Sandalwood, you have a Missing Link!

Sandalwood: Missing a key link!

Mr Prakash Belawadi, a renowned name in Kannada cinema and among social think tanks yesterday critiqued a recent Bangalore Mirror article titled The Economics of Dubbing. A critique well done, no doubt. But if this has to help anyone at all, that better be the end consumer of entertainment content in the Kannada Film Market (KFM).

The statistics Mr Belawadi cites is pretty straight, in that the entire Indian film market is soon going to be worth 5 billion USD and that KFI's share in that is fast dwindling. He goes on to quote that -

The Kannada film industry needs to tune in to the new age or be politely requested to drop out.

While his observations are true, the perspective in Mr Belawadi's analysis is limited to the making half in a film ecosystem. KFI, in need for an overhaul, needs to focus on the consuming half and critics such as Mr Belawadi would be better off addressing that perspective. Mr Belawadi notes that -

The average Kannadiga avoids our commercial cinema not because she lacks self-esteem but rather that she has too much of it. It is only because we love our culture so much that we shun our cinema.

but fails to elaborate the subtle need for a consumer of Kannada cinema to not shun Kannada cinema but choose various degrees of participation in the feedback mechanism. The critique misses to mention the urgent need to establish feedback mechanisms in the KFM, which could actually serve a great deal in ensuring the KFI produces what the KFM has been craving for! Outcomes of such mechanisms stand as solid proofs of concept for innovative entertainment business models, like dubbing, and also as attractive presentation of KFI as a profitable destination for investors. Expert analysts and thinkers like Mr Belawadi are expected to advocate proliferation of such market survey engines in the KFM.

Apart from deriving meaning out of what audiences are thinking, such survey systems will also add to the volume of people speaking about Kannada cinema, which is less heard if not muted today. If consumers are shunning commercial Kannada movies, that's a feedback no doubt, but that's not sufficient feedback, especially when some seniors in the industry use a flopped film to blame their audiences! The Kannadiga cine-goer needs to be heard. The cine-goers' demand for better entertainment in their own language must be met, agnostic of its maker. 

With a tough customer around, any industry will correct itself if it wants to remain worthy of business. The contemporary rowdy voices rising repeatedly against a legal market innovation called dubbing (in Kannada) will be forced to face the reality with such surveys and this will pave way for a cleaner KFM and thereby a more profitable KFI. We have to find this missing link, and we need everyone to look for it.

(Related read: The Gumma-nomics of Dubbing)

Wrong Statistics and The Gumma-nomics of Dubbing

This article in yesterday's Bangalore Mirror laid out a laundry list of so-called deterrents to dubbing in Kannada. Owing to the nature and presentation of its contents, this article sent out two messages - One that Sandalwood (KFI i.e.), as it stands today, is pure crap and people who'd like to come and invest & innovate in this industry had rather stay away or brace for super-losses. Another, that regardless of its lossy-by-design nature, the dubbing industry seems to be a threat to KFI! Seems like a big gumma (ghost in children's parlance) is running the KFI, not its talent or business acumen.

What this article does is take media rights beyond imaginable boundaries and use statistics, however unsupported, to project a notion that is deeply embedded in the minds of a few people in the KFI, and perhaps another few programmed souls in other quarters. In saying that -

The film industry has steeled itself against the onslaught of a ‘consumer group’ which is demanding dubbed content in Kannada, especially films.

and from the way it is said, the this article seems to be a mouthpiece of the anti-dubbing squad within KFI. But this very statement is so irrational with respect to the functioning of an industry. If a consumer group has been demanding dubbed film content in Kannada, is it wise for the film industry to consider it as onslaught and 'steel' itself against it?


