Empire of numbers

Empire of numbers

What comes first, the question or the answer?
If you believe in numbers, as many social statisticians do, the answer comes before the question. Hence, the chances are that only those issues will be raised which can be resolved through government, or quasi-government, statistics.Anything outside of this is over-spiced and bad for contemplation (विचारणा करना). It is this attitude that has kept our understanding of informal labour on a low calorie diet, though it gobbles up (to use up, buy up, or occupy all of something.) 93% of our economy. As information on this is sparse(कम), even if the issue is so big, it is convenient to look the other way.This explains the administrative reluctance to bulk up(मजबूत करना) on policies related to this subject. The system works best when answers predate (से पहले घटित होना) and frame the questions, leaving little to chance. The stage is now set for the policy maker, as diviner, to deliver with a flourish.
This method actually resembles the way religious discourses are conducted. The Church opposed Galileo and Copernicus because they asked questions for which the sacred texts had no answers. As Joshua had bid, in the Old Testament (साक्षी/इच्छापत्र), the sun to stand still and not the earth, therefore, Martin Luther concluded, Copernicus must be wrong. The Catholic establishment even accused Galileo of planting little figures in his telescope and passing them off as planets. Therefore, if the answer is not in the Bible ¬ or Quran or Gita ¬ ask not that question, admonish religious gurus.
Likewise, as there is very little that is reliable about informal labour, either in the Census, or in surveys (the equivalent of the Bible Quran Gita), it does not count. Information, such as is available, is scattered and sniggered (figurative- of such devalued nature that it becomes laughable) at as `anecdotal'. Consequently, a big chunk of our society is deprived of(वंचित होना) attention. Numbers don't come easy in the informal sector, especially when commandeered (अधिगृहीत करना) from above and afar. However, our ignorance of these very vital issues does not disturb us too much.
For example, we rarely give any thought to strategising cottage industries, international competition, even worker-management relations, for they all include informal labour. When industrial strife(conflict) is being discussed, figures tell us of a dramatic drop in strikes over the past three decades. This should mean that shop floors everywhere are buzzing with happy activity .Could it be that the sinister foreman, after a routine body check, swapped his old heart for new? Nor do we know how many unregistered units shut and open shop; or of workers who are routinely fired; or of wages unfairly held back.
As a result, we do not have a measure of what India needs to do to become a global power. If there are so many microenterprises, why are we still poor? Also, why don't graduates from vocational (व्यवसायिक) institutes find skilled jobs in the marketplace? When we laud our export earnings, the informal sector is rarely acknowledged, nor the millions who bent their backs night and day. We have not even spared a thought for the health of these units; what if they collapse? The ruling view is that if it ain't broke, and no emergency declared, why break the glass? Instead, we imagine ourselves lounging with the big boys, after elbowing the rat pack out.
The consumer price index falters (डगमगाना) at the sight of informal labour. Nevertheless, we continue to extrapolate(estimate or conclude (something) ) from those figures, even if it hurts. As long as the tag says the size is right, who cares if the shoe pinches? Was demonetisation a success?
By all accounts it was an electoral bonanza (सौभाग्य), yet so many questions remain unasked and unanswered. If livelihoods impact voting behaviour then we should know whether demonetisation affected workers differently. This is particularly so in the case of informal labour simply because of the many varieties they come in.
It is said that many lost their jobs, but who were they? Were those who were employed by the week, or month, worse off as high currency notes would be needed to pay them and these were now demonetised? Did daily wagers fare better, for they could be paid in small change? Or, perhaps it did not matter; they sank or swam randomly.
We can only guess the outcome, but where are the facts? Political analysts could have helped. But instead of asking tough questions on informal labour and voting behaviour, they are obsessed with caste. As many of them suffer from economist envy , they look out for issues where numbers tumble out (गिरना).
Nor should one argue that precision does not count. It is a good idea when disciplinary questions and real world issues prompt the search for exactitude (दुरुस्ती/परिशुद्धता). When this route less travelled is taken, statistical exercises become legitimate. On the other hand, when it is independently pursued for its own sake, social science becomes a closed box; nothing new is found, nothing new is said. Have wages for informal workers kept pace with inflation? “But we don't have numbers on that,“ says the policy maker. How often have you heard that being said?
This is what makes it an egg and chicken issue. As informal labour lacks ready numbers, you can eat it before it is born and after it is dead. Either ways, it does not stand a chance.