Public Interest v/s Public Interest

Public Interest v/s Public Interest

With the  definition of Public interest getting blurred, it is the Public prejudice that has started occupying this space. But hopes are always alive.

---- ----------- --- ---- ----------- --- ---- ----------- --- ---- ----------- --- ---- ----------- --- ---- ----------- --- 

Until few years back, in every friend circle, family faction and among office buddies, one could see people with multiple interests and varying preferences. Every circle had members with varying entertainment preferences – Films, Theatre, Sports etc ; digressing philosophical preferences – socialism, capitalism, religion etc ; differing preferences for gossips – affairs, conspiracies, stock markets tips etc.  These dividing lines within each circle were blurred and members would often switch over preferences.

Today, most of these circles exist in their digital avatars called whatsapp groups. These groups may have single interest  (cricket group, picnic group etc) or multiple interests (cousins group, school group etc) but what runs common across many such digital groups is the marked existence of two fixed prejudices – pro-Modi side and anti-Modi side. The polarization is so strong that one side sees zero merit in other side’s argument (or possibly does not want to see). Effort towards neutralizing prejudices only becomes a spent force and space for any third opinion hardly exists. One has to be either this side or that side. This widespread shift from blurred differences towards strong polarization must definitely be backed by some fundamental change in the society. 

 One such fundamental change that has resulted in non-compromising positions is the increasing conflict over the definition of “Public Interest”.  If a decision appears to be in public interest, then even its diametrically opposite decision could also be argued to be in public interest. The duplicity in understanding public interest causes members to take strong diametrically opposite positions. where each side feels that its argument is in public interest.

When govt needs to sell scarce public assets to private parties then it is largely believed that a process comprising transparent and open auction would serve the public interest. Based on advice from experts, various governments in India sold bandwidth through auction. Scarce bandwidth resulted in extremely high bids. Over the period, telecom operators started bleeding. They then started comprising on quality which resulted in frequent network failures. Ultimately, some of the operators closed down, others merged to survive which resulted in job losses. Ultimately, India is now left only with half the number of operators. 

Now, is having fewer telecom operators in public interest ? Is poor network in public interest ? Are job losses in public interest ? If not, then is sale through auction not in public interest ?

Same phenomenon applies to sale of lands belonging govt bodies like railways, housing boards etc. If these lands are auctioned, the successful bidder would always be the one who plans to sell the constructed apartments at a high sale price. A developer who wants to build affordable homes will never be successful in such an auction. Therefore, is selling govt lands to the highest bidder in public interest or is supporting construction of affordable homes in public interest ?  

The list is endless. Is loans waiver of poor farmers in public interest ?  OR is waiver of loans to entrepreneurs and businessmen in public interest ? Selling their business assets of entrepreneurs will hardly result in any recovery for banks but loan waiver will result in continued jobs and possibly larger recovery over longer term ? 

Low interest rates promote investments and thus increases job opportunities. But every percentage point reduction in interest rate reduces monthly income of retirees by 15%, who they have no source of income. Which decision is in real public interest ?

One of the core teachings of Mahavir was Anekaant-vaad ( many sided-ness). Reality changes with the change in perspective and so there is no one truth. It appears to be so true today, the only difference is that Mahavir explained Anekaant-vaad  so that one group appreciates the other group’s point of view. Today, unfortunately, the prejudiced groups work only to affirm their position and not towards appreciation of the deeper truth. And it is through stronger and smarter affirmation that these groups plan to win the war of conviction.

In this battle between prejudiced groups, the tools that enable victory are not about what the facts are but “how the facts are presented.” Dan Ariely, in his book  Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, says that masses are “predictably irrational”. Depending on what they read, hear see etc, masses develop certain kind of predictive biases. Groups with the ability to understand these biases and to use them to their advantage ensure support of masses for their cause. And public interest, ultimately, tends to be one that is determined through endorsement by the mass that forms the majority. 

The biggest war of gathering mass support is just around the corner. And our hopes are alive that Elections 2019 shall see that true Public Interest wins and not the Public Prejudice.