‘We are 105’

A moving scene in the Mahabharata is as follows. Duryoudhana and his cohorts are under attack from the Gandharvas. After banishing the Pandavas to an 12-year old exile, Duryoudhana is visiting the forests where the Pandavas are residing, to show off his wealth and heap misery on his depraved cousins. During his party, he draws the ire of the Gandharva king Chitrasena, who attacks and arrests Duryodhana. This pleases Bhima and the other Pandavas, except Yudhisthira, who asks his brothers to fight the Gandharvas and rescue Duryodhana.

Bhima is enraged. ‘Free Duryodhana of misery? The villain responsible for our sufferings?’

‘He is one of our own,’ Yudhisthira says. ‘We have our differences, but facing the outside world we are together. They (the 100 kauravas) and we Pandavas (five) might be at loggerheads, but while facing the World we are 105.’

Bhima, having long resigned to the impracticalities of his elder brother, rescues a deeply embarrassed Duryoudhana.

I was recently reminded of this story by LK Advani’s defense of the political class of India, currently under fire from Anna Hazare:

“Advani had said hours earlier on his blog: “I am of the view that those who revel in spreading a general climate of disdain about politics and politicians are doing a gross disservice to democracy. Despite the shortcomings of Indian democracy, we still have conscientious and upright politicians in the country and it is they who still give people optimism and confidence for the future.” “

Advani is thus defending the indefensible, luminaries across parties that he has bitterly opposed: Mayawati, Lalu Yadav, Karunanidhi and the several children he has fathered from three wives, Ashok Chavan, Sharad Pawar, etc. Politicians join rank when under fire, and Mr. Advani’s tirade proves this again. (Parliamentarians also unite when promoting their own interests, a trivial example being the unanimous approval of hiking their own salaries).

Writing in the Open magazine, Manu Joseph is aware of the likely scenario, the political parties to come together to protect their interests:

“Those who believe that Jan Lokpal is practical are most likely to point to the success of another powerful independent body—the Election Commission. But then the reasonable success of the Election Commission is largely due to the fact that all rival political forces have a common interest in the functioning of the Commission. The body, in principle, offers a level playing field. But in the case of an anti-corruption body, it is in the common interest of all corrupt political players, across party lines, to come together as a cartel to thwart its functioning. The very reason why existing bodies drafted with good intentions, like the Central Vigilance Commission (created by another Gandhian), have become ineffective.”

Cash for votes: in Parliament and polling-booths

The India Cables, accessed by The Hindu via WikiLeaks, confirm many of the self-evident truths Indians know about their politics. Cable 206688 describes, in simple and chilling detail, how Azhagiri, one of Tamil Nadu CM Karunanidhi’s several sons, distributed cash:

"8. (C) After long relying on political muscle to enforce his will in Madurai, Azhagiri has added money to his arsenal and is using it to a degree previously unseen in Tamil Nadu. Azhagiri's approach debuted in the January assembly by-election held in Thirumangalam near Madurai, which he managed for the DMK. This race was marked by unprecedented bribes to voters (ref A). M. Patturajan, the former Mayor of Madurai and a confidant of Azhagiri, told us that ""it is no secret at all, Azhagiri paid 5,000 rupees (approximately USD 100) per voter in Thirumangalam."" S. Kannan, a mid-level Congress party official in Madurai, told us ""the 5,000 rupees per voter in Thirumangalam changed everything,"" noting that previous bribes to voters had topped out at 500 rupees. S. Annamalai, Madurai editor of The Hindu, also confirmed the 5,000 rupee figure, telling us that all of his employees who live in Thirumangalam received the money."

Letters received in today’s Hindu confirm these stories. The cable also details politicians in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, including the Home Minister PC Chidambaram, allegedly distributed cash to lure voters. This Tehelka story lists even more incidents.