Even if one were to momentarily accept the statistics presented in this article, isn't this 'steeling' of the industry against a consumer group (among its audiences) enough evidence for the claimed minuscule share of Kannada movies in the film market in a Kannada state? Here're some interesting anti-statistics:

1. If 9 out of 27 lakh theater-goers in Karnataka watch Kannada movies, and the other 18 lakh watch non-Kannada movies, market wisdom lies in figuring ways to attract those people towards Kannada movies again, not in blindly disowning those 18 lakh cine-goers as non-Kannadigas and mentally shrink one's own Total Available Market. 
2. It is also a true businessman's interest to see why, among 6-crore people that live in this state, only 27 lakh people (a disappointing 5%) are being captured in the film market. A careful observation reveals that a good portion of contemporary movies of KFI are remakes of movies people have already watched in other languages, and another portion of KFI made movies are deprived of screens because those theaters have very little Kannada movie choice to choose from, or yield to immense pressure from a deluge of non-Kannada movies ready to fill the gap created because of a dysfunctional image of KFI projected by itself.
3. That 50 lakh Rupees is what dubbing rights of a non-Kannada movie costs, and that 5 crore Rupees is the minimal expense of making an original Kannada movie (or even a remake), and given that the current annual revenue of the latter is just 100 crores with at least 100 movies made every year, makes dubbing of films into Kannada surely more profitable to investors than movies being Made in KFI today. Besides, it is what the people from 'consumer groups' are demanding.
4. If movies of other languages can grab 120 screens across Karnataka on the first day of their global release, and corner nearly 66% of Kannada audience, it only goes to show the command non-Kannada movies have come to hold over an otherwise Kannada movie-going audience. The reasons for such success is a shameful combination of KFI's lackluster market behavior and a daring act of entrepreneurship performed by non-Kannada film businessmen.
5. The general expectation of movie audiences always follows the best entertainer, and hence the expectation of Kannada cine-goers has outgrown the KFI itself. The time-warped KFI standards is perhaps the reason for this. But the steeling of KFI against consumer demand is portrayal of its inability to meet growing audience expectations, and display of arrogance in the form a cold-ban on dubbing. 

At this juncture, the non-Kannada movie revenue model is worth imitating for KFI, with revenues from multiple platforms like Internet, TV, Mobile and other conventional media like CD/DVD being exploited to their limits. The best way to react is to mimic, yet compete. The way to handle the evolving consumer need would have been to not oppose dubbing but embrace it in this liberal market and derive the same benefits that film industries of neighboring states have been deriving.


Lets not make belittling of ourselves the way of existence, and our ray of hope in the market. If actress Tara, the current head of KCA (Kannada Chalanachitra Academy), had to reserve her stage-seat during the recently concluded GIM 2012 with a reason, the film industry that she belongs to must show some mettle and prove its business sense. If dubbing of movies into Kannada is such a loss making business, why fear the gumma; just mind your business.

(Related read: A Dubbed audience and the suspicion around Dubbing)

Part-2: Disturbed River Basins and Central Tribunals

Shortly after the 2007 Kaveri river tribunal verdict was announced in February, the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) came out with a critic of this verdict, a verdict that was much awaited by all three states - Karnataka, Tamilnadu and Kerala. Writing in this critic of the verdict - "Why the Cauvery Award is Flawed," Mr Himanshu Thakkar exposes the three important measures on which this verdict fails - science, efficiency and equity. Interpreting the verdict award as biased, Mr Thakkar writes thus about the sad situation Karnataka is put into:

The Karnataka state officials have given an indication of feeling aggrieved by the Tribunal Award... we can see that indeed Karnataka is the only state that has got less share in water than its share in the catchment of the Cauvery basin. When we add the fact that Karnataka area of Cauvery basin has less groundwater availability, we see that there is some justification [sic] this feeling.

Riding on common man's ignorance about (and indifference towards) rivers and water situation in general, central tribunal verdicts such as the Kaveri tribunal verdict in Feb 2007 seem to conveniently ignore the fundamental principles of hydrology and man's water need patterns, and devise water sharing formulae that only politically strengthen the central coalition.

