my guestimates are on the higher side and even it it is correct then it may not transfer into seats. But, if my guestimate is correct then the other parties may better watch out for AAP in the next elections. And, yes the next election could happen very soon if this election gives us a hung parliament, which seems more likely.
To sum up, AAP seems to be a party that gives space to multiple views and also one that makes a difference. The former makes it like the Congress and the latter makes it like what BJP would have perhaps wanted to be. It is in this sense that AAP is a B team of Congress and a C team of BJP.
I have decided to come out of my blog hibernation with the General Election 2014 in India having traversed two-thirds of its path. Six phases of elections are over and another three phases are left and the results would be known to us in another 20 days time by 16 May 2014.
The immediate reason for my writing is my being at the International Conference on Global Justice and the Global South where I presented a paper on "A Possible Defence of Rawls" where one of the points was to show that Rawls' original position under a veil of ignorance would give the same outcome as that of the Smithian impartial spectator that Amartya Sen invokes. To explain this, I used an old example that I have been discussing in a related context.
There are three candidates contesting to represent the citizens of a democratic polity. The citizens have to elect one person to represent them. Whom should each citizen elect. The details of the three candidates is as follows.
X has moved up the political ladder, is with experience and seems to have the support base among some important sections.
Y belongs to a family that has sacrificed for the upkeep of democratic values and institutions in the country and has been groomed to be a leader.
Z works for the people sincerely and makes genuine efforts to be inclusive and can be identified with an ordinary citizen.
Both the thought experiments take out the personal slant or vested interest associated with it and the conclusion with both the thought experiments will be the same. The three candidates in the above example have an uncanny resemblance to some candidates in the ongoing elections.
X may be identified with the Prime Ministerial candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its alliances. Y seems to resemble a prominent leader from a prominent family of the Indian National Congress (INC). Z could be identified with the leader from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) who was the Chief Minister of Delhi for 49 days. These resemblances, if any, are coincidental as I have been discussing this example in my classes and lectures for at least the last five years and much before AAP was formed or BJP declared its Prime Ministerial candidate. It is true that dynastic politics had already taken roots in India by then, but then, it is not limited to the INC alone.
While discussing with people over the years there are many who have tried to go under a veil or be impartial and they invariably come out with arguments in support of Z. But, now, it is election time and with the blitzkrieg marketing paraphernalia that some parties have at their disposal it is difficult for people to be under a veil or be impartial. It is this that may not augur well for a democracy.
Why should coming out of a veil be a problem in a democracy where citizens ought to vote for themselves. True, citizens should come out of their veil when it comes to information - their decision ought to be an informed choice and being under a veil of ignorance does not prevent that. The veil of ignorance is about caste, class, religion and other such identities that could be detrimental for a democratic polity.
I must say that I have had long discussions on the current elections with many and while most of them think that I am a member of a particular party, I must make it clear that I am not. It is, however, quite possible that my thoughts, arrived at independently under a Rawlsian veil or Smithian impartiality or Gandhiji's Talisman, would be closer to one particular party over the others.
The Human Development Index (HDI), since its inception in 1990, has come up with an indicator for each country that aggregates the three dimensions of health (representing how long and fulfilled a life one lives), literacy (representing knowledge) and income (as a proxy for standard of living) into a single dimension. This was an important departure from income-based measures that focused on a single dimension. Before aggregating across dimensions, each indicator was normalized and took values between zero and unity.[1]
Prior to 2010, the approach followed to aggregate was a simple averaging across dimensions. A problem with this method was that a deficit in one dimension will perfectly substitute an equal attainment in another dimension. Income remaining same, this means that a country where both health and education attainments have the same value (say, 0.4 each) will have the same HDI as another country where health is 0.2 and education is 0.6 (a situation not quite uncommon in some of the Sub-Saharan countries reeling under a HIV/AIDS epidemic a few years ago).[2]
In 2010, to address perfect substitutability across dimensions, the calculation of HDI was aggregated by the geometric mean. Usage of the geometric mean also meant that the ordinal ranking across countries would not change if the maximum used for normalizing changed therefore the pegging of a maximum to a goalpost was done away with. Note that this was an advantage of the method, but not a requirement to begin with, definitely not when millennium development goals that can influence the various outcomes that are of relevance in the measure of HDI are themselves pegged to a goalpost.
