Random thought - Identifying the poor for targeted welfare

In the debate of universal vs targeted provisioning of services to the poor, the common argument of those pro-universal are that targeting system will exclude many who need the services. Today I came across an interesting way of 'identifying the rich' while reading the book "The Wisdom of Ants: A Short History of Economics" by Shankar Jaganathan.

The fifth century book composed by Sukracharya called 'Sukraniti' defined who is rich in terms of their need for wealth. Those who has amount enough to live for twelve years was considered sufficiently rich, enough for sixteen years was considered moderately rich and those having enough to survive for thirty years was defined as amply rich. Those in the amply rich category should serve the king for free for eight years. Only the penniless should receive wages from the king for their service. The idea of not paying the rich is justified as Sukraniti classified kingdoms on the basis of their ability to collect tax without oppressing the subjects. So, paying the rich would mean oppressing others by collecting taxes from them.

Statistically, to get such information about how long a person can survive with the riches he or she has is a big challenge. Nevertheless, at the village/local level, where everyone knows every other person, it would not be a difficult task to identify the beneficiaries. Hypothetically, if grains are to be given, one would know how much grains a family would need to survive for say, a month. And if the fair price shop is managed by people themselves, they will identify the families. We do not need ration cards for this purpose. Of course, this is just a raw idea and needs to be worked out upon.

My idea in trying to take lessons from the early literature is that universalization of services is not the solution for the failure of identifying right people; but to find better ways for identifying the needy.

What is paving way for cinemas into politics ?

If I have to identify three things that are common to cinema and politics, those would be loyalty, identity and interest articulation

It is popularly said that one needs money or muscle (2m) power or both to enter Indian politics. A third 'm' - movie has been making itself more visible. Though the affair between cinema and politics has a long history, the factors contributing to the nexus are not very clear. There are regional variations with respect to the extent of overlap of political and cinema fields. History shows that Southern India's experience is different from that of the north's. A few actor-turned-politicians floated their own parties and also were able to form governments. NTR (AP) and MGR (TN) are the classic cases. In the north, the cine participation confined to contesting elections on traditional party tickets and becoming legislators representing both people as well as the cinema industry.

This article is to try and understand what special factors laid such deep roots of cinema in politics, in South India (more specific to AP). People from both north and south equally encouraged and loved movies and thereby the actors. The craze is evident from the fact that people love to wait for hours infront of the actors' houses just to get a glimpse of their heros and heroines. The love shown by audience was unconditional both on screen and off screen. An anecdotal evidence from my grandmother - when she visited Madras as a tourist, she and her family waited for an hour just to get a glimpse of Telugu actor N T Rama Rao.

Though this was the scenario through out the country, two important factors that were more specific to South India are - language and religion. Unlike Hindi, which was spoken in many of the northern states, southern languages were prevalent in more confined geographical regions. And difficulty in understanding Hindi, drew the audience even closer to their respective film industries. Though Amitabh might be popular through out the north, when it comes to identifying him with a particular state, it would be difficult; whereas N T Rama Rao was identified with telugu people in Andhra Pradesh and same was the case with M G Ramachandran in Tamil Nadu.

Religion was another factor. Films based on mythological stories from Epics like Ramayan and Mahabharat were large in number. More importantly, people favourite actors played major roles in them - Rama, Krishna, etc. It is very difficult to imagine Amitabh Bachchan in the role of a Ram or Krishn; while people would not have hesitated to fold their hands in prayer in front of NTR's picture clad in Lord Ram or Lord Krishn's attire (though a bit exaggerated, not totally wrong). Such a devotion both on screen and off screen, somewhere blurred the lines between devotion to God and loyalty to an actor. This is clearly manifested in the number of statues built for the actors and a few instances where temples were also built for them.

If I have to identify three things that are common to cinema and politics, those would be loyalty, identity and interest articulation. In south, the "fan following" culture is seen prominently. Fans remain loyal to their actors; more loyal than their counterparts in political parties where opportunism, pragmatism etc also play simultaneously. Movies/Actors give people two types of identity - one, being fan of so and so actor is an identity in itself; two - a national and an international identity through language. I experienced this personally. Once I have been to a temple in Varanasi, and the priest there asked me the place I am coming from. I replied - "Andhra" and he immediately identified me with "NTR?" and so many such anecdotes from international experiences are also available. The last common thing is interest articulation. Usually Tollywood is audience driven industry, as in, the director may not kill the protogonist in the story just because the audience wouldn't like to see him/her die. This might be a very trivial example, but since the actors catered to the interests of the masses, they were able to withstand the political pressures. For example, without paying heed to loss of revenue to the State exchequer, NTR imposed a ban on alcohol.

