Musings on Streets and Flyovers

I have now spent quite a few months back in Bangalore and it looks like I will be here for some time now. Over the years, this city has changed quite a lot and as an old-time Bangalorean (or at the very least, someone who is constantly exposed to complaints from old-time Bangaloreans), I can't help noticing these changes every time I pass through areas that I remember quite clearly from the past (damn, I sound old...I wonder what I'll be like in another twenty years). 

South Bangalore, in particular, has changed drastically - the traffic has become insanely horrendous, much of what I remember of areas like Jayanagar and Basavangudi no longer exist and there is an infestation of flyovers, underpasses and similar pieces of construction happening all over the place. The last is something that is particularly dramatic. I think planning authorities in Bangalore have become unhealthily obsessed with constructing these pieces of gargantua in every nook and cranny they can find and these pieces of concrete dot the landscape with as much frequency as roadside temples used to, once upon a time. This particular blog post tries to address this last issue. It's a collection of arguments that I have been having with myself for a long time now (in fact, something that began during my years in Mumbai) and I have tried to put them down in as concise a manner as possible. Let me begin with a criticism of these road projects. 

One of the fundamental drawbacks that I see with flyovers and underpasses (or similar constructions) is not a technological or engineering flaw but a sociological one. In order to understand this drawback, let us first begin by considering the area upon which a flyover is constructed (and often ignored later) - the city street. What exactly is the function of a city street? A normal city street isn't just a stretch of concrete that allows for the passage of vehicles from one point to another. Like any other feature of the urban landscape, it forms a fundamental component of the ecosystem around which social evolution takes place. Carefully observe any road in a city and you will be able to make out the delicate socioeconomic system that has woven itself around it.

The most visible examples of such systems can be seen in old market areas such as Mumbai's Crawford Market or Bangalore's Gandhi Bazaar. In such areas, the function of roads is no longer to smoothly facilitate the movement of vehicles but to serve as a common public area where pedestrians can obtain access to the multitude of shops and stalls that line the sides. The movement of vehicles is a secondary, perhaps even a tertiary function, no matter what is said in official records.

Market areas are not the only places where such socioeconomic structures evolve into being. Residential areas have such systems too, though they are far more subtle and much more difficult to observe. The relatively smaller streets often serve as common ground in closely bound neighbourhoods where evenings witness local children playing cricket, residents going out for walks or even simply indulging in conversation with each other. Somewhat larger streets serve as local markets, being home to shops that supply residents with daily provisions or stationery. The relationship between vehicular traffic and the local area is somewhat more amicable in these places, but increase the value of just one factor - say, the number of shops or the volume of traffic - and you will quickly witness a degradation of this amicability. Within cities, roads aren't just agents of communication; they're spaces for competition.

The biggest drawback of new transport solutions such as flyovers or underpasses is that planners or builders rarely take the above argument into account. The construction as well as the very existence of flyovers drastically distort the local socioeconomic systems and sometimes, this may result in losses that are far more immense than any loss subverted by the flyover itself. Let's consider the local economic impact, for example. What sort of effects are perpetrated, do you think, when a massive flyover is constructed on the top of the main market street in a fairly residential locality?

I personally don't even need to theorize, because an excellent example of such an event occurred a few years ago in my neighbourhood, when the city authorities decided to build an underpass to replace a prominent traffic junction (or 'circle' as it's called in Bangalore). Prior to the construction of this underpass, the circle was a prominent landmark in the locality and was home to a string of shops selling various articles as well as a sizeable number of small restaurants. These commercial establishments were fairly prominent, easy to spot and relatively easy to access. However, the construction of the underpass changed all that. It resulted in a drastic widening of the main road as well as its division into four lanes - two wide lanes that simply went below a bridge and two, extremely narrow lanes at the sides, which served as connectors to the intersecting road. As a result, a majority of the traffic which was, effectively "passing through" was diverted to the wider lanes while a smaller segment filtered through to the narrower lanes in order to access the intersection. 

