Frame of Reference.

At the outset I have a disclaimer that “arguments and conclusions made in this article are purely based on logic and in no way, myself hold them personally (may be because of “Sanskar etc”), and/or promote, encourage etc. the behavior by any individual or group as derived from logic presented herein.

To begin with, as a science student I learned that - things which exist must have theoretical base and what is proved theoretically must exist in realty. Best and well known example is prediction of “Black Holes” by theory a century ago, which proved correct this year. Another rule of science is, any statement, definition is subject to terms and condition specified therein. For example, when we make statement “water boils at 100 degree centigrade” the statement is subject to pressure being of certain value. Similarly, when we say car is moving with a speed of 100 km/hr, it is implied that the speed is with reference/ relative to our earth. Changing terms and condition or putting in different “Frame of Reference”- boiling point of water (say at Everest peak) and speed of car (with reference to say another car) will give way to different statement. Similarly, many commonly used sentences are purely wrong in the light of logic/science or understood/said in wrong frame of reference. For example, correct sentence  for “Sun rises in east at 6.30 am” is “Due to rotation of earth I can see Sun in east at 6.30 am” or when we hear announcement in train/bus etc. “Bhopal aa Gaya (Bhopal has come)” what correctly should be announced  is “We/train/bus has reached Bhopal”.

But in ordinary life or communication we do not mention all this and if we do, we may be labeled as mad person. Nevertheless remembering and extending this to sociology/state-polity, that every so called “Virtue/Evil” labeled is in certain “frame of reference” and need not be seen same from another “frame of reference”, can calm down our agitating mind to a large extent. It can also show way to use/encourage proper frame of reference (in communication) to change the behavior of individual or group.

To explain my point, let us start with word “corruption” much maligned in daily discussion but largely adopted in practical life by all, mighty and sundry, based on their capacity and opportunity. But, whole economics is based on principle that man can be incentivized to do or not to do an act or decide based on MONEY. In economics such persons are labeled as RATIONAL person and there is no place for irrationality in economics. Another basis of economics is “less resources and more needs”. The day resources match or exceed needs, the study of economics will become redundant.

Based on above two principles of economics, let us examine when corruption crept in society?  As we know, before the advent of currency there was a system known as “Barter Economy”- goods exchanged for goods. Later due to lack of mutual want and other shortcomings, barter system gave way to “Currency System”.  Similarly, when society was small and stable, people used to work/help each other (without bribe); knowing well, 5-10 years down the line such act will be reciprocated in the form of Vyavhar. But as society grew in size and unknown people started exchanging needs and without being assured that the act (of favor) will be reciprocated in future. Then the questions/thoughts arose in the minds of favor giver “A” (resource) as well as favor seekers “B” and “C” (need). A is thinking why I should favor B over C, and B thinking what I should do so that A favors me over C. In History such situation is explained to put forth the idea that in India corruption started with arrival of British (As human being we, always blame others). By taking the “extra” by which “A” decides the things in favor of “B”, as per economics is an act of rationality and is perfectly OK. But, it is being seen as  “Corruption” and despise.

Having established the theoretical base of “Bribe (corruption)”  among the persons or groups not having surety of future transaction (If future reciprocity is assured there cannot be corruption but  reason for favor will take different names like nepotism, caste,  regionalism and so on). Before we move further, let us try to quantify the “Bribe”. A is asking Rs. X and B offering Rs. Y, and ultimately amount is settled between Rs, X and Rs. Y. What factors/situation decide wherein chance of “Bribe” and its quantum comes into play? In economics for this (factors/situation), is called “Consumer Surplus”. In simple terms it means, consumer derives more value or satisfaction than cost paid for it.

Illustration can be many, but being an ex-banker, I take a simple example of year 1980s. IRDP (Integrated Rural Development Program) loan, a subsidy (a part of it is paid by govt.) linked loan and due to prevailing socio-political environment supposed to be not repaid. Let us assume loan to borrower is Rs. 10000 and subsidy Rs. 2000 (govt. will pay Rs 2000 to bank). In updated version we can call it MUDRA LOAN by appending two extra zeroes for amount. Now, stage is ready for bribe, in best scenario (when borrower is ready to repay net loan of Rs 10000-2000=8000) bribe amount cannot exceed Rs. 2000 (consumer surplus) and in worst scenario Rs. 10000 (Loan not to be repaid). The bribe amount can be anything from Rs. 0 (whole surplus is pocketed by influential/conscious borrower) to Rs. 10000 and shared by banker and govt. officials depending on their muscle power and/or moralleaning. Similar reasoning can be made for other commercial loans (trader/transport etc), where consumer surplus was difference in market rate of interest and bank rate of interest.

