'All poetic imagery seems to be founded on metaphor, but in the lyric, where the associative process is strongest and the ready-made descriptive phrases of ordinary prose furthest away, the unexpected or violent metaphor that is called catachresis has a peculiar importance. Much more frequently than any other genre does the lyric depend for its main effect on the fresh or surprising image, a fact which often gives rise to the illusion that such imagery is radically new or unconventional. From Nashe's "Brightness falls from the air" to Dylan Thomas's "A grief ago," the emotional crux of the lyric has over and over again tended to be this "sudden glory" of fused metaphor.'
You’ve also thought a lot about the politics of translation in your academic work. In 1992, you edited a volume titled Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context.I know this is an impossible request, but could you tell us what the argument of that book was?Very very broadly, the book was among the first to point out that though it is often seen as a transparent medium by which you transport one culture into another, translation is mobilised as a way of enforcing colonial domination.Why would a book which came out in 1992 point out anything so false and so stupid? There was no colonialism anywhere by then. Yet the volume of translation was increasing exponentially. If you wish to dominate a culture or a people you don't permit them to learn their own language or to translate books into it. That's what the Turks did to the Armenians and, later, the Kurds. China was not promoting translations from Tibetan or Uighur when it was clamping down on those regions.
I look in detail at some major texts and at the ideas of translation that were circulating in colonial times, how it worked through the missionary activity and through administrators like William Jones.Tejaswini knows very well that people like William Jones became celebrities, they gained a European fame, by translating novel texts of intrinsic literary and value and great antiquity. They gained money and reputation. They could sell their manuscript collections at a good price on returning home.
In the 1780s, in the early colonial period, there was a great curiosity and romanticism about the East – and the whole understanding of translation was informed by that, by a desire not to interfere in the lives of the natives.Is this woman completely off her rocker? Does she really not know that the East India Company made a lot of money not just by interfering in the lives of the natives but also by killing them and robbing them?
But by the 1820s, under the East India Company, with the Utilitarian influence, the whole understanding of India changed – from seeing it as an advanced civilisation to a barbaric place.WTF?! William Jones was part of the East India Company. During the 1820's people like H.H Wilson were still going strong. The only thing which had changed was that Missionaries and comprador arrivistes like Raja Ramohan Roy were directly lobbying Westminster and influencing the reception of Indian texts. These guys- just like Tejaswini and her mentors- derived a rent by pretending India was a shit-hole populated by stupid cunts.
What kind of conceptual and political labour did translation do, to help colonial domination? In a literal way, too: even someone like John Mill’s understanding of India is informed by translations.What's so special about Mill? Few English people remember his name. After he quit the India Office, he was Liberal. But he had no influence or power.
I end the book by looking at an 18th century translation of a 12th century vachana, a very Orientalist translation, and at AK Ramanujan’s translation of the same text, which is a very modernist translation. My point was not that they were good or bad, but that the discursive space they came from informed the actual translations that they did. And I offered my own translation of the vachana.
The book is 25 years old, and I don’t talk about it any more. But without my having been a translator, I would not have written that book.
There is as yet no canonical definition of fake news. Still, there might be reason to hope. Perhaps we share a conception of fake news that is inchoate, waiting for an explicit definition. Given this possibility, we should attempt to devise a definition.
Begin with an intuitive view. Whatever else might be involved, fake news attempts to deceive by means of communication.Nonsense! The Daily Star or the National Enquirer weren't trying to deceive anyone by publishing stories about buses which ended up on the moon or Big Foot being sighted at Walmart.
This suggests three components. First, fake news is a kind of communication; specifically, it involves reportage.It needn't do so. It might involve editorialising and a bunch of talking heads pretending some terrible malaise has gripped the country. Reportage includes shite like 'the UN rapporteur on Right to Food in Scotland has announced that Glaswegians are now worse nourished than Eritreans'.
Second, as fake news aims to deceive, it involves reportage of what is false (or at least misleading).Nonsense! When we hear the UN Special Rapporteur say 'Scotland faces challenges on the right to food, including high levels of food insecurity and diet related health inequalities and problems with access to land'- we don't really believe that Scots are starving because evil land-lords are evicting them from their crofts and trampling over their vegetable patches. We think they are eating deep fried Mars bars and spending all their money on drink or down at the bookies. Still, we may approve of this absurd pretence that Westminster is starving the Scots just as we approved of Mrs Thatcher being depicted as a 'Milk Snatcher'.
Third, as authentic news sources can report what is misleading (due to honest journalistic error, for example), fake news must involve an intention to mislead. Tying these together, fake news is intentionally misleading reportage. To tighten things up further, add that fake news is the reportage as news of content that is intentionally misleading.Authentic news sources feature official announcements which are intended to mislead and throw a false light on events. We don't expect every journalist to begin his interview with a politician by saying 'Why are you lying to us, you fat sack of shit?' Even Jeremy Paxman didn't go that far.
