Opinion Dont bet on it
Our anti-gambling laws derive from a colonial mindset
Abhishek Manu Singhvi is no longer a spokesperson for the Congress,at least temporarily,until the party figures out whether there has been an irregularity. The issue concerns his appearance in the Santiago Martin and Megha Distributors case,agents for Sikkim and Bhutan lotteries,and a consequent ordinance passed by the Left Democratic Front. Local body elections are due in Kerala and the state-level Congress thinks the Singhvi action deprives the party of an opportunity to embarrass the LDF and that it embarrasses the Congress instead. Even before the partys action,Singhvi announced that he had voluntarily withdrawn. The Congress has the right to take its own decisions and beyond members of the party,such decisions do not concern other citizens. Singhvis decision to take or refuse a brief is also a matter of individual choice and preference. However,two aspects have broader policy import.
First,is politics an exclusive career option? People have argued the bane of Indian politics is existence of career politicians,who regard politics as a profession and expect to earn a living from it. We must get more professionals into politics,so that it is no longer the exclusive preserve of perceived scoundrels. If that proposition is accepted,there can be potential conflicts of interest. We havent been able to solve that ethics issue for MPs. Earlier,business lobbied with MPs and ministers. Today,we have businessmen as MPs and ministers. That conflict remains unresolved,especially for the more serious issue of ministers.Singhvi is not a minister. He is a Rajya Sabha MP from Rajasthan. Should that prevent him from accepting a brief,be it for Dow Chemicals or Megha Distributors and/ or the Bhutan government? The legality of whether Megha Distributors has violated the law is yet to be determined. In the interim,should one prejudge because it concerns lotteries?
This brings us to the second point,our hypocritical attitude towards gambling and lotteries. Courtesy the Public Gambling Act of 1867,most forms of gambling are banned. Logically,a colonial piece of legislation that dates back so many years must be outdated and deserves a re-look. For a start,it doesnt even define gambling and doesnt apply to gambling in general. It applies to gambling in public and is an Act to provide for the punishment of public gambling and the keeping of common gaming-houses. Other sections of the statute talk about cards,dice,tables or other instruments of gaming,and setting birds and animals to fight in public streets,suggesting these were what colonial legislators were bothered about. So ban them and specifically ban any attempt to make commercial profits out of gambling. However,this will not apply to any game of mere skill wherever played. But the PGA isnt all there is to it,since entry 34 of the Seventh Schedule places betting and gambling in the state list. This is important because the Supreme Courts oft-quoted 1996 judgment (K.R. Lakshmanan v State of Tamil Nadu) was more about Madras-specific laws than the PGA.
One wonders what colonial legislators had in mind when they wanted to exclude games of mere skill. Perhaps they meant horse-racing. Thats what the SC judgment was about. It allowed horse-racing and betting on horses. In separate judgments high courts and the SC have ruled rummy is a game of skill. By the same token,if ever tested,bridge will probably be construed a game of skill. Perhaps even poker. But not teen patti. The mindset becomes clear,and it is no different from the colonial mindset,from a quote from the judgment: We find it difficult to accept the contention that those activities which encourage a spirit of reckless propensity for making easy gain by lot or chance,which lead to the loss of the hard earned money of the undiscerning and improvident common man and thereby lower his standard of living and drive him into a chronic state of indebtedness and eventually disrupt the peace and happiness of his humble home…
The rich know whats good for them,the poor dont. In that sense,getting birds and animals to fight (animal cruelty is a different matter) cant be condoned. Horse-racing is acceptable. So is on-line gambling,which the PGA doesnt cover,though exchange controls may get in the way. Casinos in Goa and Sikkim,especially if they are on cruise ships in the former,are acceptable. Brouhaha on betting over cricket has got intertwined with issues of match-fixing. Had that not been the case,we would have allowed betting on cricket too. But we wont allow betting when a poor person,the improvident common man,is involved. In the process,we will invoke Mahabharata and Yudhishthira and gambling with dice. Neither Yudhishthira,nor Nala,two individuals involved with gambling in the epic,were poor. They were kings. And both were later taught skills of the game,which meant those were games of skill,not chance.
Other than horse-racing and casinos,we will allow lotteries,courtesy Lotteries Regulation Act (LRA) of 1998. Thats because state governments wish to earn revenue through lotteries,even if the poor purchase these tickets. Incidentally,under the LRA,a state can prohibit sales of lottery tickets from other states within its territory,relevant for the Kerala case. Thirteen states now organise lotteries and percentage profits are fairly high for states like Meghalaya,Mizoram and other northeastern states. Bans rarely serve any useful purpose. They only drive the activity underground and colossal figures float around on size of the illegal gambling market and there are links with money-laundering too. Just because some improvident common man is imprudent,why ban an activity? Thats like saying we should ban trucks because truck-drivers often spread AIDS.
Or ban elections because people,also poor people,also bet on them. Kautilya had far better sense. While lamenting the vice of gambling,Arthashastra advocates what we would today call better regulation. A superintendent of gambling is suggested. Why did Kautilya write Arthashastra? To rescue scriptures and science from the intolerance and misrule of the Nanda king,a relevant image.
Legalisation of gambling will mean greater revenue for government and better regulation and the latter is good for the poor. We should get newer products and more choice,better for the poor consumer too. If we are that concerned about the poor,let us earmark government revenue from gambling for social sector expenditure. In any event,let us give up this hypocrisy about gambling and lotteries. The LDF wishes to protect the Kerala governments monopoly and no more. If in power,the UDF will do the same.
The writer is a Delhi-based economist express@expressindia.com
Share
