Science, culture, complexity

Tag: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

  • State and crime

    From ‘The Sulur horror story of child sexual assault and murder’, The Hindu, May 31, 2026:

    The abduction, sexual assault, and murder of the girl sent shock waves across Tamil Nadu, coming as it did immediately after the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) came to power with C. Joseph Vijay as the Chief Minister. The heinous crime also became a dark spot in the early days of the TVK government as Mr. Vijay had targeted the previous DMK government vehemently during his election campaign over crimes against women and children.

    Mr. Vijay, who sent Director-General of Police Sandeep Rai Rathore and Additional DGP (Law and Order) Maheshwar Dayal to Coimbatore after the crime, said the murder had caused immense pain and shock. …

    Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin alleged that 30 major incidents of crime, including the murder of the girl, were reported within 12 days of Mr. Vijay assuming office, casting serious doubts about the State’s law and order situation. AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami accused the government of not taking swift action after receiving a complaint about the girl’s disappearance.

    Udhayanidhi’s criticism seems misguided. A single murder, however horrific, is not a good basis on which to judge the State’s overall law and order situation or the safety of women and girls. Whether a crime occurred says nothing about law and order because serious crimes occur in every society, including those with highly capable police forces and governments. The more meaningful questions are whether crime rates are falling, whether the State can prevent foreseeable risks, how quickly it responds when a serious crime does occur, how effectively it investigates them, and whether the perpetrators are punished. A good law and order apparatus could never promise to prevent crime.

    It is even more absurd that Tamil Nadu’s law and order situation deteriorated within 12 days of a new government taking office — when it will have had little time to review and institute changes (as necessary) to policing, prosecution, the administration of criminal justice, urban planning, social services, and the many other factors that influence crime. In fact, one crime committed shortly after an election almost certainly originated in conditions that predated that government. In fact, the risk of sexual violence — as at Sulur — at large also depends on several factors, including the offender’s behaviour, family and neighbourhood networks, policing practices, urban design, alcohol use, social norms, reporting rates, court effectiveness, school systems, and — like it or not — sheer chance.

    No chief minister who has been in power for just under a fortnight can directly control these factors on a daily basis. This individual can effectively influence how the State reacts to crime, much less so whether a particular crime occurs. But over five years, a State government — like the one Udhayanidhi was until recently part of — can matter substantially because they can hire more police officers, improve the State’s forensic capacity, expand CCTV coverage, redesign unsafe public spaces, strengthen survivor support services, accelerate trials, improve conviction rates, regulate alcohol sales, improve public transport safety, and invest in education and social welfare.

    Yet again, even if these changes can alter the probability that such crimes occur and the likelihood that offenders are caught and punished, these changes will not eliminate crimes against women and girls with certainty. But even more: a government should be judged less by a handful of shocking cases than by long-term trends. If crimes against women, child sexual offences, murder rates, conviction rates, response times, and public perceptions of safety improve (or do not) over several years, then it is reasonable to attribute some responsibility to the government. Otherwise, it is just bickering.

    Featured image credit: Joshua Coleman/Unsplash.

  • ‘Hidden’ voting preferences

    On May 4, former Tamil film actor C. Joseph Vijay and his Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) emerged in the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections as the single largest party. The magnitude of the victory was widely unexpected, and dislodged the Dravidian duopoly in the State since 1959.

    While the reasons for this win are still falling in place — a need for change and reform and fatigue with corruption seem to have been decisive forces — it also appears more than a few voters expected the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) to win even as they wished to shrink the size of its majority, to send a message of sorts.

    Eventually, of course, the TVK won, securing 108 seats in the 234-seat Assembly and with almost 35% of the vote share.

    A rational choice

    While the complete political psychology of Mr. Vijay’s win is still developing, we know the TVK did subtract more from the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vote base. The erstwhile actor also had many vocal supporters, especially among the State’s youth. Many parents were even cowed by their starstruck and adamant children, often well below voting age, insisting they vote for the TVK irrespective of their own inclinations.

    In the mix of possibilities, the idea that one would vote for another party assuming a second party would win anyway stands out as a self-negating, even unpredictable, proposition.