Courtesy: The Hindu

Now, I haven't conducted a formal study of this case, so I may be completely wrong on my following point. However, simple logic coupled with regular observation told me two things. First, the percentage of commuters who could see these shops and restaurants from the road was effectively cut down to that segment which accessed the narrower side lanes. This naturally means a loss of brand visibility for these establishments. Second, access to these shops from the road was severely reduced. The road-widening brought about by the construction of  the underpass also damaged the footpaths and discouraged a large number of pedestrians from walking on that street (in fact, this is a common phenomenon - how often does one see pedestrians trying to navigate their way around flyovers or underpasses?). Additionally, the narrow width of these lanes also eliminated parking space and induced vehicles to move through as quickly as possible, in order to avoid getting stuck in  potential jams. So, based on these two points, I may be able to claim that the construction of the underpass must have resulted in some fairly large losses for local businesses.

I am pretty sure these arguments can be applied to almost every major place affected by the construction of these structures. As one of my economics professors was fond of saying "flyovers literally fly over everything", conveniently ignoring the often drastic distortions caused to the local economic ecosystems by their very existence. Along with this, factor in the damage caused to the physical environment (in Bangalore, this is usually most visible through tree felling), the long gestation period before these things become operational and the torment that local residents go through during this period and one begins to wonder whether such things are really worth the effort. 

Are they worth all the drawbacks? It's impossible to make a universal judgement on this matter but whenever I think of things like this, I try and come up with counter-arguments to justify the opposite side. One of the first counterpoints that occurred to me (apart from the obvious "smoother traffic" argument) was that the construction of these things probably benefits local residents and businesses by increasing the value of local real estate. Businesses may find themselves sitting on more valuable land caused by demand for proximity to smooth, efficient roads and they might be able to use this value to obtain better loans to finance their ventures. Now, once again, I haven't made any formal studies but I don't accept this argument to be universal in nature. Certain road projects may indeed push up the prices of local land - a superb example of this is the inflation of real estate prices caused by the construction of metro-rail bridges, since proximity to a mass transit system usually always increases the value of land. Someone who owns such a plot of real estate can consider himself to be very lucky. 

However, this may not apply in cases such as the underpass mentioned above. Such projects don't really give any physical benefits to nearby residents or entrepreneurs - they largely cater to people who are coming from somewhere else and passing through to get to some other place. In fact, as I mentioned above, such projects may make access to road systems less efficient for local residents and as a result, there may not be much of an increase in real estate prices; not enough for businesses to effectively utilize anyway. Under such circumstances, the costs of putting up with the construction and existence of a flyover may simply not be worth it.

But there is a very strong argument in favour of flyovers and underpasses that I am perfectly willing to accept. This argument is simply one that flyovers do often smooth traffic effectively. Take, for example, the J.J. Flyover in South Mumbai, the numerous flyovers on Mumbai's Western Express Highway, the flyover constructed on New Airport Road in Bangalore that separates airport travellers from other road users, the Mekhri Circle underpass and so on. There is no denying the fact that these constructions have smoothened the flow of traffic considerably, increased the efficiency of road travel and have probably resulted in high economic benefits to numerous citizens over the course of time. Even in the case of the underpass mentioned above, traffic conditions have certainly improved. 

An additional point is that a lot of damage to local communities can be simply reduced with better design. A good architect or civil engineer will realize the adverse effects that the project may have upon neighbouring localities and modify the design of the project to reduce these effects. Thus, much of the costs of such projects can be reduced (though never eliminated), thereby increasing the overall benefit. 

The ultimate issue therefore becomes an act of comparing the benefits of such construction with the costs of the damage caused in the process. Now, first of all, this is not an easy task for the first question that needs to be asked is "Whose benefits or losses should we prioritize?" - those commuters passing through an area or those residents living in the locality? Also, calculating the benefits and costs cannot be done very easily since both are often intangible and difficult to formulate effectively. But what bothers me most is that, second of all, few are attempting to undertake this task. Difficult as the process may be, it's something that needs to be done. But we rarely see planners and city authorities indulge in this task, at least in public. Occasionally, a local politician may cause a ruckus or some resident welfare association may go on protest but there are no formal processes for assessing the views of residents or taking their prior approval before commencing a project. This is unfortunate, because in order to calculate costs and benefits effectively, the views of residents and local businesses must be taken into account.  

