Requiem for republic - A modest proposal

Previous Posts [1], [2]

Related Posts [1], [2]

Resolution

To summarize I wished to make following point,

Political institutions matter because they strengthen co-operation and channelize conflict.

However here we are confronted by a difficulty.Combining premises of previous posts while creating institutions are beneficial for society, to individual acting on "instinct" of self interest the return (to him) doesn't justify the cost incurred.

This essentially calls for a collective effort, but there arises another dilemma, even the collective effort requires minimal level of co-operation.

Indian society is almost antithesis of "near equals", and therefore the task to create institutions suited for Indian reality requires much higher level of co-operation and effort. It is here that a political philosophy which guides the decision takers, informs the opinion makers and thus defines the contours of debate is required.

This is where that Indians have failed, while (at the pleasure of being called Hindu jingoist), India displays considerable cultural harmony, we sorely lack guiding principle for our politics. Unfortunately this ignorance is firmly anchored in the Indian psyche. Our founding fathers, while no doubt selfless in the love for nation, nevertheless underestimated the herculean task of creating political institution for nation, instead for the most part relying either on the colonial machinery or British model both unsuitable for independent India.

The above deficiency explains the extent of misgoverning in post independence India. In absence of sound political foundations nation is plagued with "a million tyrannies".

It is possible to guide India out of this quagmire. However for that to happen Indians need to work on guiding principle.

Which means recognizing that Indians constitute a political entity and our destiny is profoundly affected by the institutions we build, which depend on the objectives we want to attain from these institutions.

It is on this criteria that evolution and evaluation of structures institutions which will be most suitable for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness should happen.

This in nutshell is republicanism. Perhaps we should pay more attention to 26th January.

PS Selfishness is instinct, self interest is "rationalizing" of instinct, enlightened self-interest is a selfishness with a flashlight. Rationalizing in this manner is perfectly all right as past time and amusement, however it is a folly of highest order if one mistakes it for 42

Requiem for republic - Co-operative games

Previous post

Related Posts [1], [2]

*Digression continues*

Dynamics behind social (and political) institutions.

Before trying to answer the inability of Indians to evolve effective institutions, the question arises in what conditions specific institutions evolve or to rephrase what are conditions neccessary for institutions to be effective.

Essentially insitutution are required to enforce co-operative behaviour. Broadly speaking the ineractions in nature can be divided in two categories conflict and co-operation, here I must clarify that only those interactions which take place in context of ownership for resources are considered.

Co-operation is not neccessarily the obvious type of interaction. It is absurd to think of co-operation where there is a huge disparity between the powers of actors, typical example being of predator and prey (Lion and deer, or eagle and lamb), here it is the conflict which predominates.

However things get interesting when the power of the actors (or competitors) is similar, typically the case between members of same species, this results in formation of society with hierchial structure, thus averting any conflict and resulting damage.
There exists a secondary advantage, co-operation facilitates division of labour.

In animals this advantage is limited (hunting, watch-keeping, protecting young etc) , however in case of humans the benefit (increase in efficiency, skill and knowledge) has been tremendous in evolution of the species resulting in predominance, for all practical purposes overshadowing the former advantage.

However co-operation and competition are "opposing" tendencies, and it is impossible to eliminate selfish instinct. Therefore in order to maximize co-operation, selfishness has to be managed.

This is the basis behind existence of institutions. The instinct of co-operation and survival ensures that some kind of institutions will form. However all social (or political) institutions are not equivalent in their effects. As a first approximation, in order to maximize the benefits of institutions, coercion should be minimal.

Further, specifics of political institutions are very much determined by power dynamics of society. The most optimum (and hypothetical) case is a society of equals (or near equals) in ownership of power as well as resources.

Any imbalance will entail suitable modification in structure.

Requiem for republic - Dilemma

Disclaimer : This is a speculative post, and terms are used rather loosely.