We propose another alternative method of aggregation by taking the additive inverse of the distance from the ideal. This method also addresses the perfect substitutability across dimensions. In addition, this proposed method satisfies two other conditions. One is that the emphasis across dimensions should be based on their proportionate shortfall from the ideal (note that this ideal is a goalpost and not be understood as a transcendental ideal) or is shortfall sensitive. The other is that the same gap should be considered worse-off at higher levels of attainment. Or, simply put the gaps should decrease as attainment increases.
We impose a set of intuitive properties as axioms. They are as follows.
Monotonicity (M): An increase/decrease in the value of any of the three indicators, value of other two indicators remaining constant, will lead to an increase/decrease in the value of HDI.
Anonymity (A): If there are two situations where the values of the indicators get interchanged then they will give the same HDI value. For instance, if in one situation health is 0.4 and education is 0.6 while in another situation heath is 0.6 and education is 0.4 then both these will give the same HDI value if income remains same. This is a simple symmetry condition and not to be considered as subsitutability.
Normalization (N): If all the three indicators have zero value then the HDI value should be zero while if all the indicators have unity value then the HDI value should be unity. The extremes representing no development and full development, respectively.
Uniformity (U): For a given average attainment, a greater deviation should give a lower HDI value. This is in consonance with uniform development across dimensions, which are considered intrinsic.
Shortfall sensitivity (S): The emphasis for future progress across dimensions should be at least in proportion to the shortfall from the ideal. This means that if education is 0.7 and health is 0.1 (their shortfalls being 0.3 and 0.9) then health should get at least three times the emphasis that is given to education in our future enhancement of capabilities.
Hiatus sensitivity to level (H): The same gap across dimensions at a higher level of attainment should be considered worse-off. Suppose at an average value across dimensions of 0.5 we have education at 0.6 and health at 0.4 and when this average value across dimensions increases to 0.7 then we have education at 0.8 and health at 0.6 then the gap remains same. It has not narrowed down with an increase in attainment and we consider this as worse-off. A corollary in a single dimension will be like this. Consider gender differential in literacy attainment to be 10 percentage points when average literacy rate is 50 per cent. Now, the gender differential remains the same even when literacy rate increases to 80 per cent. Thus, an increase in literacy attainment did not narrow down the differential and we consider this as worse-off.
It so turns out the linear averaging method of aggregation satisfies the first three axioms (or MAN axioms), the geometric mean method of aggregation satisfies the first fours axiom (or MANU axioms, of course, montonicity fails when one of the dimension values is at zero and continues to be so while the others dimension increase) while our proposed method (the displaced ideal method) satisfies all the six axioms (or MANUSH axioms).
We also propose an α-class of measures where special cases turn out to be the linear averaging method when α=1 and our proposed displaced idea method when α=2. Further, when α≥2 then these class of measures satisfy the MANUSH axioms.
Our proposed class of measures can be used in different contexts. It can also consider the dimensions as subgroups. Under such an interpretation, the shortfall sensitivity axiom and the related discussions gives two extremes. One is the leximin ordering (like the Rawlsian scenario) where entire emphasis should be given to the neglected subgroup and then equal emphasis needs to be given after they are equal. The other extreme is to give the entire increment to the better off and leave the worse-off subgroup at their subsistence level till the better off group reaches its maximum and after that efforts can be put to increase the capabilities of the worse-off group. The problem with the latter suggestion is that the better-off group will never reach its maximum so the worse-off will continue to be at its subsistence level. In popular understanding, the two extremes may be referred to as ‘left’ and ‘right’,[3] respectively. To address these extreme positions, many proponents have suggested scale invariance or translation invariance as possible reconciliatory approaches. However, these options would still keep convergence across subgroups at bay. Hence, a proportionate to shortfall approach should be considered as an intermediary position. Of course, we are aware that implementation at the ground level might be different from this measurement exercise, but nevertheless, this will facilitate our understanding.
The word MANUSH means human in many South Asian Languages such as Assamese, Bengali, Marathi and Sanskrit among others. Besides, MANUSH can be rearranged to HUMANS. Thus, we propose the axiom of MANUSH or HUMANS for a human development index.
[1] The scales used to measure available information, the normalizing of these information to indicators, the weights given to each of these indicators or their sub-components are important aspects but beyond the scope of the current exercise.