Ultimately though, we must see some sort of (I hate using this term but I think it's relevant) paradigm shift (aargh, aargh) in our approach towards designing and maintaining city roads. Planners need to understand that city streets aren't the same as highways and most of them never ought to become like highways. Streets serve a variety of functions in a city and many times, these might even have to take precedence over simple  traffic movement because the overall social benefits may be greater. Some roads may be better off with narrower concrete strips and wider footpaths. Some streets might be better off without certain types of traffic and others might not need traffic moving on them at all (consider Mall Road in Shimla, for example. Traffic is banned in this place and yet, it's the most vibrant street in the entire city). On the other hand, there have to be roads where the movement of traffic takes priority over everything else and the construction of projects that increase traffic efficiency is fully justified. All this requires better and smarter planning but first, we need a drastic change in perception.

---

PS - Does anyone know if there have been studies conducted on the impact of flyover construction on local economies? I am curious to see how right or how wrong I am, empirically :)

Image Courtesy: funonthenet.in  

10 Questions I've been asked (regarding my views on the Jan Lokpal Movement)

Okay, this post ought to have been published a week ago but the whole cacophony that was being generated by politicians, journalists, social activists and enthu cutlets put me off so badly that I decided not to add to the commotion. Ah well, my timing is not always impeccable but this article is something I've been wanting to do for some time now so I'm putting it up anyway.

Over the last few months, I've made my disapproval of the Jan Lokpal Movement fairly clear, both on this blog as well as on Twitter. As a consequence, several people (most of whom were nice and friendly) have questioned me about my views, wondering why I am not supporting something that seems like such a worthy cause. Well, this article lists out ten of the most common questions that I've been asked along with my answers. I am thankful to Nitin Pai and his blog The Acorn -  it was Nitin Pai's set of Frequently Asked Questions that inspired me to compile the questions that I've been asked, with appropriate answers. Do take a look.


1. Why don't you support Anna Hazare? Are you not against corruption?

This is the most common question that I've been asked - both online as well as in the real world. Let me answer this question carefully and hope that you will read this carefully too.

I don't support Anna Hazare on two grounds. First, I don't agree with several points of the Jan Lokpal Bill. I think the institution being promoted by Anna Hazare and his supporters is much too strong and risks concentrating too much power in the hands of one agency. Second, I don't agree with the manner in which this bill is being forced upon Parliament for implementation. A mob of people glaring at the government and forcing them to accept a policy is not the right way of getting things done. This will have consequences in the future. 

Having said that, I don't hold any sort of grudge against Anna Hazare or his supporters. I can understand the frustration that lies behind this movement and the need felt by some of Hazare's supporters to get something meaningful out of their government. Nevertheless, my empathy doesn't lead to sympathy. Sorry.

2. What is wrong with the Jan Lokpal Bill? Don't you think a strong institution is needed to keep corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in check?

Let me answer the second part of the question first. Conceptually, a strong institution keeping a strict watch on corruption may sound like a very good idea. But just try and imagine the daily workings of such an institution. 

Firstly, there is the problem of size. If you wish to investigate everyone in the government ranging from the lower bureaucracy all the way up to the Prime Minister, you will need a massive workforce. Where are you going to get this workforce from? Remember, these people can't be picked randomly from the ranks of civil society or judiciary. They need to demonstrate detailed knowledge of law, impeccable understanding of procedures and a good ability to detect acts of corruption (which are going to be hidden as well as possible). Do we have such talented people within our ranks? 

Even if we do, what assurance do we have that such people won't become corrupt themselves?  We can keep on creating higher and higher institutions to keep tabs on the lower ones but we have absolutely no guarantee that these institutions won't become corrupt themselves, especially if you're looking at a slightly longer time frame. 

Regarding the provisions of the bill itself, there is not much to say that doesn't come under the arguments above. For a more detailed criticism of the bill, you can check out this article by Amba Salelkar.

3. But the Jan Lokpal will be an independent agency with some degree of autonomous power. Won't that act as a deterrent against corruption?

Yes, a greater degree of independence may serve as a stronger deterrent but the important question you have to ask yourself is, at what cost? Granting autonomy or independence to a government institution is always fraught with risks and should not be done unless it is absolutely necessary. More importantly, under no circumstances should autonomy be granted to an institution that has too much power or control over a major section of the government. 

This is the major difference between granting autonomy to an institution such as the Election Commission and to an institution such as the Lokpal. The EC has a very specific function - to ensure the conduct of free and fair elections. While this is an important role, the EC is not allowed, by law, to interfere in issues of governance or policy. The Lokpal envisioned by the Anna Hazare movement however, gives a lot of power to the Lokpal to not just investigate the motives behind government policies but also prosecute those who it believes to be indulging in misuse of power. This will give the Lokpal enough potential to interfere in matters of governance and policy and there is a very real risk that the Lokpal may find itself dictating what it considers "appropriate policy" to those who are supposed to be framing the laws of this country. 