This simple definition looks promising. But difficulties loom. To see what they are, let’s explore an analogy with garden-variety lying. It is surprisingly difficult to produce a satisfactory definition of lying. Take the popular view that lying is intentionally asserting what’s untrue. This analysis fails, as one could lie while asserting what is true. To wit, if I believe that your spouse is at the bar, but when you ask me her whereabouts I report that she is at the library (a report which I believe is false), then I have lied to you, even if your spouse is indeed at the library. I intentionally asserted a true proposition, but I nonetheless lied.Yawn! We already know all this.
Perhaps our initial view could be rescued with this minor tweak: lying is intentionally asserting something as true that one believes is false. Although this improves on its predecessor, it also fails. There are contexts where one lies even when asserting a truth that one believes. Think of cases where one makes an assertion that one knows one’s audience will misunderstand. Bill Clinton famously asserted “there is no sexual relationship” with Monica Lewinsky, knowing that his audience would understand him to be claiming that there never was a relationship. Clinton uttered a true proposition that he also believed, but he nonetheless lied.This is 'shedding false light'. Once again, this is something everybody already knows.
Given such considerations, one might distinguish asserting what is untrue from making an assertion designed to mislead. But we needn’t pursue this matter further. My point has been only that popular definitions of lying fail to capture certain clear instances of lying. The broader lesson is that simple definitions of complex phenomena must give way to nuanced ones.Talisse's point is invalid because there is no popular definition of lying. Why? Because the population isn't stupid and doesn't spend time doing stupid and pointless things. Only Philosophy Professors do.
Similar problems lurk for the tidy definition of fake news. We said that fake news is reportage as news of content that is intentionally misleading. Though initially plausible, this can’t be correct. Consider two cases.Only you said that, Talisse. We didn't. If we are affected adversely by a certain piece of reportage then we consult a lawyer. Depending on the jurisdiction, we may have an action for defamation, or false light or under right to privacy or something else. It depends.
First, imagine a television news channel that routinely over-reports crimes committed by immigrants, and neglects to report crimes committed by non-immigrants. Regular viewers tend to develop the impression that crime is far more common than it is, and that immigrants commit the most crimes. This channel offers no misleading reports; it accurately depicts the events it covers. Nonetheless, this is a clear case of fake news. Our definition cannot identify it as such.Nevertheless, depending on Jurisdiction, the Law may permit an action being brought against the Channel. Some Jurisdictions score better than others in this respect and, for economic reasons, others may seek to catch up with them.
Second, consider someone who seeks to maximize revenue produced by his website. He finds that posting fabricated accounts of lurid conspiracies involving prominent politicians reliably increases site traffic, which in turn enables him to sell ads at high rates. Suppose that his intention is not to mislead anyone, but only to maximize revenue. Stipulate further that he would be sincerely surprised to discover that visitors to his site tend to believe his outrageous posts. Perhaps he regards his site as a source of sardonic entertainment, and so denies that his site presents content as news. Still, visitors tend to regard his site as an authentic news source, and accept what he posts as fact. Our proprietor has none of the intentions or motives required by our definition, but this nonetheless is a case of fake news.But all news outlets are subject to economic constraints. All face the same moral hazard. Talisse has taken a long time to get to the common sense view.
As with lying, one could introduce tweaks designed to more finely contour the concept of fake news until it fits the varied cases. Regardless of its general utility as a philosophical exercise, as a political matter, this endeavor is doomed. Here’s why.No philosophical exercise has any general utility. That's why we all consider the subject to be shit.
We were hoping that the consensus across political divides on the dangers of fake news could provide fertile ground from which repair fractures in our democratic culture.Why on earth were you hoping that? Why not hope that there would be a consensus across political divides not to steal money or fuck interns or talk worthless shite?
However, in order for an analysis of fake news to serve this purpose, it must be politically impartial.Nonsense! For an analysis of a political problem to serve a useful purpose, it must be framed in justiciable terms consistent with those upheld by the Judiciary. Political impartiality does not matter. Only Justiciability does. Consider what happened when the Labour Party first formed a Government. It was recognised that they didn't have enough law-officers of their own, so the Liberals lent them people with the required skill-set. They may have been highly partial, but- in the best tradition of the Inns of Court- they discharged their professional duty in an entirely proper manner. Similarly, though Congress was the dominant party, it permitted people like Dr. Ambedkar, a thorn in its flesh, to take a leading role in drafting the Indian Constitution. Later, Ambedkar dismissed this contribution of his as 'hack work'. He didn't mean he had botched the job but rather that he had discharged his duty with the highest professionalism despite holding different political views.
That is, we require a definition that could identify instances of fake news independently of the political valence of its perpetrator.The Law can do this. Statistical techniques can be used as evidence of bias or 'false light' even if no testimony of malice is introduced- the thing depends on what laws obtain.
