Another “data point” for RG’s philosophical question. I don’t have an answer to the philosophical question, but I would be interested in that discussion.

If they were better designers, you’d be referring to them as traditional designers, not as “hand” something.

Allowing funding for non profit organizations in this domain can bring the prices down like you have deduced, but is it not conceivable that there may be various benefits. For example, you were there for a workshop, while you may not have been too pleased with the experience, but there may have been many who went back happy and with a bagful of handicrafts. What i’m getting at is, a not-for profit will serve to promote. You seem to be imagining a situation where the entire handicraft scene will dominated by not for profits thus killing the ‘Kingfishers’ in the long run. How about envisaging an ecospace where the non profits function sort of like advertising agencies, which will eventually allow the “Kingfishers’ to flourish (I’m assuming here that at some stage it will get easier for the artisans to obtain funding).

Also … I am not sure how BSubs taught the course or what its contents are. But from a CS/Math perspective, defining fairness, morality and justice is a pretty challenging job. Ensuring that there are no contradictions in you logic and articulating the thoughts are much harder than they seem.

We would have loved to engage with Karthik when we had the opportunity to do so. We believe that he has brought up relevant points. However he has chosen to present them as judgements that he has already made based on discussions he had with a couple of artisans – and we have no choice but to go with his interpretation of what they meant since he did not think it important to get other views or involve us in the discussion. The festival may not have worked for him, that’s completely understandable. But to debate on the viability or relevance of the craft sector needs a more informed understanding of its historical, political, social and economic context. We are happy to engage with anyone who’s interested. But we don’t wish to get into a statement vs counter statement kind of argument.
Karthik, just for the record, your money did not go towards funding the musicians, they were sponsored by Shemaroo and therefore accessible to people who love their music. Your money went towards food, logistics and paying the artisan teachers for the workshops.

If Bill Gates, for example, decides that he wants to save these artisans and their craft, he can fund a company to do exactly whatever Khamir is doing. He can take huge losses and achieve his social objective.

Or in other words, if we eradicate malaria because of a generous private donor with a non-profit objective whose actions “distort markets” (in this case, pharma), is this wrong?

Who decides if “malaria” is a better objective than “saving artisans”?