There is one more point. A greater degree of autonomy can also make it harder to remove a corrupt officer from the Lokpal. We saw a recent example of how difficult it is to remove a High Court Judge - it required the consent of a majority in both houses of Parliament. However, the judiciary is not a proactive agency and (generally) does not have the power to take up cases on its own. Can we say the same of the Lokpal? No. What would happen if a corrupt Lokpal Officer decides to torment a government official for some unworthy reason? Under such circumstances, it may become very difficult to prove a case against him and make sure he's held accountable.  

4. So are you saying we should do nothing against corruption?

Not at all! As far as the Jan Lokpal Bill is concerned, all I am asking is for people to consider alternatives seriously. A lot of media attention has already been given to Aruna Roy and the NCPRI's version of the Lokpal which I personally feel is a much better version (in concept that is - I don't think a proper draft has been made yet). Additionally, there might be other ideas for the Lokpal that may have been ignored in all this brouhaha and ought to be brought forward.

There is also another option that one can consider - forgetting the idea of the Lokpal altogether and concentrating on strengthening the existing institutions such as the Vigilance Commissions. There are risks involved in all these proposals, it's true. But here's the thing - there has been no discussion whatsoever right from the start. While the Anna Hazare camp did invite proposals for modifications and suggestions, they were very clear that the central components of the Jan Lokpal would remain unaltered. The Government, of course, has been even more hopeless. 

5. But the people have already decided in favour of the Jan Lokpal! Why bother with discussions?

Firstly, what do you mean by "the people"? Are you referring to the hordes who've turned out at places like Ram Lila Grounds and Freedom Park to give voice to Anna Hazare? All right, if that's what you mean, you may have a rough idea of how many people support the Jan Lokpal Bill. But what about the numbers who don't? How many people do you think turned out for the protests? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? Ten Lakhs?  A Crore? That's about it, I think. One crore or Ten Million is a safe enough estimate. Now, what's the population of this country? 1.2 Billion? Which means you can, at most, account for approximately 0.8% of this entire country! Even if you take only the opinions of those who are above 18 years of age (which is roughly 65% of the population or 780 Million), the percentage of people who can safely be said to support the bill equals only 1 in every 78 people.  

It is in such instances that one can appreciate what an incredible exercise our elections truly are. Even if just 35% of our adult population came out to vote, you're still taking into account the opinions of more than 270 Million people. This is why elections matter more than protests on the street. Even if you amass a 100 Million people (for comparison, the population of the entire city of Mumbai is around 17-18 million) to confidently support the Jan Lokpal Bill on the street, you would still have less than half the number of people in an election characterized by a poor turnout.

Secondly, choosing a bill without considering the alternatives is not choosing at all. It's arbitrary selection. This is why every bill proposed by the Government's Executive is discussed and debated in Parliament before being passed into law. Alternatives that may not have had a chance to be heard are brought forward. This is clearly not happening in the Jan Lokpal Movement and is one of the reasons I don't support it. 

6. The number on the streets don't matter. There are bound to be millions who support the Jan Lokpal Bill and haven't come out.

Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. There's no way of determining what those who don't come out in protest are thinking. In fact, how can you be sure that everyone who's on the street supports the Jan Lokpal? It may be that most of them are simply against corruption and don't care what sort of bill is passed as long as it's reasonably good. Under such circumstances, can you confidently push forward the Jan Lokpal Bill citing the support of millions?

Please don't forget, this "will of the people" argument is an ancient one. Political parties have used this excuse to do outrageous things, all the while claiming the support "of the people". Riots have occurred, property has been damaged and even lives have been taken because "the people of this country/state/religion/community are behind us". The argument against such actions applies to the Jan Lokpal Movement in equal measure, though it is a peaceful, non-violent movement. How can you be so sure of the numbers that support you?

7. So are you saying the only way to protest is through elections? Should we wait every five years to showcase our dissent? Isn't that ridiculous?

It is and that's precisely why I am not making that argument. Elections constitute an important part of the democratic process but it's not the end of a voter's responsibility - it's the beginning. A voter shouldn't move from E to F that is "from Elect to Forget". He or she should stay on E - "Elect and Engage". Engage with the government. Work with them regularly and build better relationships with them. Only then can we have a proper, functioning democracy.