Obviously a definition fails if it stipulates that fake news is a tactic used only by conservatives (or liberals, or Republicans, or what have you). Our conception of fake news must not be politically opportunistic. Whatever we say fake news is, our definition must render it possible for parties across the political spectrum to be guilty of deploying it.We already have offences of defamation, false light, and so forth. In the same way that Companies and Auditors can be made to prepare 'true and fair' accounts, so too can News organisations. But, the game is not worth the candle because news doesn't much matter. Where it does- for e.g. if a News outlet consistently 'puffs' certain penny shares or fraudulent pyramid schemes or, worse yet, quack medicines and bogus doctors- then it is likely that State Prosecutors are already zeroing in on the culprits.
We saw nothing of the sort. There can be a juristically 'buck stopped' definition of 'fake news' just as there is of 'shedding false light'. The Law sorts this sort of stuff all the time. Philosophy simply plays with itself and jizzes in its own eye.
Therein lies the trouble. We saw above that no simple definition of fake news will suffice.
However, as our discussion of lying demonstrated, in order to construct a nuanced definition, we must build upon specific cases that we take to be clear-cut instances of the phenomenon in question.We don't need a nuanced definition, we need a justiciable 'buck stopped' one. Stare decisis law can build on specific cases. Philosophy can't. It isn't protocol bound and 'buck stopped' in the same way. It has no way of distinguishing ratio from obiter dicta or deciding what is de jure and what is de facti. A lawyer may say one thing as a lawyer but this does not bind him as a Judge. Rather he is bound by the ratios of previous Judgments. Philosophy doesn't work that way at all. Actually, it doesn't work at all. The thing is a wank.
Remember that we appealed to Bill Clinton’s statement as a case of lying, and then used that case to show the inadequacy of one proposed definition of lying.Clinton lied. There are no two ways about it. That is why his law license was suspended. The US Supreme Court disbarred him and he resigned rather than appeal this decision. Why? Coz the law says he lied and he was a lawyer and he knew he could not prove otherwise. Philosophy may be shite but the Law isn't.
In other words, we craft a definition of lying partly by testing proposed conceptions against cases that we independently assume to be clear instances of lying. We proceeded partly by saying, “Whatever lying is, this definitely should count as a lie!” The same goes for an analysis of fake news. We test the merit of a proposed definition partly by looking to cases that we already regard as instances of fake news.You don't test the merit of anything at all because you've got shite for brains. Why? Because you teach a worthless subject.
Which, since Quine, few philosophers believe is a real thing.
Thus we confront what philosophers call the paradox of analysis.
Any definitional endeavor must begin from presumed instances of the phenomenon that is to be defined. In many philosophical contexts, the paradox’s “I know it when I see it” circularity is manageable because philosophical debates often proceed against wider background agreements.So, there is 'buck stopping'- as in the Clinton case. A lawyer lied and the Law said he lied, and so he was fined and his license was suspended. Deliberation is only tolerable if it is terminable in a protocol bound fashion- i.e. there is cloture or what Kripke called 'buck stopping'.
For example, philosophers who disagree sharply about justice nonetheless agree that antebellum slavery is an exemplary instance of severe injustice. Similarly, metaphysical disputes over the nature of physical objects typically presume that tables and chairs are among such entities.There is absolutely no need to do so. All that is needed is to identify a justiciable right- viz. that of not being harmed by 'fake news'- linked by an incentive compatible viculum juris to a specific obligation. News reportage can be like Audited Accounts; indeed, something like this already obtains in certain organisations- e.g. the license payer funded BBC- and in certain jurisdictions.
Things are far more troubled with fake news. In order to devise a nuanced definition that is also politically impartial, we must identify cases of fake news that can be presumed to be noncontroversial among otherwise divided citizens.
I doubt that there are such cases.Nonsense! 'Clinton cleared of lying by Supreme Court' is fake news. Everyone, including Clinton, would agree on this.
Consider that any proposed conception of fake news will include reference to the intentional dissemination of false or misleading political information by institutions posing a news sources. So if we require a politically impartial account that could win broad assent, we will need to begin from assumptions about specific instances when purported news institutions have engaged in intentional deception. It seems to me that our political divisions run so deep that there are no cases that will be generally agreed to be instances of intentional political deception.Bollocks! ISIS was disseminating fake news about what was happening in America. The Americans had no difficulty agreeing to shut down its Social Media Channels.
What’s more, there are similarly deep divisions over what makes an institution an authentic news source, and even what journalism is.These deep divisions don't matter. What matters is that this is an economic activity and, therefore, some incentive compatible mechanism, enshrined as a vinculum juris, must exist which can do the job in question if, that is, it is worth doing.
Accordingly, any definition that begins from the premise that, say, Pizzagate is a paradigmatic case of fake news will likely be dismissed as politically opportunistic.Dismissed by whom? A Judge? A Legislative sub-committee? Nonsense! The people involved understand very well what is required of them- viz. to come up with a rule set which will pass judicial muster. Political partisanship may muddy the waters a little, but- if the thing is worth doing- won't stop the job getting done.