Thus loyalty, identity and interest articulation are the basic building blocks paving path from cinema to politics. This has reduced the entry barrier into politics for many. Nevertheless, it confines to giving entry advantage only. As the interest articulated by the leaders change, and if the performance is not upto people's expectations, emotions play very less role and wisdom comes to fore. FOr instance, Chiranjeevi a renowned Telugu movie actor floated his own party - Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) and was supported by people wholly based on the craze they have for him. Later when they realised that he is low on political acumen, he is being ignored.

There might be so many other factors acting simultaneously like caste, money, manifesto, political situation in the State etc. But this affair between politics and cinema has a long way to go, especially in South India.

One size doesn't fit all

Instead of giving bricks and mortor to build a structure, our policies also tend to give a floor plan and penalties for deviating. The freedom to implement according to local conditions and situation is missing.

One of the commonest arguments we hear about failure of public policy in India is– “We have good policy but bad or no implementation”. The reasons given are manifold – lack of political will and resources, myriad of rules for various programs, etc. A major problem hampering implementation is inherent to policy itself which is – having a one-size-fits-all policy. Instead of giving bricks and mortor to build a structure, our policies also tend to give a floor plan and penalties for deviating. The freedom to implement according to local conditions and situation is missing. If we have one-size-fits-all policy, we might end up not fitting any and it results in a failure. It is a fact that in India, local political and socio-economic conditions change when one moves over very small distances. Detailing to that minute level is difficult, yet, it should be considered to some administratively feasible level (say till district level).

The debate since the last few years has been centred around ‘growth vs human development’, which was also a one sided one, trying to solve all problems either through growth or human development. Sufficient focus has not been given to decentralisation. We have a single poverty line for the whole country. Till recently we had a calorie norm which fits entire urban (2100 kcal) and entire rural (2400 kcal). Education is imparted to all in the same form irrespective of its utility to the learners. No wonder parents do not send their children to schools, as it is more beneficial for them if they send them to work. In a recent interaction with an expert in tribal affairs, we were told that a tribal student struggles for life to learn Hindi (there is no gender differentiation in a tribal language as there is in Hindi).

NREGA doesn’t take local employment needs, other livelihood opportunities available into consideration. Agriculture wages shot up and there was a crunch of labour in the peak harvest period. The scheme was started on a pilot basis and without a proper study of the impact it had, it was extended to the whole country. Similarly, in a country with varied food preferences, 67% of the population, who have varied food preferences, is covered under the Food Security Act. Another  overlapping problem is that of a new born fascination for “entitlements based approach”. Any thing given as a right is expected to not fail, with rest everything unchanged. The same old hierarchal and lethargic bureaucracy enmeshed in rules is supposed to acquire a super hero stature, as soon as the government gives a right to a citizen.

The strengthening of local self governments and the district administration, which is the most important task is side-lined. Even after twenty years of their inception, they suffer from insufficient funds, functions and functionaries. “District” as a unit of administration doesn’t find its place in policy debates. In all the legislations district is given certain duties but they are not consulted before framing a policy. For instance, Parliament recently passed Street Vendors Bill. It is okay to have a broad policy on street vending but the central government has no capability to decide upon how a “street” should be managed.

Often times it is stated that the states do not devolve powers to the local bodies. It is true. But same is the case with the centre; it doesn’t devolve powers to the states. It needs an intricate web of incentives and penalties that push states to do so. Simultaneously capacity building should take place at the lower rungs of administration, especially of those who work at the frontline. There is a stagnation of higher age groups (Eg: Majority of the junior engineers, food inspectors, and extension workers fall in the age group of 40-50); high incentive to be corrupt (Eg: In Bihar, the salary of the implementing officer of NREGA workers per month is less than those of the NREGA workers according to a TISS’ study); and a stark limitation to the capacity of the frontline workers, in terms of skills and resources.