With the opening of economy and availability of loans becoming very easy (shortage of credit gone) this surplus is vanished and so also bribe (from commercial loans). Such examples of vanishing bribe/black-money are many. In 1970’s, there was no concept of day or show-time wise rate of cinema tickets. So black of ticket (bribe for obtaining tickets) was common. Over the years, system changed and now the ticket rates  are as per day or show time and system of bribe/black gone (No surplus left in the hand of viewers). Similar trends are visible in aviation sector etc. and are now being adopted by Railways also as flexi fare. Common thread is either scarcity is vanished or surplus is pocketed by owner itself. Thus taking advantage of adverse situation, in which consumer and the vendor finds themselves in need of mutual accommodation, they have legalized bribe in the form of an accepted system, with complaint from none.

Next question comes, does only common man always pay “Bribe” or only powerful people indulge in bribe taking? Answer is NO. At times roles can get reversed also. For example to achieve family planning targets, doctors and nurses have paided bribe to individuals undergoing operations. LIC or NSC agents do pay a part of premium or commission to clients. Once a while, during election, political leaders also pays bribe to voter and so on. Civilians purchasing from Military canteen (at below market price) and primary teacher taking “Independence Day” sweet without distributing to students are also example of corrupt practices by common man. Furthermore many a times there may not be a corrupt practice at all in an individual case. We go by general perception, rich are corrupt and poor are “kamchor” etc., held in society by one group against another.  

Our next query is, does, as generally perceived, society is suffering due to corruption and its progress is blocked? Imperial evidence indicates otherwise. It is observed, corrupt babu/officer is more efficient (knows rules better to complete work) and due to personal stake ready to put more hours of work.  Contrary to this honest babu/officer will find excuse for not carrying out work or stick to clock. Our experience of political leaders is also same, while honest politician (?) is indifferent to development projects to be undertaking in his/her constituency, corrupt leader is keen on having more and more projects. “Corrupt” word need not be strictly used in rupee term; it can be misuse of power or breach of trust, like a minister sanctioning more projects in his own constituency (overlooking interest of whole state or country), some time even overruling technical committee reports. Such leaders, though criticized at national level are highly popular in their stateor constituency and get re-elected. In Japan (in 1970s when rise of China was not on horizon), a much progressive and highly admirable country, time to time prime ministers have resigned on corruption charges (Lockheed scandal etc.).

Variant of above query – Is it due to corruption etc incompetent person or inferior goods are purchased? Not sure. But, it can be surely said that due to operation of rule of scarcity, favor giver has choice to favor to one of the many equals (for job or contract etc.). Take the case of “Bofors Gun” corruption case; it has showcased its capability in Kargil war. (In fact this controversy is arisen only because, our state policy prohibits any middle man in defense contract, but many other nations allow it. It leaves a question -Who is correct or which policy is better?) 

If corruption is not the reason for our backwardness or lack of progress, what is it? May be less corruption in society is the reason. To understand it better, let us recite one old story. There was a poor “Gadariya” (person who takes care of grazing animals), taking rest below a tree, and his 2-3 cows grazing the ground around him. A progressive passersby commented, why you are idling, do some more work (take care of more cows of others etc). Gadariya, asked then what will happen? The person replied “You will have more money to spend and comfort of life”.  This way cycle of question-answer went on for a while, passerby always motivating him for more and more work, for more wealth and comfort, and Gadariya questioning then what. At one stage passersby said, you will have lots of cow and those will be supervised by many workers under you and you will enjoy quietly sleeping under tree. Gadariya replied I am sleeping right now like that, then why do I take additional trouble? Probably, our majority of people do have this sentiment. Other way, majority of our society are not incentivized by “Money” or are irrational persons. 

As said in the opening, in spite of all the above justification we all hate/despise “Corruption” and wish it should be eradicated from our society, but we find it is spreading like cancer.