To any such account, one will find conservatives who will respond, “If that’s the paradigm of fake news from which your view proceeds (rather than, say, the whitewashing of the Benghazi incident), then your account is rigged against us.”How 'things appear to some' doesn't matter if the thing is worth doing. That's why Democracy under the Rule of Law actually works.
To put the concern more generally, every nuanced definition of fake news is likely to appear to some as opportunistic, designed to impugn certain regions of the political spectrum and vindicate others.
A definition of fake news that serves only to further tar our political opponents is counterproductive. In order for a conception of fake news to do positive work in rehabilitating our political culture, we require an account of the phenomenon that could win agreement across our political divisions. Under current conditions, no such account is available.Sez you. But you have no power. You are a shithead- which is why you teach a worthless subject and are shilling a stupid book by writing this column.
Our current media and news environment is toxic for democracy.Really? So Democracy is going to die is it? Care to bet on it? No? Then you are lying.
It deserves unrelenting critique. Nonetheless, we ought to give up the idea that there is such a thing as fake news. There is no such phenomenon. The term is best regarded as a political slur, much like “snowflake,” “libtard,” “wingnut,” or “trumpkin,” except that it attaches not to individuals, but to the (nominally) journalistic enterprises that one regards as hostile to one’s political loyalties.So Talisse has finally arrived at the conclusion I began this post with- 'fake news' is an expletive like 'mother-fucker'. However, there is a crime which corresponds to fucking your mother and we feel it worthwhile to enforce the relevant law. I may call you a swindling little sneak thief and that may relieve my feelings, but, if the sum involved is large enough and the matter is justiciable, I will also take you to court or report you to the relevant authorities.
Accordingly, the statement “CNN is fake news” should not be understood as ascribing properties to CNN that render it a spurious news organization; rather the statement is strictly expressive, akin to the exclamation “CNN sucks!” No one bothers to devise an analysis of what it means for a network (or anything else) to suck. That’s because there is no such property.Of course there is such a property. If CNN sucks w.r.t such and such a demographic, its revenues are affected. Capital markets take note. It may have enough market power to continue sucking ass big time- but that is a question for Competition policy.
There is no fake news.Yes there is- it if it worth our while to make it an offence, then it will exist in a juristic, buck-stopped, manner for the law to take cognisance off. Some such thing has already happened in certain jurisdictions with respect to specific matters.
But that’s distressing, isn’t it? Although we all agree that our political divisions are threatening our democracy, those very divisions may now run so deep as to subvert our attempts to explain the dangers they pose.This is all in your head Talisse. You don't understand Democracy under the Law and are getting your knickers in a twist because you have absurd beliefs about some supposedly unprecedented 'division' in your country created by some supposedly 'toxic' thing called fake news. You may think this is happening because of some occult 'subversion'. You are wrong. The fault lies in your own stupidity, no where else. Teaching Psilosophy has robbed you of what little intelligence you once had. Go write another worthless book so we can all snigger at you behind your back.
Yet in the absence of a detailed account of those dangers that could be embraced by all, we have little chance of counteracting them.OMG! Prof. Talisse is a genius! I'm going to send him my detailed account of how the neighbour's cat has been subverting Democracy by spreading fake news about that time I peed in the sink coz I was too hung over to make it to the toilet and Donald Trump was in that sink and now everybody probably thinks I'm a Russian hooker which is so like not harasho tovarich.
If you urge them (Indian people whom Missionaries were seeking to convert to Christianity) with their gross and unworthy misconceptions of the nature and the will of God, or the monstrous follies of their fabulous theology, they will turn it off with a sly civility perhaps, or with a popular and careless proverb. You may be told that 'heaven is a wide place, and has a thousand gates'; and that their religion is one by which they hope to enter. Thus, together with their fixed persuasions, they have their sceptical conceits. By such evasions they can dismiss the merits of the case from all consideration; and encourage men to think that the vilest superstition may serve to every salutary purpose, and be accepted in the sight of God as well as truth and righteousness.Bhabha says-
In the native refusal to satisfy the colonizer's narrative demand, we hear the echoes of Freud's sabre-rattling strangers, with whom I began this chapter.Bhabha is shedding false light on what actually happened in India. The Colonizer was the East India Company which deported or otherwise prevented many Missionaries from proselytising in India. There was no 'narrative demand' on the part of John Company. An Indian was free to converse with a Missionary- just as I am free to converse with Bible thumpers who knock on my door- but they were perfectly at liberty to refuse any demand from the Missionary just as I am at liberty to slam my door in the face of any such unwelcome visitor.