Related posts [1] , [2]

Rationalist's dilemma

Indian performance after the economy was liberalized in 1991 has been impressive, especially when compared to stagnation of previous decade. This can make one conclude that culprit is the state and the citizen is the hero.

But is it really so ? Is all that what is holding India from road to glory is few incompetent politicians and venal bureaucrats. This is a fallacious argument, because the conclusion (i .e. dichotomy between citizen and the state) is misleading and flawed.

The reason behind this is not hard to fathom either. India is a democracy, which means ultimate responsibility lies with the citizen, which means that if the persons at helm of state are corrupt, the blame goes to people, if the institutions are flawed then too it is the public who is responsible.
This is obvious, what is not obvious however is the failure of Indian citizen to create effective institutions for governance, institutions which aid in prosperity and well being of Indians, instead of the opposite, which is now happening.

*Digression follows*

I think the difference can be explained to an extent by notion of self interest. Strictly based on self interest, whether a person tends to invest effort for some activity is broadly dependant on three factors

1. Magnitude of the investment
2. Magnitude of the reward (pay-off)
3. Period of return.

To explain briefly people will tend to choose activities which require less investment, has a high return, and a shorter waiting period over activities with opposite characterstics.

Here it is necessary to point out that there is a trade off involved in the above factors and the choice a person makes broadly reflects influences by the cultural and social environment.
Which is the reason for two persons of same IQ to choose vastly different vocations.

This sets up some interesting problems as far as above our main subject is concerned.

But .......

Why I love Socialism

(Originally posted here)

Our mai-baap sarkaar has decided in all its generosity that cricket matches are of national importance and therefore their feed has to be shared with Prasar Bharati. Although the ordinance does not mention it, it is understood that private broadcasters who have spent gazillion rupees and/or mortgaged their souls to acquire those rights, can go and clean the attic. Predictably this move has raised hackles of certain overfed and heartless capitalists. I am aghast at this reaction to say the least, and will try my best to explain to these nattering nabobs of negativism and gullible discernible readers that how, not only the decision taken by the government is in right direction, but also how much needs to be done to achieve the goal of social justice through other's money.

First, it should be obvious how telecast of cricket matches is of national importance. Think hard, how many areas are there where India can boast to be among top ten nation. I am afraid not many*. Granted we are the second most populous nation, but if any attempt was made to telecast the hard work behind this accomplishment it will shatter the innocence of Indians, which is unacceptable. Then there is poverty and hunger, however except for art film circuit, there is not much of market for this. This leaves, yes, cricket. Since independence, while our fortunes have waxed and waned, Indian cricket team is consistently rated among top ten teams (the fact that at most there are seven cricket playing nations is a matter of detail and irrelevant to discussion**). Now it is not hard to see for a nation which is remarkable for its paucity of significant achievement, to rescue the populace from throes of depression and futility is of utmost importance and hence it is imperative to treat cricket matches as a matter of national importance. In fact, I would like our socialist overlords to go further and declare watching cricket matches a fundamental right*** and also pass a legislation which either a) outlaws any team from thrashing boys in corporate logos or failing which b) restricts cricket to glorious state of Vatican besides India.

Now in case even this has not convinced you, you are a free market fundamentalist and need therapy, but as "the" crusader of secularism (and scourge of right wingers) **** brilliantly argued, in a democracy it is public which is the ultimate authority, and I am confident that in any public opinion conducted by pliable reliable psephologists will unambiguously confirm that cricket takes precedence over trivial matters such as terrorism. Now is the right time to go to therapy.

There is also an economic aspect; a typical cricket match lasts more than five hours, considering the hectic schedule of Indian cricket team this means more than four hundred hours per year. If the telecast is not made mandatory, there will a sudden spike in productivity of Indian workers resulting in a decrease in wages, which will just aggravate the poor, especially the children*****. Which raises an important question, Is the final aim of free market increasing misery, and how does it tie with second law of entropy? I can detect one or two thesis here, but I digress.

