Western legal regimes sometimes draw a distinction between gambling and gaming. Gambling is the act of betting on a future outcome, and may or may not be legal. Gaming is legal. We don?t quite often use this terminology. But if we did, gaming in India would mean horse racing, lotteries, casinos and online gambling. In the controversy over IPL, one of the issues is betting on cricket. But it is more than cricket.
Why don?t we allow legal gambling, other than the exceptions mentioned? If one asks around, a standard reaction will be this will ruin the poor. The poor don?t know what is good for them. ?We find it difficult to accept the contention that those activities that 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 could possibly have been intended by our Constitution makers to be raised to the status of trade, commerce or intercourse and to be made the subject matter of a fundamental right guaranteed by Art 19 (1) (g).?
That quote is from a 1996 Supreme Court judgment that allowed horse racing, since horse racing is a game of skill and not one of chance. Games of chance can?t be allowed, since they can lead to the loss of the hard-earned money of ?the undiscerning and improvident common man?. As in other formulations of policy, there is a clear patronising element there. The poor don?t know what is good for them.
They shouldn?t have a right to choose. We should choose on their behalf. Horse racing isn?t a sport that the truly poor of the country engage in. All said and done, it is for the elite.
One wonders if the Supreme Court?s judgment would have been different had the sport concerned been betting on bull fighting or cock fighting, rather than horse racing. If one mentions gambling, chances are people will mention the Mahabharata, Yudhishthira and the dice. There are actually two dice stories in the Mahabharata?one where Yudhishthira was unskilled and lost because the dice were loaded (Shakuni was cheating). Subsequently, while in the forest, Yudhishthira was tutored by a sage on playing with the dice, but the repeat dicing game never took place.
The second dice story (less commonly known) is of Nala. Nala was also unskilled and lost his kingdom to his younger brother. Subsequently, he was trained and regained his kingdom. The Nala story is almost a parallel to what the Yudhishthira story might have been. It turns out that ancient Indian law-givers were more prescient than modern policy formulators. From the same 1996 judgment, here is the Supreme Court?s take on what our ancient law-givers thought. ?While Manu condemned gambling outright, Yajnavalkya sought to bring it under State control but he too in verse 202 (2) provided that persons gambling with false dice or other instruments should be branded and punished by the king. Kautilya also advocated State control of gambling and, as a practical person that he was, was not averse to the State earning some revenue therefrom. Vrihaspati dealing with gambling in chap XXVI, verse 199, recognises that gambling had been totally prohibited by Manu because it destroyed truth, honesty and wealth, while other law-givers permitted it when conducted under the control of the State so as to allow the king a share of every stake.? The emphasis is on regulating gambling, ensuring transparency and even obtaining revenue for the State.
That?s indeed the point. Banning gambling, like prohibition, doesn?t eliminate it. It only drives it underground and doesn?t necessarily protect the poor and figures float around on the size of the Indian gambling market, 50% of which is estimated to be illegal. Again, like prohibition in Gujarat, vested interests develop around illegality and resist legalisation, invoking morality. In the process, there are revenue losses to the State, too. We have segmented the market, too?and not just between horse racing and other forms of gambling. Casinos are allowed in Goa and Sikkim, but not elsewhere. Lotteries are permitted in some states, but not in others. Online gambling is permitted in Sikkim.
Wouldn?t it be far better to legalise it and bring matka or satta, or whatever it is called, under some form of regulation, with information disclosure norms? ?How can you stop (jugaad) gambling? People want this (gambling) to continue. There needs to be backing for this.? Precisely, and this quote is from Goa?s sports minister, Manohar Asgaonkar. He said this five days ago and was slammed by all and sundry, especially political parties, all in the name of morality. Nietzsche said that morality is the herd instinct in the individual. Hypocritical political parties have made it a shepherd instinct, as if people don?t know what is good for them.
The author is a noted economist