The natives' resistance represents a frustration of that nineteenth-century strategy of surveillance, the confession, which seeks to dominate the 'calculable' individual by positing the truth that the subject has but does not know.This is sheer nonsense. The East India Company was a commercial enterprise. It sought to minimise costs and maximise revenues so as to repatriate a larger profit to its shareholders. Surveillance is costly. John Company wasn't even keeping tabs on its own sepoys- which is why the Mutiny happened. It is utterly mad to claim that an Indian telling a Missionary, politely or not, to go fuck himself was 'resisting' surveillance or stalking or sodomy.
The incalculable native produces a problem for civil representation in the discourses of literature and legality.Utter nonsense. We know a lot about why the legal services provided by John Company proved attractive to Indian capitalists and some agricultural communities- e.g. in Coorg. There was no problem at all for civil representation because Court Pundits and Maulvis were easily available. Over the course of a 100 years, enough case law had accumulated to allow them to be dispensed with, though they reappear as lawyers, and- after the Crown took over from John Company- Codification proceeded in a manner that was favourably received.
This uncertainty impressed itself on Nathanael Halhed whose A Code of Gentoo Laws (1776) was the canonical colonialist codification of Indian 'native' law, but he was only able to read this resistance to calculation and testimony as native 'folly' or 'temporary frenzy ... something like the madness so inimitably delineated in the hero of Cervantes'.Halhed's code was used by lawyers. It was not binding on Judges. Other codes existed and, in several instances, stare decisis law followed those Codes or others suggested by the Court Pundit or Maulvi.
The native answers display the continual slippage between civil inscription and colonial address.But 'native answers' in native States display the same slippery property. There is always going to be a slippage in our account of a law which may be applied to oneself. One muddies the issue so as to leave a door open for oneself later on.
The uncertainty generated by such resistance changes the narratorial demand itself.No it doesn't. The guy in the witness box may shilly and shally and dodge and duck and try to muddy the issue, but the prosecutor, if she is worth her salt, does not change her 'narratorial demand'. Rather she reiterates it with greater lucidity so as to show the jury that the defendant is ducking the question because he is guilty. An innocent man, after all, can give a clear, coherent and logically consistent response to any narratorial demand.
What was spoken within the orders of civility now accedes to the colonial signifier.Nonsense! If my ancestor spoke to his barber in Tamil, the imprecations he uttered did not accede to any corresponding colonial signifier. That's why the poor fellow had to go to School and learn English in order to become a lawyer and swindle his way into a modest fortune.
The question is no longer Derrida's 'Tell us exactly what happened.' From the point of view of the colonizer, passionate for unbounded, unpeopled possession, the problem of truth turns into the troubled political and psychic question of boundary and territory: Tell us why you, the native, are there.Fuck off! Did Ceasar say anything similar to the Druids? Did Cortez? Of course not. That's why History had recorded their names. Colonising a place involves beating and killing people. Asking them foolish questions would just get your head kicked in.
Etymologically unsettled, 'territory' derives from both terra (earth) and terre (to frighten) whence territorium, 'a place from which people are frightened off.So what? Only the first etymology is commonly accepted. The second one is used only by worthless shitheads writing nonsense.
The colonialist demand for narrative carries, within it, its threatening reversal: Tell us why we are here.No colonist has ever made such a futile and unprofitable demand. A bunch of guys who are colonising your country keep killing those who oppose them and taking their cool stuff. It is fucking obvious why the coloniser is doing this. It's coz he likes cool stuff and wants more of the same.
It is this echo that reveals that the other side of narcissistic authority may be the paranoia of power; a desire for 'authorization' in the face of a process of cultural differentiation which makes it problematic to fix the native objects of colonial power as the moralized 'others' of truth.Fuck off. Trump is narcissistic and has authority. He has no desire for any further 'authorization' in the face of 'a process of cultural differentiation'- for example between himself and Justin Trudeau or Angela Merkel.
The native refusal to unify the authoritarian, colonialist address within the terms of civil engagement gives the subject of colonial authority - father and oppressor - another turn.Did Mahatma Gandhi say 'Daddy, be nice! Stop fucking me in the ass!' to the King Emperor? What about Jomo Kenyatta, or Nkrumah or Ho Chi Minh?
This ambivalent 'and', always less than one and double, traces the times and spaces between civil address and colonial articulation.No it doesn't. Colonial articulation was about Balance Sheets and Trade Routes and the geopolitical balance of power.
The authoritarian demand can now only be justified if it is contained in the language of paranoia.No. If you are as crazy as a bedbug and trying to pretend you are smart, then you utter shite like the above.
The refusal to return and restore the image of authority to the eye of power has to be reinscribed as implacable aggression, assertively coming from without: He hates me. Such justification follows the familiar conjugation of persecutory paranoia. The frustrated wish 'I want him to love me,' turns into its opposite 'I hate him' and thence through projection and the exclusion of the first person, 'He hates me.'Bhabha, you hate literature. You hate the English language. You hate rational discourse. Yet you want to be loved and admired as a savant dealing precisely with these things. But you begin with the precisely the premise that the sex pest on campus strategically deploys- viz. the low man on the totem pole secretly wants to be fucked in the ass. In such cases 'sly civility' don't cut it. Report the fucker and get him Title 9ed off campus. Ruin the fucker's career. Me-too the bastard till he slits his own throat.