To continue on the topic, the decision taken by the government is not enough .To increase the gross idiocy index of nation (and to make capitalists go clean the attic), it is important that scope of this program be broadened. For example it is obvious that cricket matches are male centric, this clearly is a discrimination against women who are deprived of their right to watch intrigues of Kketakis and Kkomalikas. To ensure equality therefore, government should pass a law whereby Balaji Telefilms will have to share all its serials with Prasar Bharati, same goes for Indian Idol, KBC, and any lurid, inane or content free offering. For too long Indians have suffered under yoke of mundane reality, but no more, the "common man" will rise and claim what is his birthright, i.e. right to remain stupid. Unite my fellow Indians for you have nothing to lose but common sense , which anyway is not required when government and bureaucrats are there to decide (with considerable effort I may add), what is good for us.

* What about kabaddi ? Why do you like a game where hirsute men grapple with each other in state of undress? Are you sure we want to go down that road?

** Now don't claim there are 8.45 cricket playing nation, I stopped watching cricket after 200 BC when Spartans lost to Athens. To be fair, Spartans felt ridiculously overdressed.

*** I will go further and suggest watching cricket as a fundamental duty of Indian citizen.

**** I am not disclosing his name, but he has been acclaimed as Hrithik Roshan of Indian blogdom

***** This can be a book by Dinesh D'Souza "Why Libertarians hate children? (And steal their puppies)", a sequel to His insightful critique of American liberals

Degrees of dhimmitude

Dhimmitude essentially is a relationship between two groups. One is the victor, the superior, the other vanquished, the subservient. The power dynamics is thus defined, the victor has the mandate to rule over the vanquished, but it is not merely about power, under dhimmutude the ruler is automatically vested with moral superiority. In effect it is not merely force but some supposedly exalted principle which manifests in the present situation, that is which explains the dominance of one and servility of others.

India has been attacked countless times since the the dawn of civilizations, from Parthian to Scythian, however after a period of unrest, the invaders assimilated themselves, transforming the original milieu.

This changed with invasions of Muslims, for while acquiring wealth and expansion of empire remained important reasons, they were necessarily the manifest ones. For the ostensible reason now was to propagate the faith, which was revealed to the Prophet by the Archangel, the mandate was a divine one and hence pay off promised was also greater than a purely territorial one. The booty was not just silver and gold, but also an eternity in paradise. Hence, for an invader,a more potent force than the force of mere weapons justified the invasions. The excesses were condoned even celebrated for spreading the word of God.

However even then there was familiarity. Islam arose from a bleak landscape, a product of harsh climate, infertile land and a tribal society. Hence there was never a hesitation or embarrassment against using violence. While it was not necessarily the first measure, it was by no means something which was to be eschewed. Hence there was no coyness about sword, on the contrary it was approved, massacres of infidels celebrated in epics. The downside of this was that the victim was always aware of subjugation and given a chance will strike back.

The next change was English colonialism, however there was a difference, British came for wealth and they very well knew it.
But because the English middle class was a product of enlightenment, it could not admit subjugation of natives for selfish reasons, because it went against ideals of the age.
Therefore, a elaborate fiction was manufactured, that of white man's burden, where colonialism existed not because of greed of masters, but for the savage natives improvement.
Where the oppression was inflicted with a heavy heart in order to bring light of true civilization (and true God) to the unwashed barbarian.
The right to rule based on superiority of race.

This project succeeded beyond wildest dreams, the intellectual of India lost his ability to think, now no original insights were to be gained, instead what passed for ideas, a rehashing of Europe. Divested of pride and consciousness, the Indian was doomed to view the world in terms of masters, the context to problem was borrowed without discrimination, even the problems were copied with the result an intellectual who was just a poor imitation of Europe.
It is thus that even after half a century we still have debates on whether colonialism was good for India.