Declaring that this verdict fails the test of science, SANDRP exposes how the verdict fails to take note of the ground water levels in riparian states while arriving at a water sharing formula. It further describes how this is harmful to each of the riparian states even though the formula, at its outset, might seem beneficial to the politically stronger state! This comment summarizes the concern these states must have about such unscientific water awards:

The Cauvery Award fails on the test of science as it does not consider groundwater availability in the Cauvery basin area while deciding the distribution of only the surface  water among the claimants. Tamil Nadu, being the lower riparian, has significant availability of groundwater, while Karnataka and Kerala, being the upper riparian, have relatively little of it... To allow unrestricted groundwater use and not to include groundwater in calculating water availability and allocation, is unscientific, to put it rather charitably.

Although one cannot directly attribute such unscientific water awards to the center's interference in solving inter-state river water sharing problems, one can certainly find action of coalition forces, at the center, responsible. Such forces compel the central government to ignore common sense in the field of hydrology and arrive at formulae that only strengthen the central coalition, in turn causing slow but steady degradation of priceless river water basins. The continued scant water awards Karnataka has been receiving as opposed to Tamilnadu, the other big Kaveri riparian, have made most areas of Karnataka in the Kaveri basin so deprived of river water for basic human processes that in many urban settlements ground water resources are being abused beyond healthy measures, steadily emptying the already poor ground water levels of Kaveri basin in Karnataka (p 74).

Hence, centralization - delegation of this responsibility to settle inter-state disputes about a vital local resource called water to the center - is surely not benefiting the states in question, but only paving new political ways to steadily destroy water bodies and create poor lifestyles for citizens in these states. There is an urgent need for democracy to surface in its real form in water matters and install a correct methodology to settle water disputes in future. As Mr Thakkar, in his conclusion, remarks:

Indeed, amicable solution of river water disputes is possible only when there is greater democracy in water resources planning and decision making, something that is totally missing today.,

there is an urgent need to educate ourselves about the need to decentralize such important matters and allow states to engage in useful dialog to eventually arrive at a more comprehensive and less deleterious water sharing formulae. It is high time the states realized they're their own awarders and awardees when it comes to river water sharing.

Part-1 : Should the Kaveri flow through New Delhi?

Come summer and the two south-Indian states, Karnataka and Tamilnadu, inevitably start the year's quota of dialog on Kaveri river water sharing and people get soaked in political arguments, water related negotiations and political engineering or the lack of them! This has become a pattern etched in stone, with the two states repeatedly being pushed into the arena by the sheer failure of political machinery on all three sides of the table - the two riparian states and the center.

This year the cry heard in some Karnataka voices is the need for a national (river) water sharing policy stemming from an apparent belief that such a 'national policy' could magically uncoil the tension among riparian states just because a third party, the union government, proclaiming itself to be JUST & EQUAL, when given the funnel, will take in all the water in the rivers and direct them to the riparian states in a fair manner. This is pure fiction, as will be shown in this series.

Regardless of the fairness in this deal between states and the union, these are the things that need to be deeply pondered about:

1. (River) Water sharing between states is a characteristically local problem, limited to the interests of the riparian states and the people within them directly influenced by the river waters. A solution to this had rather not come from outside of the problem domain for those would not really address the problem!
2. The farther removed a government is that is arbitrating river water sharing between states, the little it can do to benefit the riparian states, and the lesser JUST & EQUAL its policies and decisions come across to some of them. 'The reason why this is so often the case is that bureaucrats and technicians base themselves mainly on political considerations external to the region in question: the needs of the local population rarely feature at all' ("Water under threat", p 161). Hence the union govt. which is further removed than the governments of the riparian states is much poorly disposed to do justice to these states. (In fact it is better disposed to favor either of the states over the other!)
3. The adverse impact such remotely-designed policies have on the hydrology of various river basins is considerable and long-lasting. Historical tribunals of such remote origins and their verdicts on river water sharing in India have proven this point amply.

