The CAA rules and the electoral bonds have led to much anguish in some circles. Hindu liberals are unhappy with CAA. Constitutionalists were unhappy with it and the electoral bonds. Other liberals, too, are unhappy, for one reason or the other. However, the cut-off date of December 31, 2014, for the CAA notwithstanding, Hindus and Christians and Sikhs in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are probably happy. It is, after all, an enabling law. They will get fast tracked.

Likewise, pro-transparency liberals are happy even though, as the editorial in this newspaper pointed out, their preference for transparency has now made political funding totally opaque. That leaves the pro-bond wallahs unhappy.

This overall confused response has reminded me of a paper that Amartya Sen wrote more than half a century ago. It was path breaking then but is now nearly forgotten because his own tribe of liberals didn’t want to be reminded that they are eyeing pies in the skies.

The paper was called ‘The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal’ and it said that social choice was a complex affair which could never result in satisfying everyone at the same time. Indeed, on the contrary, it could leave everyone very unhappy at the same time.

The paper came as a big shock to the liberals of the West who thought liberalism did just that, namely, that it satisfied everyone. So there was a major kerfuffle in academic circles and many more papers on it followed seeking to refute it in some way. But so strong was Sen’s insight and mathematical proof that it stands mostly undisputed even today. So it’s worth recalling the main points of that paper simply because it was so utterly brilliant. It captures social choice dilemmas nearly perfectly.

Mr Lewd and Dr Prude

Sen imagined a society in which there were only two individuals, called Mr Lewd and Dr Prude. Between them there is one copy of a semi-pornographic book, Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

The social choice to be made is who gets to read it first. Or should it be burnt.

Lewd would want to read it but would enjoy it even more if Prude was forced to read it, who because he is a prude, prefers to destroy it unread.

But he also wants to read it because he thinks it would be worse if Lewd read and enjoyed it. So now society has to decide which is the most desirable option. But, being liberal, it must also let each fellow decide for himself. Then they must rank the outcomes as to which option is higher, or better.

And here is where the problem occurs. If Lewd reads the book, Prude is unhappy because he is a prude; and if Prude reads it, Lewd is unhappy.

This happens because the preferences between the two become incompatible when a third alternative — that no one reads the book — also exists. This option amounts to the maintenance of status quo ante, meaning either that the book doesn’t exist or the option of reading it doesn’t.

The impossibility

Clearly, this is not a solvable problem, least of all by courts because liberalism of the kind that demands impractical solutions always leaves everyone unhappy. We can see this all over the West and India, too.

comment COMMENT NOW