What we need are new, innovative platforms to engage with our Governments on a regular basis. We already have provisions for such platforms to function at a local level - ward committees and area sabhas. What we need to do is strengthen these platforms, increase our interaction with the people who govern us and try to come up with ways and means to interact with higher levels of government as well (though I admit, this is easier said than done). How is this different from protests and hunger strikes? For starters, such platforms are more stable, more versatile and more accommodating. Secondly, such platforms are about interaction, not confrontation like protests and hence, allow for a more friendly working environment. However, I am not going to pretend that such platforms will solve all our problems. Nevertheless, I feel they're a better thing to campaign for as compared to higher and higher regulatory authorities.

8. Are you saying protests and hunger strikes are bad? Don't we have the right to protest?

Let me make this very clear. A citizen certainly has the right to protest. And even though it may not be legally acceptable, I personally don't care if someone goes on a hunger strike as long as the person is fully aware that he or she is putting their body, health and life at significant risk. However, the Government does not...and I repeat...does not have any obligation or duty to listen to your protest or pay attention to your hunger strike. This may seem outrageous, but think about it. Protests and hunger strikes are carried out every single year by some group or people or the other for some cause or the other. Many of these causes are in fact, extremely worthy and need to be taken up. However, if the government had an actual, legally specified duty to listen to protesters, it would spend all year negotiating with protesters over a number of issues and the basic function of governance would be left lying undone. 

Some of you might think that this movement deserves to be treated as a special case. Let me point out something - every movement is special to those who take part in it. Those who protest for the victims of Bhopal feel that their campaign is special. Those who're protesting against AFSPA feel that their issues deserve to be heard. And they're not wrong. There are genuine issues that lie behind every protest, including the Jan Lokpal Movement and it is normally recommended for Governments to pay attention to these issues. But that's where it should stop, at recommendation. Governments usually have enough incentive to pay attention, even if they're not legally obligated to do so. Why else do you think the UPA even bothered inviting Anna Hazare and his team to form a part of the initial Lokpal committee? Why else has Varun Gandhi stated that he will introduce the Jan Lokpal Bill as an individual MP's recommendation in Parliament? Incentives.

9. But Mahatma Gandhi did the same thing as Anna Hazare during the Freedom movement. Are you saying he was wrong? Do you dare oppose Gandhiji's own methods?

First of all, I am highly uncomfortable with the idea of justifying something simply because it has been done in the past. Yes, Gandhiji may have resorted to such methods but can any of us say we truly understand the circumstances under which he carried them out? Few of us were alive at that time and even if some people were, can we truly and confidently assert that Gandhiji would have approved of us using his methods under such circumstances for such an issue? If you wish to do something, it would be better to justify it on logical grounds as compared to historical. Today, in 2011, I find  it wrong to use a hunger strike to enforce a bill, regardless of how appropriate or inappropriate it was in the past. And therefore, I object to it.

Secondly, opposing methods such as hunger strikes and protests doesn't make me unpatriotic. I am still against corruption, I too dislike most of the politicians we have in office and sincerely wish for a day when we aren't bogged by these heavy problems. My disagreements are with the specifics of this movement.

10. But shouldn't we go out and show support for Anna Hazare's intention of eradicating corruption? Even if we have doubts about his bill?

I have made the following point in one of my earlier posts. Mass movements cannot make complicated decisions because the message they send out to the country has to be simple and precise. The Jan Lokpal Movement is just that - a movement for the Jan Lokpal. If you choose to take part in this movement, you're essentially communicating your desire for a Jan Lokpal, regardless of whether you actually want it or not. Sure, you may be against corruption but that is already implicit. What the Jan Lokpal Movement asks of you is to show more than just your dislike of corruption.


If you have doubts about the Jan Lokpal, I advise you to stay out of the movement. Go show your support only if you really and truly want the Jan Lokpal to come into existence, exactly as Anna Hazare and Co want it to be.   

Bonus Question (not meant for the nice inquirers): You're a CONgress stooge.


Good joke, troll. Now go grunt somewhere else.

