Imagine you are Bhuvan in the movie Lagaan. You are part of a group of very poor villagers who are finding it very difficult to pay their taxes. A sadistic British officer Captain Russell offers to bet with you. If your village can beat a team of English cricketers, you and all the villages in the district will be exempt from tax but if you lose, the taxes will be tripled. This is why you should accept the bet.
I will be talking to you about three things - a) How in special cases some people can make decisions for the majority, b) How the juxtaposition is fair, keeping in mind the consequences c) Why the probabilities aren't as skewed as shown below and a relative cost-benefit analysis. Finally, I'll follow my substantives with a summary.
First and foremost, in principle, there are and have been exceptions when one man can make decisions for the majority even when it is logistically possible to have a plebiscite. An influential and earnest person, that Bhuvan is, is a respectable member of the community. Now, even though his ideals may not agree with some, a respectable member of the community has the duty as well as the right, to set to paper the pathway for self-determination of the community - if given the option. Bhuvan doesn't have to choose anything, he is paving the way for his community to prosper in the best way he that he can comprehend. The repercussions will and must be shared by the community, no doubt, but so are the benefits. In the special case of being exposed to this option, hence, it is legitimate for Bhuvan to take a call to the best of his rational capability. On the same point, one could further argue that plebiscite would have led to confusion and deadlock when such a gamble is given. Arguments would have continued indefinitely - on whether to take the gamble or not. In such a case, one person must take a definitive call, and the community must place trust in him - expressing solidarity and working towards a better tomorrow for all, given whatever decision he has taken. The keyword here is solidarity. Let the man choose.
Now, secondly, we make bets all the time. This case is only an extrapolation of the same. We make miniscule bets to the order of this: if I have unprotected sex with a stranger, I am gambling for my health and that of the community; if I decide not to go for work today, I am gambling against my profits and that of my employer. Just because in this case the relation to the community is so explicit doesn't mean that you neglect the innumerous times you have taken decisions for the community all by yourself. Cricket and taxes are unrelated, no doubt. But that doesn't mean they can't be wagered against each other. If I'm exceptionally good at something, I would bet anything on it. On the other hand, if I knew a game would be fair and competitive, and had no other option, I would perhaps go ahead with the bet and fight till my last breath. The latter is exactly the case at hand. Hence, there is absolutely nothing irrational about the wager. There are benefits and costs to every wager - but they still exist - which is exact premise of this argument.
Finally, the probabilities of Bhuvan managing to win the match aren't as devalued as shown below. It is a game of cricket, after all, between two amateur teams. It is plain to see that very little skill and strategy is involved. However much is required, can be developed with the help of a memsaab, who knows the game inside out. Strength is of course similar, if Bhuvan's eleven don't have an advantage that is. Ploughing fields and lifting heavy weights renders them strong and competitive in any physical sport for which the lads are trainable. Clearly, it isn't that difficult for them to win. Even the crowd is behind the unkown lads from the village. With a little luck, which is pre-eminent in any bet, the village might be exempt from taxes for life. More than just a benefit, it's the Holy Grail for this community.
In summary, to deny the draught-ridden villagers the hope of being exempt from taxes for life is criminal. Especially when the chances aren't really stacked up against them, when there is a definite chance and an achievable result in sight. Especially when wager is legitimate and when Bhuvan, as a member of the community, has the duty to make the right call. The right call is to take a shot at the easily beatable game of cricket.
5 comments:
good stuff! I especially like the way you defend bhuvan's right to make a collective decision.
In addition to the numerous reasons u cite in ur next entry as to why bhuvan shouldn't take up the bet, id like to add this: the simple assertion that he cannot rightfully take up the bet, or even leave it....and that it would be irrelevant and perhaps even wrong if he did so.
like all communities, bhuvan's village also undoubtedly has some form of government to run it and handle issues of common importance.
going by the movie, it seems to be a gram sabha/panchayat of sorts.
like any government, who makes the decision is decided before its time actually time to make the decision.
in the case of the village this would be the sarpanch. by virtue of him being the village head, he is perhaps the only person who has any right to make such a decision. whatever the views of one stalwart youth may be, they can really have no bearing on whether the bet be taken up or not.
all in all, ideally our bhuvan's answer to the question of the bet should be "you're asking the wrong guy"
I doubt if the Sarpanch can make decisions independent of popular opinion. Bhuvan, on the other, very well can.
shouldn't decisions that affect everyone really tend to the side of popular opinion? (esp something like tax on ur grains )
even without a plebiscite that is
Ideally, of course. But then there's also that argument of the plebiscite (or judgment of popular opinion) not being able to reach a consensus. What if 55% people vote for the cricket match? Is it still justified? Popular opinion may not exist at all. In this case, a good way out (I think) is to randomly select one way out (let Bhuvan do it) and then gain from/suffer the consequences together - solidarity.
On the other hand, what you're thinking is exactly how democracy is supposed to work. Once the majority in the house has the mandate of the people, decisions would ideally tend towards public opinion. In our case, however, the village isn't really a democracy. Even if it is, far from an ideal one.
Post a Comment