    However, this way of deciding is actually rational and well-documented in political science and economics. The basic idea comes from the fact that people do not just vote for whom or which ideology they prefer. They also vote based on whom they believe ‘can’ win, how they believe others will vote, and what social rewards (or punishments) they associate with each choice. As a result, if voters believe one party is ‘destined’ to win, they could also believe they can defect to another party — i.e. voting for different reasons while not changing their expectations. When that idea becomes sufficiently widespread, the party they actually voted for could win.

    Of course, psychology alone cannot explain what happened in Tamil Nadu. But the way psychologists, sociologists, and economists have explored these possibilities may describe a part of why the State voted the way it did.

    Mediated by the media

    In the 1920s, the U.S. social psychologist Floyd Allport described a concept called pluralistic ignorance. It says that if each person in a group privately believes something but incorrectly assumes most other people do not believe that as well, they can behave on the basis of a collective opinion that they have failed to read. Scholars have also found that any society whose people think like this is actually less stable than it looks. When private preferences diverge far enough from the public one, even a small trigger — like a rupture in the appearance of consensus — can cause people to quickly and progressively reveal their true choices as they see others doing so.

    The TVK’s 34.92% vote share could suggest a reservoir of suppressed private preferences that did not always surface in mainstream discourse — or could it? Since the verdict on May 4, many reporters have recalled people on the ground telling them they would vote for the TVK — even as many in the media reported the DMK would emerge victorious.

    They may have struggled to reconcile two conflicting impressions. On the one hand, they encountered enthusiasm for a two-year-old party and its charismatic leader. On the other, they weighed the DMK’s formidable organisational machinery and its entrenched presence in Tamil Nadu politics, plus the common assumption that parties with deep cadres and alliances generally prevail. Many observers may have resolved this contradiction in favour of what they already ‘knew’ about how elections usually work. After all, if such intuitions prove unreliable in one major election, they could unsettle the observers’ confidence in others as well.

    Ultimately, those declarations in the press supporting a DMK victory could also have lowered the perceived cost of voting for an alternative. In Tamil Nadu, one popular media narrative of the TVK — that it was a celebrity vanity project, different in spirit from the campaigns of M.G. Ramachandran and J. Jayalalithaa — could also have made Mr. Vijay et al. seem like an alternative through whose bid to power individual voters could send a ‘message’.

    Diverging preferences

    Voters do not always infer information directly. They also survey the (apparent) behaviour of others. Each voter’s confidence in the DMK’s invincibility could have been abetted partly by observing what seemed to be confidence among others, leading some people to discount their own private impressions. This then could have created a feed-forward loop in which the strength of the private preference diverges significantly from that of the public one, until a voter reaches the ballot.

    Scholars have sometimes modelled this as a phenomenon called a threshold effect: each voter has a personal point at which they will act on their private preference. When enough people cross that threshold at the same time, the electoral outcome can shift nonlinearly, meaning it could appear sudden and disproportionate to what people have been seeing around them until then.

    In a 1995 book titled Private Truths, Public Lies, the Turkish-American economist Timur Kuran argued that individuals routinely misrepresent their private preferences in order to conform with public preferences, which he called preference falsification. And as falsified preferences accumulate over time, they could stabilise a misleading public consensus.

    The political scientist Anthony Downs helped put together a rational explanation of voting in which people weigh the expected value of their vote, including the small chance that it could be decisive. In a political climate where the DMK’s victory could have seemed like a given, for example, voters might try to improve the value of their vote, as they see it. Based on this idea, around three decades later, Australian economist Geoffrey Brennan and his American peer Loren Lomasky argued that because the chance of any one vote being pivotal is really small in a large election, voters also use the (private) ballot as a place where they can express themselves — an interpretation some scholars have also applied to the Brexit referendum.

    Defect without consequence

    In fact, the duo contended that the lower a person perceives the value of their vote to be, the more sincerely they will vote for whom they actually want to vote for. In this reading, some of TVK’s voters could be said to have voted expressively. Some scholars have described similar situations in terms of the ‘wasted vote’ — in Tamil Nadu, not wasted because it went to the TVK but because it would have been of ‘little use’ to the DMK.

    In his noted work on public goods and collective action, the economist Mancur Olson found that individuals who are all interested in a common collective good will still also under-contribute towards the goal as long as they can benefit from the contributions of others. So for instance, if a group of DMK supporters believed that the DMK was set to win, one individual in the group may have also believed that as long as the others voted for the DMK, she alone could vote to ‘send a message’ without consequence. The defector’s decision is actually rational because, according to the information that she had, the cost of defection was zero.

