South Sudan: Another day, another evacuation drama

So there’s a war going on in the ‘world’s newest country’, South Sudan. There are 600 Indians trapped there, and the Government is sending two large Indian Air Force C-17 planes, along with the Minister of State for External Affairs, General V K Singh, to evacuate them. So far, so good. But let me be rude and ask, who’s paying for this operation? Will the evacuees get a bill from the Government saying, “This is your share of the cost of the air evacuation. Kindly pay up"? You know the answer. No, that won't happen. You and I, dear fellow-taxpayer,will foot the bill. Somehow that doesn’t seem fair. I’m also afflicted by déjà vu, because I have seen this happen again and again and again. Indians show up in war-torn countries like Iraq and Syria. There are heart-rending stories in the media about how they are in trouble, and before you know it, the Government is sending planes to evacuate them. But these are Indian citizens, you might say. Well, yes, and the Government does have a duty to protect them, but only insofar as it is not hurting other citizens. For instance, if a citizen is hell-bent on committing suicide by crashing an airliner (like the German pilot did) and killing other innocent citizens on board, then it is perfectly acceptable to shoot the would-be suicide artist. The utilitarian model of ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’ is the underlying ethic. But these NRIs have sent much-needed foreign exchange, you might say. Well, yes, but that went directly into their personal bank accounts. So far as I know, they didn’t pay tax on their foreign income. But evacuation costs are paid from public coffers. That is, personal gain if things go well, but public loss if there is a problem. This is what happened in the 2008 financial collapse: bankers got bonuses when things were going swimmingly, but when the system fell apart, the public footed the bill. The key phrase here is ‘moral hazard’. Or you could say ‘adverse selection’. You encourage risky behaviour when the benefits from the risk accrue to the risk-taker, but the costs are subsidised by the taxpayer. That is not fair, as it is asymmetric and a win-lose situation for the public purse. Now I am not saying that Indians should be prevented from emigrating in search of better economic prospects. In fact, successive Indian Governments should be pilloried for causing a situation where Indians cannot prosper at home, and feel the need to emigrate to better themselves. In particular, I have a soft corner for nurses, who perform the majority of palliative and healthcare functions around the world, and are grossly underpaid and ill-treated. They perform an essential and critical function especially in war-torn countries, and often there is a code of conduct by all combatants that they will leave hospitals and their staff alone. And a lot of the Indians trapped abroad in crisis situations are female nurses, who of course are also vulnerable to rape, kidnap and sexual slavery. They do deserve our sympathy. So how do you reconcile these two opposing pulls? A simple answer: evacuation insurance. Every Indian who seeks emigration clearance will be required to buy evacuation insurance. If such an order is passed by the Government, insurance companies (many of which are public sector companies anyway) will get their actuaries busy to discover the right price for such coverage. They are good at ascribing a price to the probability of evacuation, and thus figuring out the rate at which the insurance company will make a healthy margin. This is not all that different from medical insurance, which the middle class in India now buys routinely, mostly to protect its assets in case of catastrophic medical problems. Similarly, people can calculate the trade-offs: if they think paying evacuation insurance makes sense, they will buy it and emigrate. If not, they won’t. There are those who will say this is a harsh prescription. Perhaps. I prefer to think of it as tough love. It’s for your own protection, and that of society at large, exactly as you are required to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets by law, so you don’t get head injuries and show up in public hospitals for emergency care. There is no room for mawkish sentimentality. If you do want to be sentimental, then ask what the Government is doing for internally displaced people, such as those who fled various riots and targeted violence.  

(Rajeev Srinivasan, a management professional, is a popular blogger on current affairs.)

Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs and views of ABP News Network Pvt Ltd.