Given that our voters expect money from politicians to vote during elections, isn’t’ it ironical that the same voters are perturbed when our legislators accept cash to vote in favor/against governments during trust votes? The 2008 price for a MP was a paltry 10 crore per vote in trust motion (as per WIkiLeaks). The 1993 price of a MP vote (as discovered during the JMM MP bribery scandal) was approximately 2.2 crore – a rise of just ~450% in 15 years. Voters of these MPs should have therefore demanded that their MP maximize his/her returns by auctioning his/her vote during a trust motion, and then distribute the gains more evenly to the voters. Voters need to be better educated to be aware of their new rights in today’s market-driven democracy.

Improving our cognitive toolkit

I’ve always enjoyed reading ‘Edge’, an online journal whose stated aim is to ‘promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society.’ Every year, the journal invites answers from thinkers on a question. This year’s question is ‘WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?’

164 contributors, including various scientists ranging from Richard Dawkins to VS Ramachandran to Lee Smolin have answered this question in 200-1000 words. The answers make compelling reading, and have broadened my knowledge and made me aware of some interesting concepts, like Kakonomics.

I highly recommend the series. Enjoy reading!

Games Politicans Play

Imagine the following game:

1.       Players: A set of privileged players. Being a player in this game is itself considered as an honor and a reward.

2.       Rules of the game:

a)      The game is played at three levels: the first level is termed as a senior level, the second level a middle level, and the third, a junior.

b)      Playing this game well would need the player to spend a significant amount of time and draw attention of a wide variety of critics: thus, expend energy that the player could have profitably deployed elsewhere. There is no reward for playing the game well other than retaining the player’s current level.

c)       Playing this game in a mediocre fashion, e.g. just turning out for the game without performing anything leads to either the player retaining his/her level or earning a promotion to the next level.

d)      Playing this game in a really, really bad manner, e.g. screwing up everything and being a complete disaster leads to at most a demotion to the next level, but does not strip the player of any of his/her honors: you are still a player in the game.

3.       Question: If you are a player playing this game, what would be your strategy to maximize your payoff?

Applying the basic principles of Game theory, one can conclude that a winning strategy is to be a non-performer: you conserve your energy and it’s possible that you earn a promotion. The worst you could do is to retain your level. Screwing up is a sub-optimal strategy, and playing the game very well is the worst strategy: there’s no gain, but you are sure to spend lot of your time and energy and perhaps make a few enemies.

Such a game was recently played out in wide media attention: it’s called the game of Union Cabinet expansion. Consider the strategy of someone like Vilasrao Deshmukh or Mamata Banerjee. The most flattering term used to describe their performance as Union Minster is ‘mediocre’. Both Ms. Banerjee and Mr. Deshmukh were rewarded for their non-performance: Ms. Banerjee got to retain her high-profile Railway portfolio, where as Mr. Deshmukh got promoted to ‘Rural Affairs’, a department that has the highest outlay in the Union Budget after Defense. Disasters like KPS Gill and Jaipal Reddy were demoted, but are still Union Ministers.

Given such rules of the game, is it any wonder why there is a huge governance deficit? The system discourages your from being a performer, but offers you lot of incentives to do nothing. No wonder people like Vilasrao Deshmukh thrive in our political landscape. At worst, the system also throws disgusting ironies, like Mr. Deshmukh, who led the state with the highest number of farm suicides and is a known protector of a loan sharks, getting to be a Rural Affairs minister.

When politicians play games, we, the people, are the biggest losers.

Update: I showed the above toy game (via e-mail) to Prof. Ken Binmore. Prof. Binmore is best known for designing a telecom auction (without any scams) that made $35 Billion for the British taxpayer.

Prof. Binmore asked me to rewrite the game 'so that there is a reward under (b) other than retaining one's position. Perhaps a large reward, but one that is only obtained with a small enough probability that your analysis remains correct for players who are sufficiently risk averse. You could then ask yourself whether the players who choose the risky strategy do seem to be risk loving in other contexts.'

I did so, and it turns out the Professor is right: the system forces the players in (b) above to seek for rewards (e.g. telecom auctions, defense contracts) outside their stated duties so as to continue to play the game. The system not only promotes mediocrity, it also encourages players to be corrupt.