    As analysts continue to make sense of the TVK’s unprecedented victory, it will be interesting to watch whether any of these reasons match what played out on the ground on April 23.

  • Developing Tamil Nadu

    “If the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) comes to power, it will ruin the developed State of Tamil Nadu” — Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin said this in his address to a local conference organised by the Indian Union Muslim League in Kumbakonam on January 28.

    While Stalin’s claim relies on aggregate metrics like the GSDP and the GER, economic development is really a culture. True development means rising incomes as well as expanded human freedoms and better quality of social systems — which are areas where Tamil Nadu still faces an uphill task. For instance while the DMK government launched ambitious initiatives like the ‘Green Tamil Nadu Mission’ and the ‘Tamil Nadu Climate Change Mission’, enforcement on the ground remains reactive. The State Pollution Control Board suffers from regulatory capture and its focus is on granting clearances to aid industrial GSDP growth rather than penalising non-compliance.

    Pollution hotspots like Ennore and the Cooum River have seen little qualitative improvement in water and air quality indices despite four years of rhetoric. A culture of development would require TN to shift from managing pollution, e.g. clearing oil spills after they happen, to preventing it through strict liability, which the state has been reluctant to enforce to avoid spooking investors.

    In fact noise pollution has become so pervasive that most residents have simply become accustomed to it. After I lodged a complaint with the SPCB over an offender in my neighbourhood last year, an official from the board reached out just to say, “That’s how it is, there is nothing we can do.”

    The Dravidian Model is often lauded for high access to education, as seen for example by the high gross enrollment ratio, but what of learning outcomes and employability? The need for the ‘Naan Mudhalvan’ scheme Stalin launched in 2022 is itself an admission of systemic failure: it acknowledged that most of the engineering and arts graduates the state produces are unemployable sans remedial skilling. Similarly a developed state wouldn’t just have children in school, it would have them performing at global standards, yet Tamil Nadu’s public education system still struggles to compete with private counterparts.

    But perhaps the strongest  reason to disagree with Stalin’s ‘developed’ tag for Tamil Nadu is the persistence of caste-based atrocities, which points to a failure in social development. The 2022 incident in Vengaivayal, where human faeces were found in a water tank meant for Scheduled Caste residents, comes to mind, as does the inability of the state apparatus to swiftly identify and punish the perpetrators. Sociologists have argued that economic growth without eradicating caste spatiality is incomplete modernisation, so not being able to swiftly deliver justice in such a high-profile case undermines the claim that TN offers a “safe” or “developed” social environment for minorities and marginalised groups.

    Finally, even from a fiscal standpoint, a ‘developed’ economy should run on sustainable revenue models rather than consumption funded by debt. According to recent CAG reports and fiscal analyses (2023-2024), Tamil Nadu continues to run a revenue deficit, meaning the government is borrowing money just to pay for daily expenses such as salaries and subsidies rather than investing in capital assets. The current administration has also doubled down on populist welfare, including cash transfers, without fixing the structural revenue leaks, e.g. electricity board losses, creating a sort of fragile development where the state is one or two fiscal shocks away from crisis. Truly developed economies on the other hand maintain revenue surpluses to fund welfare.

    I’m rooting for the DMK to win the impending Assembly elections, which is why I’m concerned that by engrossing the anti-Hindutva space while leaving socio-economic fractures unhealed, comments like Stalin’s may till the soil for the very ideology his party claims to resist — by pushing groups that remain disenfranchised despite claims to development to seek solutions in the opposition’s counter-narratives.

  • Rule o flaw — part I

    This building right opposite my apartment was locked in a legal dispute for years. That must have ended a month ago (in October) because since then a bunch of workers have been toiling nine hours a day, six days a week to take it apart piece by piece. The contractor the building’s owner hired brought along a large excavator to push the walls of the four-storey structure down and it was done with most of the walls and one floor in a few days. But then trouble struck.