----

PS - As an afterthought, I'd like you to consider this - close your eyes and picture the Jan Lokpal Movement that is occurring with full force in the cities across our country. Now imagine that instead of a neutral, apolitical man like Anna Hazare, the movement was being conducted by a politician heading a political party. Every thing else is the same; the hysteria, the slogans, the discussions, the shouting, they're all identical. Now answer me honestly - how different do you think this movement is from any standard political campaign? Would you have supported this movement if it had been headed by a politician?

PPS - Is it inquire or enquire? I always get confused. 

Image Courtesy: cupidspeaks.com

Dear India Against Corruption

Dear India Against Corruption,

While I strongly believe that corruption is a serious, maybe even a dangerous problem plaguing this country, I also believe it to be an internal, domestic matter. 

Therefore, I find your move to protest in front of the United Nations extremely disgusting, stupid and indicative of your morbid fascination with appealing to higher and higher institutions. 

This is a matter that needs to be sorted out by India, between Indians and frankly, the United Nations cannot intervene in this matter. Had there been a Galactic Federation of Planets comprising largely of aliens from outer space, would you have appealed to them as well? Think about it, what you're doing right now is not that different. 

Yours,

AA


Photo Courtesy: United Nations (www.unmultimedia.org)

Some Thoughts Regarding Recent Policies and Policy Making

About a couple of months ago, during the Baba Ramdev incident, I had written a blog post complaining that news regarding actual government policy has been totally obscured by all the fighting that was taking place between politicians and civil society. Thankfully, that trend seems to be reversing somewhat, though  it remains to be seen whether this reversal will last. During the last week, when news headlines were still being dominated by squabbling politicians and self-righteous activists, a little bit of news regarding some of the Government's major policies came to light.

The first piece of news which caught my attention was an article in The Hindu, an open letter to Manmohan Singh, jointly signed by several college students and research scholars from institutions across the country. This June, these people had done the incredible job of visiting over a hundred randomly selected villages in various parts of the country in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Public Distribution System (PDS) and identify the problems associated with its operation (Disclaimer: Some of those who participated in this study are close friends of mine). The conclusions of the study were fairly clear. The PDS has clearly improved in its effectiveness and the amount of grain leakage into the open market has reduced substantially over the years. However, there are still several problems. The list of those who are entitled to food supplies under PDS is faulty, the improvement of efficiency isn't universal (Bihar remains an exception) and there is a serious case for direct cash transfers though many families surveyed opposed it. On the whole, the letter advocated a near-universal PDS with strict exclusion criteria ("everyone can get food except so-and-so") instead of a specific Below Poverty Line (BPL) list ("Only so-and-so can get food"). There was also a disapproval of the alternative of direct cash transfers ("instead of food, give them cash") though it wasn't completely written off. 

A study like this can often bring several points to light that years of theoretical debating cannot. Though the details of the study are not yet available, there is a clear and confident assertion that social security schemes like the Public Distribution System can work and are indeed actually working  in many parts of the country. This is in contrast to a heated debate over the last few years where social sector schemes such as the Food Security Act and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) have come under intense criticism for ineffectiveness, leakage of benefits and distortion of local markets. It is too early for generalizations but some more ground-level studies may actually bring many benefits of such schemes to light. 

However, contrast the optimism of the letter in The Hindu with the criticism in this article from Network 18's firstpost.com. Published this morning, it caught my attention largely because it seems to present a view opposite to that of the article in The Hindu (although it must be noted that the Firstpost article concentrates more on the government's NREG Scheme rather than the PDS). 

The arguments made in this article are not without merit. Simple logic tells us that any major intervention by a government will create drastic distortions in local economies. Indeed, distortion is the objective.The question that needs to be answered is whether such distortions are desirable or not. Some distortions can indeed set off virtuous cycles that will propel local economies to better levels of prosperity and more importantly, opportunity. On the other hand, there can be many distortions introduced by government intervention that can have negative effects, especially in the long run. Some of these effects are mentioned in the Firstpost article - the creation of an unhealthy dependence on government dole, the formation of an "entitlement" economy, the lack of incentives to develop skills and so on. This naturally creates arguments against any sort of interventionist social schemes or at the very least, advocates schemes that are less distortionary on paper (such as direct cash transfers). 

So who's right? I think the answer can be summed up by what one of my friends (who took part in the PDS study) said to me. "...what i did realize was that a blanket policy simply wouldn't work. There are too many disparities, even among neighbouring villages and given the current situation, some villages simply wouldn't be able to use the proposed cash transfer system..."

