Cauvery and the tragedy of commons

I was listening to a lecture on strategic modeling when I thught tragedy of commons is a good way to look at the Cauvery dispute and there is a strategic modelings perspective to solving the dispute.

Tragedy of Commons happens when two or more parties over exploit a common resource to maximize their individual benefit. In the end this overexploitation reaches a level where the common resource is not useful or is inadequate for all the parties. In the case of Cauvery dispute, both Tamil Nadu (TN) and Karnataka have greatly expanded the land under irrigation. This became a growth loop - Expansion yields prosperity and prosperity facilitates more expansion. The flip side is they used a common resource - the cauvery water - to do that and we have come to a point, where the water left in the basin and the table is no longer enough to sustain the areas under irrigation. We can fight for years on who has more rights to use the water but the bottomline is there is not enough water.


This is not the first time, the world has come across this problem. All the issues related to pollution, global warming, or exploiation of natural resources can be captured in this same frame work and there are some good solutions out there.

The problem is that the growth loop gets stronger and stronger using up the common resource. The solution is to create a balancing loop that after a point will disincentivize the uncontrolled growth and limit it.


The Solutions are very controversial. We can try the US style 'pay-not- to-grow' programs. If the incentives are strong enough, farmers will opt out. But the problem with this aproach is, that it is counter to a capitalist economy. We can also try to remove the free farm electricity program or tax the agricultural income. These create the balancing loops that limit the benefits of expansion.

Another aproach is to limit productivity by outlawing certain fertilizers or outlawing triple cropping. The effect is the same - by reducing the benefits of expansion, we control unfettered growth and preserve the river and the water table for future use. This last aproach is sucessfully used to rejuvenate the fishing industry in Newfoundland.

Often in public policy, the problem is not in finding a solution, but in implementing it. It will be interesting to discuss if any of these solutions are implementable in India and if all the parties will have the political will to implement measures like this.

Guru - Definitely in Mani Rathnam's class

In Tamil, we use the same word 'Nugharthal' to refer to ' enjoying a refined sensual experience' or 'to smell'. Mani Rathnam's Guru is one those experiences that should be smelled and breathed in like a 'pavazha malli', the smell of moisture on a long bus journey in the night or a baby after shower - very subtle yet overpowering.

You don't normally talk about a biopic of an industrial tycoon in these delicate terms. But that is what sets apart Mani Rathnam from others. I do not want to write about the storyline. Just want to talk about my interpretation of some of what I saw that made this experience 'Nugarthal'.

There is no mistaking which real life industrialist the movie is about when the protagonist is called Gurubhai. We get a feel for Guru's character early in the movie when he says to his manager, "If you think I am good and the 'phiranghi' thinks I am good, why should I work for you? I might as well work for myself and make all the money for myself". And how is he going to do this in the 'Lincense Rajjed' India? The tone is set early in the movie too. Guru is begging for a licence to trade yarn. The person who has the power to grant him the license is in a golf club and challenges him to hit the ball to the hole to get a license - a game Guru is not in comfortable in. Guru does not even try to use a club. He picks the ball, walks to the hole and drops it. For the first time in the movie, he has rewritten the rules of the game.

This in a nutshell is Guru. He played a lot of games that he did not know, and always had a different interpretation of the rules. As he says, "I opened the doors either with a 'salaam' or with a kick". Of course, the problem is people felt he is doing 'salaams' too often or kicking doors too often.

The movie transcends to a totally different level when we realize this movie is more about three different people's very conflicting definition of right and wrong, than about one Guru. There is the khadi-clad, corruption-fighting newspaper editor who thinks his quest for truth (and his newspaper that drove the Britishers out of India) is holier than God; a young journalist who is not above using wrong means to the right end of fighting corruption; and the industrialist who does not mind kicking or 'salaam'ing to create prosperity - for himself and for his three lack shareholders. There is no one right answer to who is right and who is wrong and the movie just revolves around this question.

... and there is an emotional cynosure for these three people - a girl full of life, afflicted with multiple sclerosis and counting her days. Mani Rathnam uses her as a great balancing act whenever the conflict between the three characters escalates to an uncontrollable level. Only their common love for this character makes the decency in their confrontation realistic.

Guru's relationship with the father figures is also very subtle. His dad and the news paper editor mean well, patronize him and want to protect him. But Guru fast outgrows both of them and ends up antagonizing them. May be it his ambition and drive, or it could also be their inability to accept an alternate way of doing things.

The movie is full of Mani Rathnam's little gems. Guru can't find a better phrase to praise his wife than sheepishly say, you are as shiny as a polyester. Or when Guru says, I dream of the day when I will clothe everyone in this country, his wife crash lands to reality telling "let me go dry your clothes - else you wont have anything to wear tomorrow".

Of course I do not like everything about Guru. The civility in the confrontations are way too idealistic. May be there are people out there who can be decent when disagreeing. But having grown in the era of Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha, I am not aware of it.

May be the reason Nayagan is a great movie is because it ends with a question and not try to offer a solution. But, Mani Rathnam as in Ayutha Ezhuthu, falls prey to offering a fit-all solution. and over-dramatizes the climax to do that. I cannot believe Mani Rathnam does not know a rousing monologue is not sufficient to sway a judicial enquiry panel and I flinch when the hero who was barely audible the day before, delivers a sermon the next day. (Though Guru says, "main Baniya hun saab! Have to conserve even the speech for a better day"). And why is there so much stress on Guru being middle class? Is Mani Rathnam afraid a truly elitist movie will not resonate with the public?

Guru does have a few weak spots, but it is definitely one of the best Indian movies I have seen. When a movie makes you stop and think about the subtleties of life, it transcends the level of box office flick and becomes a work of art. Guru definitely is one!


Post script: I cannot believe how awfully bad the English subtitles are. Subtitles are there for a reason - for people like me who do not understand the language. When I am able to enjoy the movie better without the subtitles that definitely screams "Quality control please!"