Logwritten
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2009 12:49 PM IST

A few days ago, the respected theatre artist Nadira Babbar spoke to the newspaper, Daily News and Analysis, about the state of theatre in Mumbai. She felt that there weren’t enough good auditoriums in the city. “My appeal to the government is to build small, simple auditoriums with basic infrastructure,” she said. “I am seriously thinking of meeting the chief minister and put before him certain stark realities of the state of theatre. Some of my proposals are to subsidize the rates of the halls. Secondly, it would be of great help if they subsidize the rates of placing advertisements in newspapers; not only for the theatre events, but also for other cultural events.”

Most of us would sympathize with her. The arts are essential to a civilized society, and deserve our support. And there are many neglected areas of it, besides theatre, where an infusion of funds would help. Traditional folk arts are dying out, literature in regional languages gets a raw deal, and so on. So, naturally, many of us turn to the state.

But should we?

We appeal for government spending much as children appeal to their parents. “Dad, I’m thinking of taking guitar classes, it costs X.” Or “Mom, I want to learn Bharatanatyam, the fees are Y.” And Mom and Dad evaluate if it’s good for us and fork out the money.

But parents spend their own money, money honestly earned. It’s not so simple when it comes to the government.

The money that our government spends does not come from the skies. It is taken, forcibly, from millions of ordinary citizens in this country. Those include not just you and I, who are effectively slaves of the government for three or four months of every year, depending on what percentage of our income our total taxes come to. They also include my maidservant, your building chaprassi and the girl who sells flowers at the Haji Ali traffic signal, all of whom contribute to the government coffers when they purchase a bar of soap or a chappal.

I’m not taking the extreme view that the government should not tax us. We need a government to protect our rights, and for a handful of essential purposes. For these, taxes are a necessary evil. But we should question its use beyond these necessities, for taxes come at a high cost.

The French writer Frédéric Bastiat had once asked, “Does the right of the legislator extend to abridging the wages of the artisan, for the sake of adding to the profits of the artist?”

Let me paraphrase that question in the context of Mrs Babbar: “Does the right of the legislator extend to abridging the wages of my maidservant, your building chaprassi and the girl who sells flowers at the Haji Ali traffic signal, for the sake of adding to the profits of the theatre groups of Mumbai?”

Ah, I can already hear the protests. “But theatre is a worthy cause, and deserves to be promoted,” the howls come. Indeed, but my maid may find uses for her money that she thinks are worthier. Her tax burden—and ours— could be eased considerably if the government stopped taking from Peter to give to Paul. And even if you insist on parting her from that money, it could be argued that the government itself could do worthier things with it. After all, tens of millions of people in India still lack access to clean drinking water.

I am reminded here of something the American Congressman Ron Paul once suggested. Paul was the sole dissenting vote when the US Congress voted to give the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks, and also voted against giving it to Mother Teresa and the Pope. His point was not that they did not deserve it. He simply saw no reason why the taxpayer should cough up the $30,000 each medal is estimated to cost. Instead, he proposed that every member of Congress who supported the award pay $100 from his or her own pocket towards the cost of the medal.

Similarly, I suggest that those who support all sorts of worthy causes should consider funding it themselves instead of demanding it of me, my maid or your chaprassi. It is easy to ask for other people’s money to be spent to support causes you support—but is it moral? Also, such short cuts to nobility are often hypocritical—if everybody who supported government funding for Mumbai theatre actually went and watched some plays, my guess is that there would be no need for a subsidy.

There are all kinds of good causes in this world that deserve our support, and we should not hesitate to support them if we feel strongly about it. But we should be careful of what we ask from the government, for it involves other people’s money. Instead, we should put our own money where our mouth is, and have the self-respect to refrain from demanding other people’s dosh.

Amit Varma publishes the website India Uncut, at http://www.indiauncut.com. Your comments are welcome at thinkingitthrough@livemint.com

Tags - Find More Articles On:
READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
Ambuj Said:


Good article. It will help in creating awareness on how to use spending public money. I think after reading this article Nadiraji will not ask for subsidy. If required writer should be ready to debate this with Nadiraji. Article will help others and they will think twice before spending public money.

Posted On 12/13/2007 11:02:52 AM
Swar Said:


"It is easy to ask for other people’s money to be spent to support causes you support—but is it moral? Also, such short cuts to nobility are often hypocritical..." Nadira is of the theatre establishment; you are currently of the IPNBastiat's. None is less hypocritical.We all want to cut a deal. Nadira's main cause is theatre - she gets insignificant amount of income from it - she mentions that frequently - she earns her living from other sources -so she thinks it is right to ask for G's money to get an auditorium. It might not have entered her mind properly that the G's money is ours. Your main cause is blogging - you get insignificant amount of income from it - you mention that frequently - you earn your living from other sources - so you think it is right to ask for your readers' votes to get a blog's award. It might not have struck you that the vote is an emotional substitute for public dosh. Well, we can again argue - Nobody is forcing us to vote? But again, for argument's sake - the biggest consumption by educated people - Is emotional persuasion more moral than asking for money? We might be able to use the auditorium. Can we use your award? The IPN has the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation as one of its partners. RGF has our money. With your Bastiat prize, will it be wrong on our part to assume you have also taken our money through a circuitous route - however small the amount is? And to quote Guido Fawkes "IPN's main financial backer is the Pfizer pharmaceutical corporation, which is the world's biggest funder of lobbying to strengthen patent regimes globally. Do they know that Bastiat opposed patents as an economic absurdity?" We all think others owe a debt to us. We look for exchanges. What is significantly moral here? Nothing. Not even mentioning maid, chaprassis, flower-girl. We are at our liberty to ask or persuade anything we want. Bastiat's quotes are easy to come by but let's suggest some ideas. Like when filing tax returns - we should be given choices of areas of tax investment. If that idea has been mentioned already, I would love to have balloons on the roads. So my tax should go to buying balloons, not subway frescoes. The hard-earned money of our maid, chaprassis, flower-girl will be saved.They can choose buckets or buses. Imagine a day when a common man like you decides to fight the G full-on - pillar to post - for what he believes in. We will support. Else, its all borrowed talk, talk, talk - we are all Barry Champlains, Nadira included. We all want to stand on the pulpit. Nothing is immoral with borrowed talk or pulpit-access. We all do that; all of us can't be collectively immoral. Is it?

Posted On 12/13/2007 7:24:37 PM
Prasad Said:


Holy crap! First of all, don't say governments money is your money. It is not. Once you(or anyone)pay your taxes, it is no longer your money. So let the government decide how to spend it. After all it is government by the people, right? Secondly, the person who is interested in theatre & is also a tax payer like you and me, is paying his share for the play tickets. So your solution of again asking him for the money is not wise I guess, is it?. Having said that, the main problem of Mrs. Babbar still persists. My solution would be, of course first is the government. Second, why not approach the big companies or celebrities for the sponsorship. In Bangalore, companies like Google, Infosys, Yahoo, & etc. spend millions of rupees for the events like BarCamps & FOSS.in every year. There must be industries like Reliance or Godrej or Patni Comps. etc. in Mumbai which can do the same for the theatre. What say?

Posted On 12/13/2007 8:46:12 PM
Re: Rohan Said:


It is very much our money. The govt cannot just tax us of everything or spend as it pleases! If we followed your logic, it would mean that money once surrended to the government, could be spent without oversight or judgement, and need never be returned to taxpayers. After all, if it's the govt's money, then who are we to say what they do with it? That's a pretty radical theory-even in this country.

Posted On 12/18/2007 12:01:36 AM