You see, I believe that questions of policy (particularly economic policy) cannot be given simple answers. Anyone who reads my blog regularly, knows that I dislike solutions based merely in ideology. Such simple solutions are often touted as panacea to economic ills. However, the world we live in isn't simple, it is complex. Simplifying our world through ideology is just a method of dealing with that complexity. It is not a substitute for the complexity itself.

Under such circumstances, problems such as poverty, unemployment and lack of economic freedom may require a variety of solutions. Some of them may work, some of them may not. Some may be effective only at a certain time in a certain place while others may be flexible enough to be adopted more widely. As my good friend noted, blanket policies will not work. So what does that imply? It implies policy-making cannot be confined to the national or state levels. Such national-level policies are important and may continue to remain so for a long time but there is a definite need for greater policy and decision-making at lower levels as well. Sometimes, it might even be necessary to withdraw Central Government schemes in favour of schemes by district administrations. Other times, it might be good to introduce a centrally sponsored scheme as an alternative to a badly functioning state or district policy. 

All this requires the presence of educated, aware and committed policy-makers (so the process is definitely not going to happen overnight). Nevertheless, there are certain changes that one can make to the governance system itself, that can bring about an increase in efficiency. Decentralization of government power and devolution of funds to lower levels of government is one such step. Strengthening the powers and clearly demarcating responsibilities of regulatory institutions is another. Yet another thing we need is reliable data (probably the most important requirement today, given the severe lack of both raw data as well as analysed information). There are many other steps that can be taken at ground level as well - for example, making it mandatory for higher government levels to interact with lower levels on a fixed, regular basis. Perhaps, when such changes are made, educational levels are increased and economic freedom is expanded, we might see drastic changes that can set this country on a desirable path in the long run. 

An Atheist's Stand on a Controversial Issue

One of the big problems about being an Atheist in a country like India is that I am often compelled to take a stand on issues which, under ideal circumstances, should have nothing to do with me. To make matters somewhat worse, my (lack of) religious belief takes the form of a very classical, rationalist sort of atheism - similar to that of people like Richard Dawkins, though not quite so radical (the person whose views correspond closest to mine is Amit Verma - you can read his excellent post on Atheism here). In other words, I am neither a "Hindu Agnostic" nor do I follow a brand of Atheism similar to the ones practiced by some Hindus. This makes it all the more difficult for me to comment too much on religious matters. As a matter of principle, I believe religion to be a purely personal affair because a religion is ultimately a way of life and how a person should lead his life is up to the decisions of the person himself. A religion should not - I repeat, should not - be allowed to direct politics, economics or policy in any society.

Unfortunately, things are not so simple in India where religion is freely mixed with both political and social issues. True, India is much better off than some other countries where religion dictates the law itself. Nevertheless, there is a de facto recognition of the power that religion has over Indian society. Some of our taxes are spent on funding religious programs. Recently, the Chief Minister of the state I live in decided to deal with a political rival by challenging him to an oath-taking ceremony at a place of worship. The producers of a recent movie were sued for allegedly insulting an article of clothing with religious attributes. I am not even going to bother talking about the more violent aspects of these influences - the smaller incidents are disturbing enough. In fact, I am going to concentrate on the latest episode of religion mixing with politics - the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita to children in schools.

Before I elaborate, let me just clear a few things up. First of all, I am not going to use the old arguments of "secularism" and "interests of the minorities" because I know what the reactions will be. There will be accusations of pseudo-secularism, lack of respect for Indian culture and even lack of patriotism. Besides, there are others who will be making these points anyway. Instead, I will try to argue this issue on a different ground by using the very arguments made by those who support the teaching of the Gita in schools. Therefore, I will accept that the Gita is an important text - not just for Hindus but for other Indian citizens as well.  Why? I will accept its importance because I believe the Gita does form an important part of India's history and that it did play a significant role in India's cultural development. Now, before some of you on the "secular" side start getting outraged, I suggest you read the whole post before pronouncing your judgement on me.

I accept the Bhagavad Gita to be important in the same way I accept any other religious text to be important - as an agent that facilitated cultural and social developments in history. The Bible played a similar (indeed, a much stronger) role in Europe and the Koran did the same for many countries in the middle east. Each of these texts was followed by group of people who became politically or economically powerful and as a result, the way they led their personal lives became the basis for how society ought to function. In other words, I accept the Bhagavad Gita to be a historically important text as well as a culturally important text but not as a religiously important text. Since I also believe that it's important to learn history (as well as contemporary society), I don't have objections if students are taught about the importance of the Gita in a historical context or about its importance to a large section of modern Indian society. I only have objections if someone tries to force students to accept it as a way of life.

