Farce India

Force India's fortunes have undergone a dramatic turnaround in the last two races, and our media has spared no effort to shove this piece of trivia onto our face. I fail to understand why this is a matter of notional, let alone national, importance.

The team has been part of the F1 scene for years under various names. The owners, unhappy with its performance, found a sucker in Mr. Mallya. Ever the publicity seeker, he promptly made much noise and named it Force India, which actually reminds of the old Air India joke. We all know how well his decision to start an airline as a marketing campaign for liquor brands is working out. What makes us think he will do any better with an F1 team? Anyway, except for Mr. Mallya, nothing in the team is remotely Indian. Not the engine, not the crew and definitely not the drivers. Mr. Mallya is not even the full owner although he has pulled off the brilliant gimmick of attaching our nation's name to the team.

So, it irks me to no end when he makes statements such as "Force India carries the hopes of a billion people." The words that come to my mind are too strong to mention here. I doubt if any self-respecting F1 fan is actually cheering for Force India. The ones doing the cheering are either in the media or are people just content with "India" and some variation of "victory" being used in the same sentence. (I shouldn't blame the second group for those are indeed rare occasions.)

Far from protesting the embarrassing reference to our country – until recently, the drivers were finishing in double digit positions and were engaged in duel to not finish last - we have found cause for celebration.

Today's news, Tomorrow's history

Until last week, swine flu deaths were prominently reported on the front pages of leading national dailies.  But now, they have been relegated to a mere statistic. Has swine flu suddenly become less dangerous? Is it no longer the epidemic it was made out to be?

Hardly, but our imagination has moved on. Even Jaswant Singh is so last week. Force India and Fisichella are in. And the debate on Pokhran II is brewing and will probably be the next big story. The aphorism that public memory is short sounds so true, and if anything, it seems to get shorter. But what is often overlooked is that memory can be easily rekindled, especially in the Internet age as is beautifully captured in a scene in the film, Notting Hill.

Julia Roberts, playing an American actress in the movie, ends up spending the night at Hugh Grant's place. The next morning papparazzi show up and pics are snapped. Julia is all hyper about the situation, but Hugh asks her to chill for the public memory is remarkably short and this too shall pass. But Julia retorts that it will pass for him, but every time a journo wants to write something about her in the future, he will search the archives, come across this image, and make sure to print it. (Am trying to find the exact lines. Even IMDB doesnt have it.)

I guess my point is if you are in the news for the wrong reasons, the entire nation doesnt have to actively track your fortunes. It only takes one person to run into you several years after the incident and exclaim, "That was you? Wasn't it?"

Game Theory and Traffic Rules

Game theory attempts to explain our behavior in situations where the success of our choices are impacted by the choices of others. Price wars are the most common example. If Pepsi cuts prices, assuming elastic demand, sales will increase and so will profits. But if Coke follows suit, Pepsi's action will be neutralized such that both Coke and Pepsi end up with lower profits than what they would make if prices werent cut in the first place. So letting prices be is the best course of action for both, which is the conclusion they will eventually reach after the game is played multiple times.

I got thinking if this explains the problem with our traffic rules. When we all follow rules, then it gives those who break them an advantage. Let's say the rule is that we stick to our lanes regardless of traffic. Now, if the traffic is slow, someone can cut across lanes and weave through traffic, assured that everyone is driving in their lane. But once that happens, the rest will naturally feel cheated and start doing it too, and we end up with massive chaos.

I see two ways of addressing the problem. One is to remove the incentive for breaking rules, by imposing hefty and consistent fines, which is impossibly difficult to do in our country. The second is to let people play this "game" enough times until they realize that we are better off following the rules. It doesnt mean every single person has to experience chaos before sanity returns. Once enough people decide to follow rules, a critical mass is reached. You have - tada - a tipping point. You see people following rules, then more people follow rules and so on. The concept of social proof kicks in.

Its not as far-fetched as it sounds. I think it partly explains why Mumbai has better lane discipline and civic sense than other cities - people here have seen traffic chaos so many more times.

I think the unfortunate part is when everyone starts to follow the rules, some of us will be tempted to break them and get an unfair advantage. And when there is no system of fines or penalty, more people will start doing it creating another tipping point and the cycle continues...