What is cause and what is remedy? Cause is our increasing emphasis on only one “frame of reference” or only “one yard stick” of success or failure of a person or group. It is the possession of WEALTH. And so a professor helps students by leaking question papers and earns money, because without money he has no status in today’s society. To remedy it we must go back to our old way of life,  equal emphasis on five types of “Purusharth ( activity)” by individual in  whole life, a balance of “Dharm (ethics/ knowledge), Arth (prosperity  by labor ), Kam (leisure) and Moksha ( a work for post life or society)” . Further proper segregation and recognition of contribution by four types of people based on nature of their workcommensurate to their competence - “Chaturvarn System”- “Brahman (Knowledge seeker/ giver), Kashtriya (Protectior), Vaishya (Trader/Industrliest) and Kshudra (service provider)” by society (not by birth but activity undertaken). In that old system, even though “Brahman” was poor (because not motivated by money), recognizing his contribution to future general advancement of society (being knowledge/research provider), he was otherwise compensated by placing him highest in society hierarchy, above even “Kashatriay (protector or political master) and “Vaishya (Exchange facilitator and wealthiest one). These systems need review and adaption in requisite “Frame of reference” to recognize different groups/people so as to have balanced progress of society.

To move forward, for words like nepotism, regionalism etc, as space is insufficient; I will not go for their justification etc. (as done for corruption). They also seem to be wrong only when “frame of reference” used is “Nationalism”. Many of vices seen from “Nationalism” are not bad at all if seen from frame of reference of “Family” or “Region”. Equally, many of virtues seen from “Nationalism” may be equally bad if seen from frame of reference of “Individual” “Family”, “Region” or “Internationalism” (Rabindra Nath Tagore a strong proponent of this even during independence struggle).

Now some examples of narrative used through “Nationalism” frame examples and its follies. If demand of Gold is high, and a trader brings in Gold in country in spite of prohibition, he is labeled “Smuggler” but if for the same reason (or with mala-fide intention and for a consideration) finance minister allows import of gold he is labeled most progressive and liberal. Similarly, there was a trade between Lahore and Amritsar, before 1947, but same is now labeled “smuggling” due to political partition. (Taking example from sociology, seemingly increased evil of premarital sex is due to change in age of marriage, shift in frame of reference, rather than change of attitude towards sex by indivudal.)  Dispute between Tamilnadu and Karanataka states over Kaveri river water is seen bad, waste of precious water resources and we blame it on concept of narrow regionalism and wish both states give up their respective stand in national interest. Such comments are also common when a community oppose a development project to protect its interest. But same verdict is not given to dispute between India and Bangla Desh over “Teesta River”. In post Indo-Pak partition, independence of India was meaningless being fragmented into 565 princely states, each with a freedom of choice. It was a big challenge to manage such alarge number of stake holders together with many more political analysts, social activists and persons, each with their conflicting and/or divided interests. Each of them had their own frame of reference. Despite such a wide diversity, merger of these states into territory of Indian Union was a greatachievement and everyone is proud of it. In the process many diplomatic channels operated and promises made some of them were reviewed, changed and accepted. The frame of reference was the national interest. Unless the frame of reference is rightly communicated any program howsoever good in the national interests is prone to resistance and bears risk of being projected anarchic. One such example was family planning programme of Government of India in 1970. An important lessens to draw is about subjectivity in frame of reference, across different stake holders and need to be resolved through proper communication for a generally acceptable solution.          

Seen in above context, today our problem is “Nation”, which, though is one of the many types of organizations (family, region, continent, and world etc), has become too powerful (because of political power) – omniscient, omnipotent and bestowed with quality like GOD of having no fault. There is complete, asymmetry in power of different organizations as against Nation. For example, Road Tax is to be paid  by “citizen” to “Nation-State” for  construction and maintenance of road but if road is not maintained or for that reason if some accident happen there is no remedy available to citizen to claim compensation from the “Nation-State”.     

To conclude, if we wish to have true republic, wish to solve problem like, Naxal and/or J & K, we need to change this imbalance of power. First, accept that as stated in the beginning, if there is problem, it has some base and justification and inherently nothing is bad. Try to understand it from proper frame of reference in an unbiased manner and exercise full honesty to solve it objectively.  Let all frame of reference (perception) be given due importance. Accept that “Nation” is aggregate of “Individual”, “Family”, “Society” and “State”, and fulfilling the aspiration of all these or to say co-existence of all these with “Nation” will make nation strong. Let us accept there are hundred and Thirty Crore aspirants is a realty and so are the frame of references, just not one.