However, is the Gita the only important Hindu text? Even back in the days when I used to worship the Gods on a daily basis, I never found the Gita to be as appealing as, say, the Upanishads or the Rig Veda. In fact, even today, there are parts of the Upanishads that I strongly sympathize with (such as the philosophical dialogues between Uddalaka and Shvetaketu). Furthermore, I believe it were the Vedas themselves that played a much more important role, historically, in India's cultural development rather than the Gita. I agree, the Gita is meant to simplify the teachings of the Vedas for the common man, but that shouldn't concern us because we are ultimately supposed to be teaching about those texts that have had greater historical or cultural relevance. I think the Vedas, the Upanishads and perhaps even the Puranas have had greater relevance than the Gita. Additionally, let us not forget the Ramayana and the Mahabharata of which, the Gita is a part. Surely, these epics as a whole have played a greater role in India's cultural development than a single component like the Gita. But this is just a personal opinion. If anyone feels offended by my statements, I'm quite happy to state that I'm not a qualified historian so I might be completely wrong.

However, there is another point which I believe is a much more valid argument. Is the Gita the only important work of philosophy that originated in India? Of course not. There is the entire philosophy of early Buddhism that has not only had a profound effect on India's cultural development (especially during the time of the Mauryas) but also on the histories of many other parts of the world. There are the agamas of Jain philosophy which are strictly followed even today. There is the Guru Granth Sahib. There are even texts or verses belonging to Atheist schools of thought (such as the Samkhya or the Carvaka). Some of these philosophies are not only different from the philosophy of the Gita but also have significant cultural influence that cannot be ignored. Why shouldn't these be taught in schools as well?

This brings me to my comment on teaching the Gita in schools. I am opposed to it. It is not because I have anything against the Gita nor is it because I believe it will be a bad influence on the children. I am opposed to it because I don't see this as a "should-we-shouldn't-we" issue. I see it as a "how-exactly-is-it-going-to-be-taught" issue. I don't mind if students are taught about the historical importance of the Gita as a religious text and the role it played in the development of the Hindu religion in India. I also don't have a problem if the Gita is presented to students as an important Indian text that forms a part of the country's cultural heritage (because believe me, it does). But it should not be taught as a separate subject, with each syllable being recited by a teacher and each verse being explained in class. 

Why not? Firstly, because I consider such a manner of teaching to be an imposition of a certain way of life onto the students. That violates what I believe to be a fundamental human freedom. Secondly, because it's not so important that you need to turn it into an entire school subject. That's right. It's not so important as to be made compulsory. If you think it's important for children to learn the Gita, I can also argue that it's important for them to learn the Upanishads, the Vedas, Buddhist sutras and the Guru Grant Sahib. Even if you argue that only religions that originated in India are part of Indian culture, then these texts are as important as the Gita.

But I won't even go that far. I can simply argue that there are far more important things for a student to learn in schools these days.For instance, I would it consider it more fruitful if children were taught the meaning and implications of some of our Fundamental Rights. It would much better if children came out of school knowing how to deal with natural disasters or terrorist attacks. It would definitely be beneficial if schools allowed them to do some social service or volunteer work in their localities. Let's not waste the resources we have in teaching them a text which is not as important as some other things in life. 

Additionally, I do not see this as a move to "promote Indian culture". It's my personal belief that this is simply an agenda by certain politicians to impose their own views on society and frankly, I find it disgusting. Indeed, I find it disgusting that politicians at a state level still get to decide what is taught to children in schools. Such issues ought to be sorted between parents and schools or at the most, by a locally elected representative - NOT a State Government Minister. It is time we realized that education ought to taken out of the hands of ministers and given over to either the private markets or to local communities. Otherwise, we will constantly find ourselves trying to fight the prejudiced opinions of a few powerful individuals every time we want our children to learn something new.

---

PS - There are other, far more valid arguments that can be made against the teaching of the Gita (or any religious text) in state funded schools. I did not focus on these points because I think everyone else is making them. Anyway, here is a simple one from the Times of India which I am fully in agreement with.