Local problems should find local solutions. Decentralisation should be the way forward. Gathering of data, monitoring, evaluation and thereby taking corrective measures will be easy at a local level. Therefore, it is time we shed our one-size-fits-all approach and realise that we need more tailored policies. 

Duty ....

Duty gives us an identity. When the duty is not performed the identity is lost. Yet most of us choose to not perform our duties well which is nothing but killing one's self. Every role - be it sociological or administrative or political or legal - is nothing but a set of duties agreed upon through law - legal or moral. For instance, roles like mother, father, brother etc are expected to perform certain duties in a family. Similarly, most of our identities are nothing but duties. A legislator's duty is to see that good laws get passed; Think of a profession and it is nothing but a set of duties.

According to Immanuel Kant, Duty is an action which we are obliged to perform out of respect for moral law. Kantean idea of duty is the most difficult one to act on, as not only the action is important but also the motives behind an action. For example, if a teacher in a school is teaching (assuming teaching well) and goes to school everyday without fail. She does so in order to get promoted to a higher post but not to impart knowledge. According to Kant, the teacher's action has no moral worth. By such standards each of us will be categorised as duty renouncer. Nevertheless, it depicts how difficult it is to perform one's duty.

Frogs in the well

Unless our education standards raise to such high levels, we keep breeding frogs in the well

I “was” an engineer because I got an engineering degree. I “tried to be” an engineer by working in an electronics company. I “am not” an engineer, because I explored and found my interests. Education in general and engineering in particular was a tool in my hands to peep out of the well. Once I got the taste of the outside world, I could muster courage to leap out of the well. I met so many such frogs in the well, on my first day at PMRDF today (May 1st), who took the great leap forward. Most of us have done engineering, may be because it was cheaper both money and time wise when compared to medicine, another standard career option; and may be due to lack of exposure to other fields, their prospects and opportunities they provide.  Engineering is also seen by many as an option with “guaranteed return on investment”

This is not an individual issue but a larger systemic issue. Our education curriculum doesn’t give space for experimentation. In its hurry to teach lakhs of students every year, the system is failing to teach the students to teach themselves. Either schools do not have labs or have outdated and inadequate equipment. Without practical experimentation, the theory is left to the imagination of the students. To cross the immediate hurdle, students take to learning by rote and teachers tend to encourage it for performance evaluation is done on the basis of marks obtained but not based on knowledge gained.

By the time a student finishes his/her 10^th standard all the basics should be covered and the student should be able to understand their applications. Precisely for this reason, many enrol in engineering courses, without having any idea of what the subject is about. Since we are failing to do this, students enrol to learn those basics again, at a later stage, to appear for competitive exams. It is a waste of time, money and energy today, which should have already been done yesterday. Unless our education standards raise to such high levels, we keep breeding frogs in the well. Year after year, the ASER Reports show that our math skills, reading standards are declining. We need major public policy decisions to keep the education system on the right track.

One, an unconventional evaluation mechanism, which tests students’ ability to visualise and apply the theory learnt in the school. An independent body with a clear mandate to conduct such type of exams should be set up. The schools should be given rankings through composite indexing – including quality of education, innovative and creative teaching mechanisms, infrastructure, teachers’ performance etc., which will ensure competition. Not all schools may be evaluated this way as the situation in many government schools, is so dismal that roof over the school building is a luxury. To start with, a few schools with minimum standard and infrastructure may be given rankings and gradually other schools should be supported to catch up. This would also ensure that there is no outright rejection of the idea by teachers’ union.

Two, teachers should also be made to take such exams periodically. Not as a strict performance based evaluation measure, but to make teaching more fun. There are studies that show that training teachers may not reflect in improving their teaching skills and thereby is not having any effect on the quality of education. Nevertheless, imparting innovative and creative training should aim at a larger attitudinal change.

Finally, and most importantly, the parents who rush their children into the competitive world without giving them an opportunity to explore, should be educated. Government should slowly move away from providing education towards provisioning quality education. It should build model schools to set an example to both the private players as well to show the parents what they should be expecting of any good school.   Currently quality wise both the public and private schools are worse. Therefore, we need a regulating government for quality, not providing education itself, where sufficient number of schools are present; and provide education itself in those areas where private presence is minimum or zero.