The Economics of Being Civilised

It is strange how two words that we rarely see used together can be so closely related: civic sense and economy.

Whenever I see someone breaking traffic rules, throwing garbage on the street, or spitting paan masala on public walls, I feel a certain anger. It makes me wonder whether people are not educated enough to understand basic civic behaviour or whether they simply don't feel responsible for it. In a country with so many cultures, religions, languages, and traditions that we proudly celebrate, why does something as basic as civic sense remain such a struggle?

And then, one day, I had a rather interesting thought. We are a country of 1.4 billion people. What would happen if everyone suddenly started following basic civic sense?

There would be no need for traffic police at every junction to remind people to stay in their lanes and wait for the signal to turn green. Painters would have fewer crossroads and pathways to repaint after they had been decorated with paan stains. Sweepers would have less garbage to collect because people would actually use dustbins. Lifts in malls might have space for one more person if we didn't need someone sitting beside the operating panel, pressing buttons for visitors. We might even save ourselves the trouble of putting up signs asking people not to spit, litter, or damage public property.

Think about it. We have created an entire ecosystem of employment around things that should not require another human being to supervise or guide in the first place. If we started using a little common sense, what would happen to all these jobs? What about the paint industry? What about the people employed to clean up after us, to manage us? What would happen to the businesses that depend on repairing, repainting, and maintaining things we keep damaging?

Maybe we should reconsider our approach. Perhaps we should continue breaking traffic rules, littering our streets and spitting on walls. After all, we are generating employment, supporting industries and keeping the economy moving. Who said civic sense was good for business?

Of course, the joke is only funny until we look at what this behaviour actually costs us.

How does it help the economy when someone loses their life because another driver couldn't stay in their lane? What does it do for productivity when an entire road gets blocked because everyone wants to occupy the same space? What about the pollution created by vehicles standing in traffic and the health problems caused by garbage? What about an elderly person or a pregnant woman having to stand because someone refuses to give up a seat specifically reserved for them?

We may be creating work for some people, but we are also making life more difficult, expensive, and sometimes dangerous for everyone else. Who exactly is benefiting from this arrangement?

This makes me wonder whether our problem is really just a lack of civic sense, or whether we have a bigger problem with how we understand our responsibilities towards other people.

We often talk about being a cultured society. We take pride in our traditions, religions, communities, and family values. But how much of that pride translates into the way we treat people around us? Why does someone's financial background determine how respectfully we speak to them? Why does someone's occupation become a reason to look down upon them? Why can a person be denied a house simply because they are unmarried or belong to a particular religion, even when they can afford the rent and are perfectly capable of being a responsible tenant?

The same questions arise when we talk about education. Why should a student's access to a good school or college be influenced by their caste, religion, financial background, or the connections their family has? How many opportunities are determined by merit, and how many by the privilege of knowing the right person, having the right surname, or being born into the right circumstances? We talk about education as the great equaliser, but how equal is the opportunity to receive it in the first place?

And then there is marriage. Why does the decision of two people wanting to spend their lives together become a negotiation between families, communities, castes and sub-castes? If you are a Patel, apparently being a Patel isn't specific enough. You need to be a Kadva Patel or a Leuva Patel. The same goes for Jains, Muslims and probably every other community. Religion alone isn't enough; the subcategory, community, financial background and family status all need to match. Families have to approve, communities have to agree, and every possible box has to be ticked. At this point, are we looking for a life partner or trying to find a duplicate of ourselves? With such an obsession for keeping everything within the family and community, I wouldn't be surprised if someone eventually suggests marrying a sibling just to avoid the trouble of finding a compatible match!

I understand that compatibility matters. Shared values, financial stability, and family expectations can all be legitimate considerations. But where does compatibility end and prejudice begin? Why should someone's caste or religion automatically determine whether they are worthy of our acceptance? Why do we sometimes know more about the community someone belongs to than the person they actually are?

And I don't think we can put all the blame on individuals either. Many of these expectations are inherited. Parents, relatives, and society have their own ideas about whom we should marry, where we should live, and what kind of people we should associate with. Sometimes we genuinely believe in these restrictions; sometimes we don't, but follow them anyway because questioning them comes at a cost. We may disagree with a tradition privately and still participate in it publicly. We may want to make our own decisions but find ourselves negotiating with expectations we never chose.

So how much of what we call our culture is something we consciously believe in, and how much is simply something we have learnt not to question?

We want people to follow rules, but we don't always follow them ourselves. We want others to respect our traditions, but how much respect do we show to people who have different ones? We talk about progress and economic growth, yet continue to create barriers for people based on their caste, religion, financial background and family circumstances. We seem to have very different ideas about what deserves our consideration and what doesn't.

When we talk about a country's growth, we often look at numbers: GDP, employment, infrastructure and investment. But where does the quality of life fit into all of this? What about the opportunities people never get, the choices they are denied and the time and potential we lose because of the way society functions? Can we really call it progress if the economy is growing but the lives of the people within it aren't necessarily getting better?

I started this article joking that our lack of civic sense might actually be keeping the economy running by creating jobs that shouldn't need to exist in the first place. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder whether we have mistaken activity for progress. Creating employment to fix problems we repeatedly create is one thing; building a society where fewer such problems exist is another.

Maybe the real question isn't how much our economy can grow, but what that growth actually changes in our lives. After all, what is the point of building a better country if we don't make it a better place to live?

P.S.: I wonder if some of this, about civic senses, also comes down to money. If everyone had enough money, a more secure livelihood and a relatively sorted life, would we see some of these behaviours change? Would someone still drive on the wrong side of the road just to squeeze in one more delivery and earn a little extra? Would a delivery partner have to choose between following traffic rules and meeting an unrealistic delivery target? Would someone have to spend their entire day trying to make ends meet, leaving little time or opportunity to think beyond survival? Would a parent who is struggling to provide for their family have the luxury of questioning the traditions and expectations they have inherited?

Maybe someone driving in the wrong lane is not just breaking a traffic rule. Maybe they are also trying to earn enough to take something home for their daughter. That doesn't make the behaviour right, but it makes me wonder what circumstances have brought them there. We cannot expect people to think about the well-being of society when they are constantly struggling to secure their own. And yet, even after acknowledging that, we cannot make poverty an excuse for every act of irresponsibility.

Maybe economic security won't automatically give us civic sense, but it might give more people the breathing space to practise it.