    The next day the contractor had the excavator driven away and replaced it with a pair of pneumatic jackhammers driven by compressed air. These were, and are, very loud machines. The pumps for the compressors were driven by the engines of two tractors parked downstairs. The jackhammers were loud as well, and workers had to hold them as they chipped away at the walls and floors piece by small piece. Why didn’t the contractor persist with the excavator? My father went over to have a chat with him and discovered the reason.

    About three buildings down from the one being torn down is the two-storey house of some Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) bigwig. When the excavator was working, mechanical vibrations passed into the ground and rattled the walls of that guy’s house. And as a bigwig, the guy pulled some strings and got a senior police officer to intervene on his behalf, preventing the contractor from using the excavator. Funny thing is that the vibrations from the excavator’s demolition didn’t affect the three buildings before the bigwig’s house or the building housing my and five other apartments, nor various other houses on either side.

    The bigwig had built his house on a weaker foundation and was worried it would collapse and he believed it was okay to risk the peace of everyone else in the neighbourhood than risk that possibility — or, better yet, remedy that actual problem. I’m more sensitive than most to loud sounds and to the possibility that India’s Noise Pollution Rules are among the least invoked vis-à-vis complaints of public nuisance. But acting in such terribly bad faith, with no regard for one’s neighbours or the workers (although that’s on the contractor too), is sickening.

  • The frustrating wait for quiet in Chennai

    It was a Sunday. Around 7 am, I was woken by the sound of an auto idling outside my house. It had one of those loud put-putting engines, and the driver had parked the vehicle there waiting for one of my neighbours to step out. The noise echoed sharply around my block and was audible from everywhere within my house three floors above. Just as I prepared to step out and have a word with the driver, the idling stopped.

    Just across the road from my house is a vendor of construction materials. Its proprietor runs a loud business. His resupply trucks arrive in the dead of night to offload sand and bricks. During the day, his employees are often heard shouting at each other as they work. During the weekends, they bring out a wood-cutting machine that shrieks loudly as they use it for several hours in the afternoon.

    As the day wears on, the occasional canine screaming match breaks out nearby. At just around 10 am, another neighbour up the street revs his silencer-less motorcycle up before leaving for wherever he does at 10 am every day. The hawkers turn up one by one, blaring their wares and services — tender coconut water, fresh vegetables, “sofa repair”, spices, flowers, iron-whetting, and of course the kabadiwalas — in recorded voices blaring through small yet boisterous loudspeakers. These sounds are all crisscrossed by horn and engine noises from other vehicles passing by.

    Often the only way to find silence here is for the Sun to beat down hard. That way no one steps out in the afternoon. I don’t even find birds on the pea tree outside. That’s also a cruel thing to wish for, but even if it’s just a little cloudy, the hawkers keep coming and going. The pea tree is a popular local source of shade: come 4 pm and a bunch of Swiggy delivery guys gather underneath for a chat, maybe a glass of tea. Their voices can be comforting, a reminder that you’re around other people. When you’re looking for just a minute of silence, however, it’s yet another irritant.

    The day is a continuous drizzle of sounds but you’re probably thinking it’s an essential, even desirable part of city life — especially life in Chennai, with its oft-village-like vibes. But listening to them in isolation, as the government often seems to do, misses the point. There are of course the sounds we need, even desire: birds chirping at dawn, a fan creaking on a hot summer day, laughter from the neighbours’ houses, children making their way to school (and the sounds of band practice in the distance), voice lifting into the wind from the tea stall nearby… One of my neighbours practices playing the flute at night and he’s already very good at it. Another goes to bed listening to old Tamil film songs. I love them all.

    These are sounds. Then there’s noise. Imagine it is raining constantly, relentlessly where you are and then one day there’s a storm. You haven’t worn dry clothes in a long time. The storm subsides soon after yet the pitter-patter rain continues. I expect you’d be quite irritable and just wishing the Sun breaks out soon. Noise, constant noise is like this — sounds born of a social order that has long forgotten their intrusive nature. You don’t have a moment’s peace. Your ears, and heart and mind, are constantly responding to something. Unless you’re really, really good at spacing out or can afford noise-cancelling earphones, there is no escape.