Keen on catching up on this debate? Here're some trivia (along with my interpretation) I thought we'd rather help ourselves with before we dive-in, hoping it'll expose whatever sense exists in this argument (about the consequences of a national river water sharing policy).

1. The preamble to the Indian constitution offers JUSTICE (social, economic and political) and EQUALITY (of status and of opportunity) to the citizens of India.
• Literally interpreting: Among other things. the citizens of this republic are secured social, economic and political JUSTICE. 
• Likewise, the citizens have also been secured their EQUALITY of status and of opportunity in this sovereign democratic republic.
2. Item 56 in the Seventh Schedule of this constitution places regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys under the Union List. 
• This officially strips the riparian states of their otherwise natural political right to regulation and development of the rivers flowing through the respective states. 
• How can political JUSTICE be secured by stripping people of rights to govern and develop themselves?
3. Karnataka and Tamilnadu elect 12 & 18 members respectively to the Rajya Sabha and 28 & 39 members respectively to the Lok Sabha. Hence on every vote in Delhi, there are 17 extra Tamilnadu voices roaring to mute Karnataka voices!
• How can Karnataka's EQUALITY of status ever be secured by such unequal representation at the center?
• How can EQUALITY of opportunity be secured by a denial of states' rights to engage in constructive negotiations, targeted at deriving mutual gains, with neighboring Union members? 
• How can any government, other than the state governments, secure this EQUALITY any better?
4. Article 262 of the same constitution conveniently assumes the center (union govt.) to be the responsible body to arbitrate disputes related to inter-state river water sharing.
• But it has been found on several occasions that the decisions arrived at and tribunals awarded by the center have only provoked the states to plan or execute massive reservoir projects purely driven by hoarding intentions laden with greed & fear. 
• Such greed & fear are syntheses of non-federal siphoning off of responsibilities from the states to the center; a center that is not better disposed than the states themselves to decide on such local matters.
• One instance ("KWDT Report", p 331) of Andhra Pradesh describing river waters flowing into the sea as wastage is a clear indication of how such tribunals have bred greed & fear to dangerous proportions at the state level.
• Not only has this led to hydrological degradation of various river basins, but also led to intra-state conflicts (IWMI Research pub., pp 11-14) unseen till then.
5. Coalition equations at the center lead to biased water sharing tribunal awards announced by the center, thereby further complicating the battle over water jurisdiction.
• With the strength of such a coalition lying in safeguarding interests of its members and ally states, non-ally states, where national parties electorally dominate over little or no local political force, don't get their interests safeguarded equally well. Such non-ally states, usual example being Karnataka, are in a way expected to cooperate and endure pains of severe water deprivation while ally states enjoy unfair water surpluses year over year.
• While ally states, like Tamilnadu, continue to reap water lotteries from such central tribunals, as a compensation, non-ally states, like Karnataka, are lured with political mirages like ministries and other such confectionery. National parties, in turn, insure their electoral dominance in Karnataka this way!
• Hence this biased water distribution, and biased treatment of states in general is mainly attributable to the delegation of those tasks to the center that the states themselves should execute. This non-federal, centralized administrative structure of the union govt. combined with sub-optimal state-focused representation at the center is leading to distress and disharmony in this union of states.

Namma Metro: Will we climb this Mountain between the Valleys?

Namma Metro is here, and my, is it the talk of the town or what? As a weird coincidence of sorts, I had to head out of Benglur on the night of Oct 20, 2011 - same day when Namma Metro was officially launched for public use - flying from one valley to another.. from one Metro town to another. In this context, here's a roll-out of my observations on our Metro in comparison with the Metro running in another Valley on the other side of the planet!

Upon a quick survey of public transport in two Silicon Valleys, we find on one hand, VTA, the authority that runs a hybrid public transit system connecting multiple south Californian suburbs, and on the other hand two bodies namely BMTC & BMRC together connecting our own valley, Benglur. Standing among various differences between these geographies and organizations is the common factor that urban public transit systems are localized-by-design, in that their target audience and the traits expected of their operation are all locally attributable. These transport systems operate within smaller limits, earmark a limited demography as beneficiaries, and are structured to assist the lifestyles of the local people.