[2] HIV/AIDS denote human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
[3] Note that the Rawlsian scenario identified with the left is not an extreme scenario that takes away from one subgroup in favour of another subgroup. That kind of left extremism, analytically speaking, would be a mirror opposite of the current right. In short, the Rawlsian position is actually a middle position akin to respecting pluralism. This can be achieved through a leximin ordering or by following a proportionate to shortfall approach. These two as also all possibilities within these should be considered as possible Rawlsian approaches.
Today, I recall the story of Angulimala, a dreaded bandit who killed people and cut their fingers (anguli) and formed a garland (mala) that he wore around his neck. In the past, the society had been unkind to him by disowning him for no fault of his and as a vengeance he showed no mercy. When Buddha heard about Angulimala, he went to meet him. Angulimala, as was his wont, intended to kill the Buddha and cut his fingers, but ended up being his disciple. As a monk, Angulimala went to villages for alms, but on one occasion he was beaten up and left for dead. By this time, Angulimala had already overcome his remorse over his past misdeeds and also did not show any anger and retaliation. When asked, he said that "the people did not know what they were doing in the same way that he did not know what he did." These are acts of ignorance. I was reminded of the story because of a happening during the day (Friday, 13 September 2013).
A special court gave the verdict of death sentence to four perpetrators of a heinous gang rape that took place on 16 December 2012 at the national capital region of Delhi in India. I must confess, with whatever little knowledge of criminology I have, that the brutality and ease with which the perpetrator committed the crime suggests that at least some of them would be repeat offenders. The prosecution has failed to unravel this and the popular discourse has also missed this.
While there would be no two opinion on the crime being rarest-of-rare, but then does this mean that as a society we bring in typologies of rape and as an extension end up being immune to or legitimise certain kinds of rape. In particular, those that do not appeal to our public consciousness.
The special court and prosecution need to be appreciated for taking only nine months from the date of crime to arrive at a verdict. However, we should not loose sight that there are umpteen cases that have been languishing for years. This certainly is an area of reform that the courts should undertake.
It is also quite well-known that a large number of rapes (that are largely not reported) take place by known individuals - family members, neighbours, and colleagues among others. There are instances where a compromise is arrived at a social level when the rapist ends up marrying the survivor - what a travesty of justice. And then there is the case of marital rape, which is not acknowledged under the Indian system. We need to come up with social and legal measures to address these.
One really does not understand why an equal (rather, more than equal) perpetrator in crime can be reformed in three-years time because he was of 17 years while committing the crime while those who are 19 and 20 years cannot be reformed. Assuming that the former can be reformed, what are the steps taken to ensure that such a thing happens by the time the individual is freed.
In the euphoria, we are forgetting that as per the principles of jurisprudence, the convicts have a right to appeal in the higher courts. A right that the surviving perpetrator of terrorist attack (of Mumbai in November 2008) also had.
One should also know that in the comity of nations, India is among the few, that is against banning capital punishment. I want to desist from getting into a discussion on this because the real issues in the current context, as indicated above, are something else.
Well, I do agree that we do not have the Buddha in our midst to change the multitude of Angulimalas roaming around freely. However, as a society, it is a challenge for us to come up with systems that change these Angulimalas while not giving any preferential treatment to some of them over the others.
India's Best Dramebaaz is a reality show for 5-12 year old children that is different from many others. Unlike many other shows the children are not stressed and seem to be enjoying while learning and honing not only their acting skills but also lessons in life. The concepts are educating for adults too.
I was tempted to write this after the play depicting farmers predicament (18 May 2013, starts at 18th minute). In the act, Aditya was brilliant and the judges have already conveyed that and I cannot add to it. But, what is even more commendable is the concept and the message that was portrayed that taking ones life is not the solution. A socially relevant issue was handled very sensitively. It also has lessons for reportage. Kudos to the mentors and the judges.
Of course, the sensitivity with which issues are handled is true of many other acts such as pressure of studies on children, caring for old parents, the environment and many others while opening up our eyes to history, culture and other contemporary issues. I am not elaborating on those. The reason for speaking about a particular theme could also be because of my own related research on Maharashtra or about Agrarian Crisis in India leading to possible solutions in rainfed agriculture among others.