What is the author trying to say? I suppose what she is getting at is that Akash pays into the system through tax but doesn't get much out of it and so has little 'skin in the game' politically speaking.
Our first protagonist is an average middle-class urban city-dweller – let’s call him Akash. Akash has recently finished college and has received an offer with an IT firm working in analytics. He drives to work and lives in a flat with three of his friends. He enjoys going to the movies. He is asthmatic. Akash pays his taxes (it’s deducted from his pay cheque every month, so he does not have much of a choice). He’s also amongst the tiny fraction of Indians who do pay direct income tax…
Akash never went to a government school. He has never and does not ever plan to go to a government hospital. He does not take public transport. He does not receive any food from the public distribution system. He somewhat trusts that the FSSAI stamp on the food he buys makes it safe to eat, but he nurses his doubts. He likes the peace the nation enjoys and is proud of the Army. Last year, when floods devastated his city, he was rescued by the Army, and he is grateful to them. He likes the fact that he has not been robbed or assaulted (as yet) and for that he is thankful to the police. Akash has never voted.None of the candidates appeal to him. And, to be frank, he feels society does not do much for him. The politicians appear to be aware of this: He is not courted before elections…
Enter Muniammal, our second protagonist. She is a 55-year-old woman who lives in a ten-by-ten illegal shanty on the banks of the Cooum river in Chennai. She does not pay for her electricity. Her children went to the corporation school, for which she did not pay any tuition. When she is sick, she visits the government hospital, which is free, in theory. She depends heavily on the Re 1 per kg ration of rice for her sustenance.
But Muniammal has little control over the quality of the services (or products) she receives. Indeed, she often needs to grease many palms to get what she is entitled to or what she needs to get away with: to the policeman to look the other way, to the ward boy at the hospital so the doctor will see her, to the ration shop for preferential access. In fact, when there was an assault on her daughter-in-law this past month, she could not get an FIR filed without her local councillor’s help.
The system, which is supposed to work for all citizens, is often broken for her. Raghuram Rajan, India’s former RBI governor, has been widely quoted as saying that “the tolerance for the venal politician is because he is the crutch that helps the poor and underprivileged navigate a system that gives them so little access”.What Rajan meant was 'we tolerate the venal politician because he has a countervailing power over the corrupt civil servant.' However, if the system had been properly designed, bureaucrats who tried to restrict access to it so as to extort money would be fired.
But this “crutch” comes with a big caveat: Muniammal , the 55-year-old woman, cannot hope to command the attention, let alone the assistance, of the local councillor.This is a poor argument. The Muslim Councillor from the cultivator caste is very happy to do a favour for a Hindu from an artisan caste because this creates the impression that he can command a following outside his own sub-caste which in turn gives him a leg up over his cousins.
Only Muniammal, who belongs to Caste A or Religion B, can. Especially if Caste A is a large voting bloc. And Muniammal gives her vote as her caste leader directs. This means caste definitions and ethnic divisions need to be highlighted to command attention and delineated to create a unique power base – an interesting thought.
Now take Rajiv, our third actor. He’s the hot-shot heir of a large business family with interests in construction, steel and retail. Rajiv would not dream of taking public transportation in India, and would not venture near a government hospital or school. He does not even know where a ration shop is, or what he can get there. He has never seen his ration card. He wants the government to keep multi-brand retailers out of the country and he wants high import duties on steel. Thus far, he has got what he wants.Right! Coz Rajiv is as stupid as shit. Some business houses may want 'high import duties on steel', others don't. As an anti-dumping measure, steel tarriffs were reasonable when the author was writing this. Multi-brand retailers have always existed in India. What this careless author- dashing off a book to burnish her credentials- is targeting is MNC retailers- single or multi-brand- but, again, this isn't really such a big deal. The author is out of date.
If we were to look at sheer numbers, the Muniammals of India overwhelm the other two in numbers.This is true everywhere. Few people work in 'analytics' like Akash. Fewer still are heirs to billion dollar fortunes.
What are the characteristics of such an equilibrium? What kind of social contract would manifest here?I will answer this later on.
The provision of services of the society needs to be broken, or at least flawed.What type of sentence is this? Where was her brain when she wrote it? Does she not re-read what she writes? What about the editor at the 'Scroll'? Why did he or she let it pass?
Both Akash and Muniammal, for different reasons, cannot really influence the service quality they receive from the government.This woman must be utterly mad! Does she really think Muniammal has equal access to services provided by the Government? Akash probably wouldn't even need to hire a lawyer to get much better treatment. In every justiciable matter, Akash is likely to get better treatment than Muniammal. But this true all over the world. Government services are rationed- there is service provision discrimination- with money as one segmenting factor. Within income classes, resources may be rationed on a first come first basis. That is a separate issue.