The dhimmification did not stop at this, after British came the tyranny of socialist / communist.
However there was no power, at least not one which was obvious, neither electoral, nor muscular.
What they had instead was intellectual capital. A generation of intellectual uprooted from its history by the colonialism, unable now to make any sense of India, and deprived of its masters and benefactors. These resident non Indians, appropriated the moral high ground, and started subjugation of India, this time intellectual.

For this they turned man's kindness against himself, using his nobler disposition to bind him. As Maugham said in entirely different context, it was tyranny of weak over the strong. Poverty was turned into a moral virtue and wealth a cardinal sin, by this inversion of natural order of things, the negation of instincts which provide the vigour for human enterprise, the intention was to stultify the Indian spirit, thus establish unquestioned monopoly. Also the creed of minority-ism whereby, the Muslims were accorded a moral high ground, an unquestioned relief from criticism just on the status of their religion. Hence the principle of equality was subverted from within.

It is this which has perverted India, corrupted her soul. India suffers from poverty of idea, for no new idea is to be found, because the fount of intellect has been destroyed by the barbarians.
If India is to forge ahead it is this shackles of guilt, of moral slavery which must be thrown away,
and yet it seems most unlikely.

Spectacle of savagery

Even before body of Saddam Hussein could be taken down, a clamour in many part of world started to project Saddam Hussein as a martyr and hero against American imperialism. This inanity was led by the crowd from familiar lunatic asylum, comprising of Islamists and leftists.

The reason behind this is visceral hatred of USA which by virtue of freedom and free market is a common enemy to both. It is indeed disheartening how low left has stooped to because of refusal to admit the historical defeat of its doctrine. It is this denial to accept the fallacy of faith which corrupts intellect and shelters the evil and hideous.

To put it frankly Saddam Hussein had it coming, the fact that other dictators are roaming free is a consequence of geo-politics, but it is misplaced to mourn for him, rather our sympathies can be more judiciously spent, not least on the victims of Saddam.

What however I did find appalling was the public spectacle of the execution. Any punishment (including the capital punishment) meted by a civil society is meant to uphold law, and serve the cause of justice. By committing violence against individual (i.e. the guilty), the society seeks to prevent breakdown and anarchy.

What is not acceptable is perverting Punishment as a means for entertainment and morbid gratification. It is not about dignity of Saddam Hussein, it is about our decency as members of a civil society. Turning death of anyone, even a tyrant into entertainment is depravity and barbarism of worst kind.

Spirituality

I find notion of spirituality underwhelming. Let me clarify. I do not profess that I have the Brahma Gyan, further I don't even think (think as opposed to know), that any religion is perfect embodiment of Brahman , or there should be comparison just for sake of it. Also, I do not contend that the phenomena called spirituality has no merit (requires greater understanding).

No I have trouble with "spirituality" because to me it is not serious. What I mean by "serious" is the consideration whether any kind of thought process is involved, whether any attempt to articulate the problem and analyze to arrive at some conclusion is made.

And it is here where "spirituality" falters, there is no emphasis or attempt at contemplation. Rather it is land enveloped by the fog of clever yet more often than not syrupy and shallow sermons. It is driven less by wisdom, and more by acclamation of collective ignorance and propensity to conform to popular. It is a mistake when people try to achieve enlightenment by shunning knowledge and following blind faith and rituals, for avoidance of intellect is not the way to God but opposite.

The man of today is an end product of unparalleled technological advances, and resulting material revolution, but the dilemma that he faces is eternal, that is the question of existence. Historically religion and philosophy provided the answer.

However the religion has declined, mainly due to dogma and ritualism, and as a result philosophy is disconnected from any speculation on elevated conscience. On the other hand evolution of science and its troubled relationship with Abrahamic religions has ensured that more often than not it stands antagonistic to religion, this being age of science, religion has become verboten as a subject.

Buffeted by on one hand science which has crossed over from reason to dogma and religious atrophy on the other hand, the only escape is provided by "spirituality". And yet it is not the escape, but eager embrace of life which should be sought.