    Even so, it might have been easier to deal with if the drizzle was all there was, but no. The evenings are the worst. There are two temples nearby. On any auspicious day — and there are about a dozen in a single month — devotional songs blare on loudspeakers. If the day is particularly auspicious, there are motorised floats bearing large idols lit by hundreds of LED lamps that, for some reason, face straight ahead. On Vinayak Chathurthi, a few such lamps lit up every front-facing apartment in our building through thick curtains at 4 am. Almost every Sunday evening there’s devotional karaoke on loudspeakers. Their only grace is to wind up at 10.30 pm, except of course if the occasion is, again, particularly auspicious.

    My house is near those of two well-known Kollywood actors and about 200 metres away from a Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam bigwig. There’s almost always a police car patrolling the neighbourhood, yet the cops never question the noise or when it begins or ends. Even on Vinayak Chathurthi, these weren’t the folks to respond when a loud drum-beating procession set off from the temple at 12.40 am. The devotees piped down only after two policemen paid them a visit after I’d given them a ring on phone numbers the Greater Chennai Police had tweeted.

    Even on less auspicious days, the ordeal isn’t done yet. The users of our local public dustbin don’t segregate waste. When the trash-collection vehicle rolls around at 11.30 pm, the workers attach each bin to its handles, and the driver then has the mechanism smash the bin against the rim of the container to ensure the bin yields its jumble of contents no matter how mucilaginous they’ve become. That slow-mo bang-bang-bang is in fact how the whole neighbourhood knows it’s nearly midnight.

    Then finally there’s quiet, unless of course another barking match hasn’t already broken out.

    ***

    Deepavali is coming up, and since the first week of September I’ve been enveloped with dread. The noise from firecrackers in the city — whichever city — has graduated from being part fun, part nuisance to just harmful. The Supreme Court’s mandate to firecracker manufacturers and consumers to switch to ‘green’ crackers did nothing to mitigate the demand itself, which is to say the kind of pollutants entering the air has changed — from more to less toxic — but the quantities may not have.

    The court required these green firecrackers to be less noisy as well, but the new noise range is ironically no less harmful. They emit an estimated 100-130 dB, whereas research has registered harmful effects due to noise from 50 dB onwards and often considers 120 dB to be the threshold of human hearing — the point from which more sound pressure on the ears leads to pain more than perception.

    A meta-analysis of studies with people from Canada, Europe, Japan, and the UK reported in 2014 that every 10 dB increase in traffic noise hiked the risk of developing heart disease by 8%. In a statement published in 2016, the American Academy of Nursing called noise “a public health hazard”. Other studies have linked extended noise exposure to stress, anxiety, cognitive difficulties, and depression. Some small studies in Indian cities, including Chennai, Jammu, and Vadodara, have reported an elevated prevalence of hearing loss among traffic police and auto-drivers.

    All these effects, but stress in particular, is compounded when people are exposed to loud sounds when they least expect it — such as in the middle of the day, near a place of worship or a school, or at any time after 10 pm. Likewise, a very loud noise that lasts only for a brief moment may not be reason enough for a complaint, but it could still damage humans’ auditory apparatus and send stress levels soaring, yet there are no noise-based sanctions when such events occur.

    On September 4, the Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned funds for a project to produce a “noise map” of four cities in the State with more than a million inhabitants: Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore, and Tiruchi. The project will install noise monitors near airports, railway stations, high-traffic roadways and intersections, and areas with industrial and construction activity, as well as in spots that require quiet, like near schools, places of worship, and hospitals.

    Following the announcement, the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) for Chennai, R. Sudhakar, told The Hindu that based on the project’s findings the city may adopt a system in which “decibel meters are installed at traffic signals. If noise levels exceed a certain threshold due to honking when the signal is red, the signal will reset and remain red for longer.”

    I have every confidence in my compatriots to find ways to render such social engineering meaningless, if not counterproductive. What if there is a lone miscreant among the drivers waiting for a signal to change who wastes others’ time by blaring his horns at the last second? What if there is an ambulance or cop car that really needs to make its way to the front? The noise monitor may just falter in Chennai’s incessant heat and humidity. Or an informal market may erupt in each city for horns emitting sounds at frequencies that evade the monitor yet are still audible to vehicles nearby.

    The State’s new noise-mapping exercise is (currently) restricted to permanent or semi-permanent sources of noise and doesn’t address the more common transient ones. Such sources include all those that haunt my neighbourhood and presumably most neighbourhoods in large cities. Their principal threat isn’t their isolated loudness per se — although that’s bad enough — but their interminability. By populating every moment with sound, they exacerbate the absence of quiet and heighten the consequences that other particularly loud sounds provoke.