Why? Public provision of services is sometimes flawed because of the incentives of the constituents, the vacancies within several essential departments, such as health and education, and the complete lack of competition…This is not a flaw. There is always scarcity at the margin in the provision of public services. Once the allocation runs out, some people are turned away.
Thus, Akash cannot shift his custom to another when the government has a virtual monopoly and Muniammal cannot afford to do so.Akash has already shifted to other service providers for things like housing, food, education and so forth. He may live in a gated community with its own security, water, electricity generator etc. However, where something valuable- like a Govt. of India scholarship to Ivy League- was on offer, Akash would certainly have pursued it with vim and vigour.
Little competition means the “badness” of the service can persist.Competition is not the problem. The problem is that resources aren't released and reallocated from inefficient service providers- for e.g. a dysfunctional Government school- to efficient service providers- for example a voucher type, independent school.
Muniammal cannot command better service; she can influence the process only through her politician, and that too as a member of a specific caste or ethnic group. This is important because otherwise the politician loses his meaning to the Muniammals of the world….Suppose I were Muniammal's local councillor. Would she hesitate to see me because I'm from a different caste? Of course not. She'd come to me and promise to get out the vote for me in her ward. She might well mention her caste- it might qualify for special benefits- and her economic status- so as to get BPL entitlements- and I'd be happy to help her because it would help me snatch votes from my rival or at least make it appear to my caste fellows that I could do so.
Add to this a tremendously delayed judiciary process – we have more than 26 million pending cases as on February 2018 – which imbues the politicians with the power of ad hoc decision-making.It is estimated that 46% of those pending cases involve sections of the bureaucracy suing each other so as to avoid having to take any sort of action- ad hoc or otherwise.
For instance, if someone beat up your son and the case dragged on and on, wouldn’t it be simpler (and more gratifying) to approach the local politician for speedy street justice?Is this lady utterly mad? If a case had been lodged against your son's assailant, the police must have already beaten a confession out of the fellow responsible. Otherwise how could the case go ahead? Obviously, the assailant would have retracted his confession and his lawyers would have managed to drag things out. But this can happen anywhere. This is not the sort of thing one goes to a politician for. A gangster maybe- but that would involve extorting money.
Lastly, data is crucial. As the saying goes, knowledge is power, which perhaps explains why departments are shrouded in relative opacity and data seems to be unavailable, hard to access or outdated….This lady has an MBA from America. She holds some high position and has just published a book. Why is she unable to string two thoughts together in a cogent manner?
Why do we allow slums to creep up on flood plains?WTF? Slums aren't sanctioned. We aren't allowing them at all. The question she means to ask is why do many parts of the world permit building on flood plains.
Muniammal needs inexpensive housing close to where job opportunities are. It’s illegal, so the politician leans on the policeman and the judges to look the other way.Nonsense! Whether in Britain or Chennai or New Orleans, building on floodplains occurred not because of the need for 'inexpensive housing' but for big profits for property developers.
Muniammal is grateful and rewards him with her vote.How on earth does Muniammal get to know which politician to reward? It would be impossible for her to do so. That is why it is likely that a slum-lord is the person who manages the thing in precisely the same manner that a property developer would and for exactly the same reason.
And because she overwhelms the Akashes in numbers, her writ prevails.This is a hideous travesty of the truth. I'm pretty far to the Right, but what this lady has written is... it is hate speech directed against...someone of my ethnicity and religion who no South Indian would not consider a better and more worthwhile person than myself.
The slums encroach on the river and reduce its carrying capacity. Of course, cheap housing cannot come with underground sewage, so the waste – both solid and human – finds its way into the inviting river, further reducing the river’s carrying capacity. Naturally, when it rains heavily, the river is more likely to flood.So, that's what happened in New Orleans or what happens in the Home Counties. Muniammals create slums and this causes floods. What a wonderful discovery this lady, who used to work for Mckinsey, has made! Donald Trump should appoint her to his Cabinet!
Moving onto the second question, why do we dump construction debris into our drains and canals with impunity?We don't. A builder might want to, to cut costs. But he won't get away with it in England. That doesn't matter. Big estates will go up anyway. Devastating floods will still occur.
To answer this, let us come to Rajiv. He wants to rebuild the city in his way.It is not possible to 'rebuild' any Indian city because of obsolete rules and regulations. What people dream off is building a greenfield land-bank and creating a second Gurgoan. There are plenty of well built housing colonies in India created by 'Rajivs' who knew their business.
Naturally, that involves acquiring buildings on the cheap.In India? How? The thing will take an age and cost a fortune. Far better let rent controlled buildings collapse on their own.