Similarities aside, there's a marked difference one finds in the nature of operation & maintenance of these transport bodies, a difference bearing in the way these bodies perceive commuters, and the bases on which they appear to be taking operational decisions. These differences could be in taking budgetary decisions, in publishing them, or using the smallest opportunity to thank people for their tax money. The VTA (and its like) seem to be voluntarily ahead with an upper hand compared to their Benglur counterparts, who in turn not only fail in attributing their existence & operation to public tax money, but also display clear aloofness in their publications (some really vital documents not in Kannada, the lingua-franca of Benglur) and in decision making that affect their functioning thereby impacting the people - its customers i.e.

What seems to be the Problem?
As a generalization, it'd appear that these govt. run transport corporations, like other govt. bodies chartered to directly serve people in commercial transactions, do not take public as customers at all! Be it the BSNL, or ESCOMs, or RTOs, or the Palikes or BMTC or BMRC, although their very existence (& profitability in some cases) is hinged on public turnout, their indifference towards customers has continued to cause frustration among the public. In return our governments are known to have showered unconditional love and protection covering losses of such organizations with more public money supply. In doing so their indifference towards customers is solemnized and perhaps even legalized, making customers of such public sector undertakings fall dumb prey, left with little choice to churn.
(Its a different matter, of course, that this very lack of choice could have paved way for severe corruption in our society. Although this is not uncommon knowledge, it is important we the people write & read about this!)

Where seems to be the problem?
For instance, the BMTC is a govt. sponsored company that runs bus services in Benglur city. While it owes allegiance to the Karnataka govt (and hence the people) for most of its funding and other sponsorship, it still needs to be told about the importance of using Kannada in all its customer interactions, not just in its administrative affairs. It needs to be continuously polled and complained at the first instance of playing Hindi music inside its city buses. Having prevented any competition from breeding, BMTC has in a way been abusing its sponsor's (the govt.) dominant position to take undue control of the market and at thereby denying good service in Kannada to deserving Kannadiga customers in Benglur.

BMRC: Heluvudu ondu, Maaduvudu innondu

Taking a look at BMRC - problems galore from day one. Marked with public exclusion all along, this project continues to shock with information in three languages, one of them Hindi - a totally out of context language in a locally run train service, nowhere cutting across lands of Hindi speaking people. Making it yet another instrument of Hindi imposition in the hands of a federally elected govt. in Delhi? BMRC's journey tickets are given weird names from the Hindi dictionary, and the boards inside the real train coaches differ markedly from their mock counterparts (see pic). All this talks volumes about public exclusion being practised big time in these organizations.

Well, where lies the problem, really? Is it in those government bodies? Is it in our own bodies? Are we being forcibly shortchanged by these government undertakings? Are such urbanization measures of governments feigning modernization running their hideous imperialist enterprises entirely at our costs? Are we ending up paying for all these Hindi imposition? Have we lost our grounds and forgotten our rights as a customer in all these situations? Have we unlearned the skill of running projects to meet what our society needs? Have we given up before the battle has even begun? The battle for better quality of living, for our rights as customers, for our rights as equal citizens.

Being Kannadigas, don't we remember anymore that service in Kannada is indeed our right!? Then why aren't we hearing people complain?? Come ooooooooooooooooon! Lets not buy our tickets after the train has left! Lets write to them: 
BMRCL - sivasailam@bmrc.co.in, sudhirchandra@bmrc.co.in, vasanthrao@bmrc.co.in, bmrcl@dataone.in. 
BMTC - "Chief Traffic Manager (O)" <ctmobmtc@gmail.com>, bmtcmd@gmail.com
Karnataka CM - cm@kar.nic.in