    Noise pollution in India is no joke but given the wildly varying realities with which the country often confronts its own laws, the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 are amusing. The Rules demarcate the hours of daytime (6 am to 10 pm) and nighttime (10 pm to 6 am) and four kinds of spatial areas. In daytime, the noise limit in industrial areas is 75, in commercial areas 65, in residential areas 45, and in “silence zones” 50.

    In all cases the unit is dB(A) Leq, which has an important physical meaning. ‘dB’ stands for decibel, a unit that expresses not an absolute value but the ratio between two values. When used to measure the loudness of sound, a dB denotes how many times more a given sound is louder than the threshold at which human hearing begins (a sound pressure of 20 micropascal). The ‘A’ in brackets refers to the use of a weight scale that combines a given amount of loudness with a constant that represents the perception of the human ear. Leq means the decibel value is a time-average — but this isn’t equal to adding up all the dB(A) values and dividing by the number of values. Because the decibel is a logarithmic measure, computing the Leq requires us to convert the dB(A) figures to sound-pressure levels first, calculate their average, and finally convert back to dB(A).

    This mathematical exercise throws up a crucial perspective. The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 allow people to register a complaint if some activity breaches the specific threshold by more than 10 dB(A) Leq. If, say, there is a loud sound of 80 dB(A) Leq for 20 seconds every minute, and this plays out for an hour, the average noise level comes to 75.22 dB(A) Leq in this period — which is just enough to lodge a complaint in a “silence zone”, a residential area or a commercial area, and not in an industrial area. But it will not be enough if the average is calculated throughout daytime. In any case, the police is unlikely to admit a complaint against the simple hawker responsible for that 20-second blip.

    To make matters worse, Chennai and most other cities are haphazardly planned. Residential and commercial areas often spill into each other — assuming there has been a noise-wise zonation exercise. Even if they are chockablock, sounds carry over. It is thus a Kafkaesque challenge to register a complaint for violating the Rules unless the violation is altogether egregious. Even then, however, the damage to human (and animal) health is already done.

    (The US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health recommends its Sound Level Meter app — simply called NIOSH SLM — for smartphones. It “ measures workplace noise to determine if workers are exposed to hazardous noise. The free app combines the best features of professional sound levels meters and noise dosimeters into one simple tool.”)

    ***

    I spent many of my childhood years in my grandparents’ house in T Nagar, opposite Ranganathan Street — a very crowded and noisy part of Chennai. There was always some sound around us. If it lapsed we’d know something was very wrong. It never did, of course. When I first travelled to Dubai, Sweden, and New York, I found the lack of ambient sounds unsettling, but over time I also got used to it, especially once I moved to Bengaluru in 2018, where my house was relatively secluded. Since then noises have frightened me, especially sudden ones, but I don’t feel badly about it. In fact I’m happy I lost the ability to be okay with it, an ability repeatedly souped up by less-than-ideal living conditions normalised by others around me.

    If there is noise everywhere in space and time, the question of who can afford quiet becomes important. When I lived in Delhi, it was readily apparent that only a certain class of people could access clean air and the benefits for well-being such access conferred. The air is on paper a part of the commons but in the national capital, especially during winter, there were only three ways to find clean air: live in the upper parts of a high-rise building, live near or in places with access to large green parks, or get an air-purifier or two. All of these things are expensive, so the poorer and the more marginalised had less access to clean air.

    In much the same way, quiet is becoming synonymous in Chennai with the upper-class, upper-caste experience of life given that it requires homes located far from thoroughfares, sound-proofing material, and expensive consumer electronics. Even on the road, quiet exists inside cars but is lost to every other mode of transport. Many of us are familiar with parents allowing their children to throw loud and protracted tantrums on public transport, but if shushing them is taboo, what of those with the deafening cellphone ringtones, those who speak loudly no matter where they are, and those who see fit to watch videos on full volume while you’re trying to sleep on the next seat?

    In a country in which pollution of some form is almost everywhere, noise pollution appears to be the most acceptable and tolerated. Deepavali is now less than a month away, but then it is also the storm amid the drizzle that just won’t abate.