He leans on his brother-in-law, the MP, to ensure other builders cannot buy old buildings easily in “his” part of town.The M.P has no such power. This is sheer fantasy. Indeed, this strategy it is a quick way to lose money.
He then breaks down the buildings. Carting the waste would add to costs, and why should he do that when the river lies so invitingly close? Who will stop him? Any official who dares to will get transferred or worse.Which river is so invitingly close? In any case, India happens to be very good at recycling rubble. Remember the Twin Towers? A scrap merchant from Chennai bought the rubble and recycled it. Why is Rajiv dumping stuff which can be sold for money?
In his book, When Crime Pays, Milan Vaishnav talks about the link between builders and political houses, and the increasing criminality in politics. To highlight his case, Vaishnav shares data that shows cement prices go down just before elections because builders divert funds to the campaign.Elections mop up 'black' liquidity of diverse origins which then flow back into real estate. So what?
Meanwhile, Rajiv’s first venture does so well that he wants to build the second one. The only problem is there is an old lake there. Earlier, the lake had farmers around it with water rights. But farmers have sold their land and moved as the city has developed. The corporation has taken some of it over, and the rest is too inviting for Rajiv to pass on.There are plenty of small developers in every city of India. Every family has extended and built up its property. Lakes and water courses get short shrift. Still, this does not mean proper City planning and drainage can't greatly mitigate much of the problem.
Not to worry, dump some earth and debris there, and there is a new site in place.Muniammal can't buy the flats Rajiv is selling. Akash can. Why blame the poor woman living in a shack for a problem she has not created at all?
The unholy alliance between the Rajivs, who promote rule‑breaking to make a quick buck, and the Muniammals, who require rulebreaking as a fiendish substitution to the provision of good services, overwhelm the wishes of the Akashes of India.
Moreover, the Muniammals vote and, very often, the Akashes don’t.Muniammals do vote and often they are paid to do so. However, they are not voting for Muniammals. Their votes get divided up between politicians who are clones of each other.
This results in the trampling of our common goods like air and water – of our environment, in short. And because the politician – who gains his power from the broken system – is the one who can fix it, we need to look at addressing the underlying equilibrium instead of merely spouting platitudes.Equilibrium is a word from Economics. What does economic theory have to say in this context? The answer is that what is happening here has to do with property rights. Encroachment and zoning violations infringe the State's property or residuary control rights. 'Appropriable control rights' give rise to rents. The State can't afford to assert residuary control rights while politicians and administrators can share rents from those who appropritate them. The Coasian solution would be to minimize rent contestation and forget about how property rights were distributed in the first place. The equilibrium to solve for has to do with implementing a mechanism that can 'internalise' externalities. So stuff like a local cess to pay for drainage, utilities, municipal services etc. The incentive for paying the cess is getting some property type claim and thus establishing a path to security and having a fungible asset.
But as they say, every cloud (or worsening climate) has a silver lining.WTF! Muniammal was very satisfied with her riverside condo was she? The woman is living in a shack! She is barely clinging on. Why speak of her 'satisfaction' as if she were sipping martinis in her penthouse?
As the frequency of floods increases, Muniammal’s satisfaction with her housing falls.
It made sense when it was close to her place of work, and she was willing to put up with the sewage and the lack of water. But when it floods every year, she loses the few possessions she has, and the relief doesn’t cover it all. Moreover, Muniammal’s son has done well, relatively speaking, and he does not want to live in a slum anymore. The vote bloc is beginning to crumble, and a new vote bloc, the “development” vote bloc is becoming viable.Sheer fantasy! There was always a vote bloc for development. What Muniammal and her son and everybody else wants is both for the slum to be improved and the chance to sell and move up the housing chain. There will always be new entrants- perhaps from outside the State if demographic transition has occurred.
Also, once in a while, the system throws up a hero – whether a bureaucrat or a vibrant politician – who wants to make a difference. There are recent examples in India – a bureaucrat who heads the irrigation department of a state, or one who ensured a public transportation project was completed on time and under budget, or politician who revamped the department he was charged with, and delivered results.Yes, yes. But what happens to these heroes? They are promoted away from genuine problems or reach mandatory retirement age.
Typically, this happens when outsiders – either politicians or lateral entrants into the bureaucracy – take charge. They don’t benefit from the equilibrium, so they are happy to make the change. There are usually tell-tale signs of these heroes – the data will speak for itself. The good news, if you want to call it that, is that climate change throws into strong relief the fissures in the Indian system.Sheer idiocy. Economic processes don't involve heroes. Solving for a Coasian solution is about minimising rent contestation and using the resources thus freed up through a mechanism which can internalise the relevant externality. It's the story of how municipal services got started in the first place. All this mumbo-jumbo about some supposedly disaffected Akash, with his head in the sand, and Rajiv who will go bankrupt following the author's crazy business model, and villainous Muniammal gloating in her shack, is a fantasy of the author's which exposes something very ugly about her American educated mind-set.
