Thursday, August 13, 2020
Home Opinions Why Sonu Nigam's argument against loudspeaker is economically valid

Why Sonu Nigam’s argument against loudspeaker is economically valid

Also Read


Everyone have free speech but the moment they “practise” it;  in our nation, they face the flak for doing so. And, to add to our woes, we seem to have an army of (paid) trolls patrolling the internet, pouncing on unwitting citizens. Whether you agree with Sonu’s tweet is a secondary matter but what is more important is that he has every right to speak fearlessly. If you shun his opinion today; there are chances that tomorrow someone else will shun your voice. This problem gets circular with every step we undertake without thinking rationally of the social consequences.

Like you, Sonu Nigam is also blessed with individual rights. If he is disturbed by the “unaccountable” loudspeaker near his place, it is the “responsibility” of the mosque to examine the social impact of the loudspeaker (in the first place). Unfortunately, the whole loudspeaker saga stands politically hijacked. This article attempts to make an economic argument with reason instead of emotions.

In a country like India, personal space in public places is hard to come by because property rights are not fundamental human rights. Property rights are merely legal rights, today. This premise is important for everyone to understand because we are economically dealing with tangible and intangible functions in our daily life. Azaan loudspeaker should be backed by the property rights but our constitution does not guarantee this, therefore, the “burden of proof” of secularism credentials is endowed with the India’s constitution than with Sonu Nigam or Mosque (in this episode). To decode this premise, at what point should loudspeaker be permitted to enforce its noise on others? Is the loud noise socially consented by the people around the mosque? This is where Sonu Nigam falls in the picture because he is disturbed by the “early morning” Azaan (prayer).

Surely, economist Ronald Coase would also defend Sonu Nigam in this case. He would suggest that noise pollution fits the typical definition of an externality, since noise pollution from a factory, a loud garage band, or, say, a wind turbine potentially imposes a cost on people who are neither consumers nor producers of these items. (Technically, this externality comes about because it’s not well-defined who owns the noise spectrum.). For example: In the case of Azaan loudspeaker, it’s efficient to let the loudspeaker make noise if the value of operating the loudspeaker is greater than the noise cost imposed on those who live near the mosque. On the other hand, it’s efficient to shut the loudspeaker if the value of operating the loudspeaker is less than the noise cost imposed on nearby residents. Since the potential rights and desires of the loudspeaker and Sonu Nigam are clearly in conflict, it is entirely possible that the two parties will end up in court to figure out whose rights take precedence. In this instance, the court could either decide that the mosque has the right to operate at the expense of the nearby households, or it could decide that the households have the right to forcefully tolerate the Azaan at the expense of the mosque.

Coase’s main thesis is that the decision that is reached regarding the assignment of property rights has no bearing on whether the loudspeakers continue to operate in the area as long as the parties can bargain without cost. Why is this? Let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s efficient to have the loudspeakers operating in the area, i.e. that the value to the mosque of operating the loudspeaker is greater than the cost imposed on the households. Put another way, this means that the mosque would be willing to pay the households more to stay in a community than the households would be willing to pay mosque to shut down the loudspeakers.

If the court decides that the households have a right to stay quiet, the mosque will probably turn around and compensate the households in exchange for letting the loudspeakers operate. Because the loudspeakers are worth more to the mosque than quiet is worth to the households there is some offer that will be acceptable to both parties, and the loudspeakers will keep running. On the other hand, if the court decides that the mosque has the right to operate the loudspeakers, the mosque will continue to play Azaan loudly and no money will change hands. This is simply because the households aren’t willing to pay enough to convince the mosque to play Azaan softly.


In summary, the assignment of rights in our example above didn’t affect the ultimate outcome once the opportunity to bargain was introduced, but the property rights did affect the transfers of money between the two parties. Instead of giving a political or communal dialogue to the whole debate, it is in the logical interest of mankind to develop an economic sense of the discourse.

Reference: Introduction to Coase theorem

  Support Us  

OpIndia is not rich like the mainstream media. Even a small contribution by you will help us keep running. Consider making a voluntary payment.

Trending now

Latest News

The curious case of Shah Faesal

Shah Faesal, is a UPSC civil services topper and a staunch campaigner of Pakistan sponsored "Kashmiriyat" and vocal anti-Indian.

Covid opens up urban development challenge, how we respond to it, is up to us

This is the time when we should start focusing on creating employment opportunities in tier 3 and tier 4 cities and even in rural areas, so people can find the employment near their homes and don’t need to migrate to metros in search of employment.

Job data; faster PM Narendra Modi acts on it, the better: It should also capture migrants’ data

Transparency and availability of data was a big hallmark of Narendra Modi 1.0 government, with various information available on dashboard and a click of a button, similarly this would be a game changing achievement for Narendra Modi 2.0.

Law against fake news is need of the hour: Media can’t hide anymore behind the freedom of speech

Article 19.1.a b which deals with freedom of speech and expression is universally applicable to all the citizens, including journalists. There is no special provision under the constitution for freedom of speech to the media.

Why Ram Mandir

generation or two, Bharatiyas have resisted, sacrificed and survived one invasion after another. The reclaiming of this ancient site and building a grand temple is a civilization accepting the challenge of the competing invasive cultures and declaring in one voice that we are here to stay.

Awakening of the sleeping Hindu giant

An Ode to the Resurrection of the Hindu self-esteem & pride.

Recently Popular

सामाजिक भेदभाव: कारण और निवारण

भारत में व्याप्त सामाजिक असामानता केवल एक वर्ग विशेष के साथ जिसे कि दलित कहा जाता है के साथ ही व्यापक रूप से प्रभावी है परंतु आर्थिक असमानता को केवल दलितों में ही व्याप्त नहीं माना जा सकता।

Avrodh: the web-series that looks more realistic and closer to the truth!

The web-series isn't about the one Major who lead the attack, its actually about the strike and the events that lead to it, Major was a part of a big picture like others who fought alongside him, the snipers, the national security advisor so on and so forth.

The story of Lord Jagannath and Krishna’s heart

But do we really know the significance of this temple and the story behind the incomplete idols of Lord Jagannath, Lord Balabhadra and Maa Shubhadra?

Striking similarities between the death of Parveen Babi and Sushant Singh Rajput: A mere co-incidence or well planned murders?

Together Rhea and Bhatt’s media statements subtly and cleverly project Sushant as some kind of a nut job like Parveen Babi, another Bhatt conjuring.

Two nation theory after independence

Two Nation Theory was the basis of partition of India. Partition was accepted based on the assumption that the Muslims staying back in India because they rejected the Two Nation theory. However, later decades proved that Two Nation Theory is not only subscribed by a large section of Indian Muslims but also being nourished by the appeasement politics.