Today is the 10th anniversary of Kargil war between India and Pakistan which ended in a Pyrrhic victory for India. CNN-IBN news channel was conducting an interview with parents and youngsters to see if joining the Armed Forces was still an aspiration. Some were for it. Some were not. Watching this program got me thinking.
Later today, I was also reading the paper and it appears that China has relaxed the 'one-child' policy since their population is aging very quickly.
I took these two disparate pieces of information and extrapolated something interesting logic. Money wins over ideology. Sad but true.
The Chinese govt realized that to ensure that each household has only one child they would need to do something creative. They came up with a scheme which promised complete financial aid for the child's growth and education and health and for the family if the family adopted the 'one-child' policy. For a communist country like China this incentive was invaluable that the policy was adopted by couples very quickly. If they made a second baby the incentive was not available and they had to bear all the expenses for the two children. That was a huge disincentive to procreate. This effectively kept the population from exploding.
If China had announced that truth in plain terms as - "if our population explodes each individual will have less opportunities and less resources and a lower quality of life, so we must adopt this 'one-child' policy" would they have been successful in enforcing policy. Most unlikely. But when they threw some monetary incentives it worked! Money is the bottomline
Similarly, in the USA children who decide to join the Armed Forces have their Federal Education Loans (FAFSA Loans as they are called) waived. Which means after 4 years of service they are eligible to return at the age of 22 and go to college, fully sponsored by the Govt. For many children college education costs around $30,000 to $4 0,000 and this is not something they or their parents could afford. Also the family system is quite unstable in the USA relative to countries like India. So it is a reality that both parents might be separated or divorced and hence unlikely to provide financial support. This monetary incentive besides several other incentives make the option of joining the army very attractive.
Imagine some handouts with this message - "Please take up this risky job of defending our Nation. Your Nation needs you. The training will be rigorous and you will be deployed in extreme conditions in hostile territories like Iran or Afganistan or unstable Rwanda or Haiti. Personal injury and death are very likely statistically. But it is an honorable option and the Nation salutes your valour". Would these messages succeed in inspiring youngsters to join. A big "NO!"
Money again, in the form of Loan waivers and discounts on military quota seems to do the trick of inspiring people to enlist in the Armed Forces.
Moving on to my third and final case. India has a fantastic fauna and flora. But India is also notoriously apathetic towards wildlife conservation. Tiger populations have dwindled to mere hundreds in the wild. The future looks bleak. Animal rights leaders and champions of wildlife conservation are trying to send home the message "let us save our wildlife from extinction so that our children and their children will get to experience the beauty and grandeur of Nature". This message albeit being true has not marketability. No one is convinced. So lets go back to our drawing board and analyse this problem. Could we extrapolate from lessons learnt elsewhere. We already know we live in a cynical world. Truth is not enough. Something else is needed.
How about South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania. These are third-world countries with high rates in poverty and diseases. They could not care less about wildlife conservation. Yet, wildlife thrives. There are so many programs on Discovery TV channel on conservation in Africa. How come it works there and not in India. Simple! The South-African government has learnt how to make money out of wildlife tourism. Organized safaris and expeditions bring in much-needed foreign exchange. The tribals and subsistence farmers become gun-toting forest rangers who are actively involved in wildlife conservation. The tourism industry is having the side-effect of conservation. Truth be told, human race is destructive. We will not rest until we breed and multiply and consume all resources until our own existence is in peril. Does not speak much about the most highly evolved intelligent species, does it? Maybe the collective intelligence lacks foresight?
So India needs to market wildlife tourism. If and only if that happens, can we save the tigers the elephants the migratory birds, the Rhino and all the other magnificent animals. If we can find a way to market the concept of wildlife tourism, drive home the point that watching a tiger stalk a deer in the bush brings more money than selling its pelt to Nepali tribesmen, then we would have succeeded in saving the tiger. If the Ranthambore national park makes 10 times more money from elephant back safaris and guided tours from foreign exchange from tourists then the poachers would give up their lifestyle and become tour guides! The farmers who encroach on the sanctuary will stop clearing the land and start become forest rangers.
Money again is the bottomline. No other idealogy is stronger. Money can change the course of civilization and destiny. Sad but true. Once we have enough money and all known problems have been solved creatively (population control, wildlife conservation, peaceful coexistence of countries) then we can all sit back and rock on our chairs and ponder on a little thing that has been sidelined - truth. We are a curious species!
