Why Bhuvan was right to take up the bet

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.

Why Bhuvan should not have taken the bet

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 reject the bet.

The entire premise of my argument lies on three key ideas - a) Whether one man has the right to take risks on behalf of the entire community, b) What's at stake for the man, and more importantly for the community and c) A cost benefit analysis - if they take the bet and if they don't, which should summarize my case.

Firstly, in principle, one man on his own whims and fancies has no right to choose his community's fate. This goes against the basic principle of the right to self-determination. Let me tell you why. Communities that are not under structured governance are usually utilitarian - they believe in the maximum good for the maximum number of people. Although they realize that impinging on someone else's rights is not just, they do understand innately that it requires a few to forgo in order for the majority to prosper. This is nature. Though they may be illiterate, they have the basic rationality to make a decision of this nature. Therefore, now that it's established that everyone is utilitarian and is rational enough to make the decision, the right to self-determination of the self leads on to the right to self-determination of the community. The adrenaline rush of Bhuvan may or may not be in the interest of the community. I doubt if they would like to leave their prosperity to his whim. A simple measure to solve this is plebiscite - which is not infeasible for obvious reasons in this case.

Next, let us examine what's at stake for the community. Tripling of taxes, which I will show later to be very likely, is exactly what is at stake. To play a game of cricket, and juxtapose it against losing out your life's savings is a clear mismatch and should only be kept aside for story-tales and motion pictures. If you're rational, you couldn't possibly compare something as grave as taxes and a fun and frolic walk in the park, chasing a leather ball. Hence, again in principle, to even consider this irrational bet keeping in mind the two aforementioned things juxtaposed, is a farce. This will become an autocracy only if you allow it. It is in your hands. Further, what is in it for Bhuvan? A clear play on his ego, keeping a memsaab in mind, impressing her Radha and all that jazz. Isn't it plain to see? Even if you're irrational enough to consider the bet, will you delve deeper into the unknown by placing your trust in a man with misplaced intentions?

Further, let's talk specifically about this case. If you agree to the bet, what's at stake as far as the community is concerned? No taxes, or triple taxes. That's an easy call for the community to take. Clearly people would love the concept of no taxes. No doubt. Now throw in the probabilities involved with respect to the bet, and also the deterministic possibility to continue with the same amount of taxes. Also, let's talk about the probabilities. Clearly, the village team has no idea of cricket. Comparing them with people who have invented the game and brought it to this country is anything but sane. Considering Bhuvan has the sole responsibility to inspire, train and captain the team is a tough task for any young man who has the sole distinction of secretly watching the game from a distance. Now that that's dealt with, consider this. You have two and only two options - one, to give me Rs. 1,000 or two, to take a gamble as follows: you give me nothing with a probability of 0.05 and Rs. 10,000 with a probability of 0.95. Simple decision analysis tells you, a rational person that you are, that taking the gamble will lead you into heavy trouble. This is the cost of taking the gamble, which is far less than the Rs. 1,000 to buy your way out of it. Obviously, negative of cost is benefit, and hence maximum benefit is minimum cost. This basically summarizes the cost-benefit analysis.

On all three counts, my friend, may God save you if you take the bet.