Anna - The end of a beginning

Democracy is defined as “rule of the people” – and the Indian democracy showed that it is just that. Last evening was a red-letter day in Indian democracy - as Parliament passed a resolution to take on board the three demands that Anna Hazare had raised before it.

Anti-protest commentators which included a pro-government channel, and members of the NAC (an extra-constitutional body that "advises" the government on law-making - a clear case of constitutional impropriety) kept up the charade that these protests in some way detracted from India's democracy. My take on three key issues that were raised :

1.       Supremacy of Parliament – huh? What’s that?

A key claim was that Parliament is supreme in law making and that the agitation somehow diminished the “prestige” of parliament. Absolute Balderdash!  Nowhere in the constitution is there either a direct or implied “supremacy” given to the Parliament. Quite the opposite - The constitution is clear that the PEOPLE are supreme, when it states “We the People of India..... do Hereby Adopt, Enact and give to Ourselves this constitution”. MP’s are but representatives of the wishes of the people. The "confused" are mistaking procedural matters for “fundamental” issues.

2.       This is “mobocracy” and somehow sets a bad precedent. First, we have to agree that self regulating bodies rarely work. Allegations of corruption and nepotism in higher judiciary, a medical council that refuses to book errant doctors, and failed self-regulation in the case of life insurance companies are cases in point. If we agree, then when it comes to making laws that effect the law-makers and the bureaucracy, self-regulation will not work, and we HAVE to take into account the wishes of the people directly.

Can this be repeated? We have only to look at the case of Swami Nigamananda, who died earlier this year fasting against the government's inability (or worse) to implement a supreme court decision against illegal mining in the Ganga river bed, or that of Irom Sharmila from Manipur who is protesting against Armed Forces Special powers Act for the past decade. In both cases, the public imagination could not be captured, and while both causes are legitimate, they have failed to attract anywhere near the kind of public participation to force the government to act. To see Anna's protest as something that can be easily replicated displays a misunderstanding on what led to the massive public support that the movement generated. If our politicians do not get this, they are really not in touch with their constituents and should anyways be voted out.

3.       The Lokpal bill will not stop corruption. This must rank as among the silliest complaints. Courts and police do not stop crime, they just create enough of a disincentive to stop most people from committing them. Likewise, Lokpal may not stop corruption – where ever there are people, there will be greed and some will succumb. However, it will hopefully create some disincentive. Additionally, as I have argued in the past – what prevents us from modifying and improving the law once it is enacted. Should we start with an imperfect law or wait another 50 years in the hope we will get a “perfect” one.

The debate in parliament showed up the real leaders. Sushma Swaraj sparkled, Sharad Yadav argued like a has-been, and Anand Sharma rambled. Our PM was ofcourse silent - but could you expect anything else?

Anna - The idea

Watching the "release" of Anna from jail - its an uplifting moment.

The spin doctors of the government - viz NDTV have this as a comment - "Anna's rally a traffic hazard?" This statement says it all - when the popular mood is fired like rarely before, when people have left their work to vent their frustrations against their elected representatives and are protesting against rising prices, looting politicians and corporate leaders and general corruption, our Nero's in government are hiding behind bluster and legalese.

The mark of political leadership is to sense the popular mood and to take a position that allows one to LEAD it. The bureaucrat will fight it, and sulk if not successful. I have always believed that in a democracy, when enough people feel that they need to do something, things change. It appears that we are at one such defining moment in our history. All power to Anna Hazare.

What scenario is likely to play out? The UPA will no doubt attempt to use delay as a tactic - submit the bill to a standing committee for discussion, and hope that the momentum behind Anna fades away.

What can the Anti-corruption camp do? As I see it, the best option is to co-opt the politicians - now that they have them on the mat. I hope Anna asks all his followers to call up their MP's and ask a simple "yes/no" question - are they willing to support the bill UNCHANGED in parliament. If enough answer yes - its game over. If not, we will have clearly identified who needs to be voted out. The finessed argument that PARTS of the bill are acceptable is silly - any law can be amended later. What is the harm in setting up a law and then allowing its functioning to determine how it is to be modified. After all, there is hardly any law that works well when first drafted!

Another scenario that can play out is that the UPA partners withdraw support, and let the government fall. An early election would be the best opportunity for this country to find new leaders. Who will come in is anyone's guess - but we would have restored the primacy of the people over the parliament - something that the current lot seem to have forgotten.

I hope for the first, will be happy for the next, and dread the status quo. 

Bungling government

India is an emerging economy. We are now emerging as one of the important players on the world stage. There are many forces that would not like to see India realize its true place in the Comity of Nations. We must not play into their hands. We must not create an environment in which our economic progress is hijacked by internal dissension.

Indira Gandhi reborn? Not really, this is the never-elected Manmohan Singh who is seeing signs of a "foreign hand" in the popular uprising against the corruption in his government. The hamhandedness of the government response - trying to put the blame of Anna Hazare's arrest on the police, portraying Anna as corrupt, and last but not least - attempting to present Rahul Gandhi as the person responsible for his "release" - reflects the lack of leadership that the party currently suffers from.

Perhaps, the bunch of lawyers advising the PM should seek solace in Chidambaram's earlier statement - the response cannot be termed "intelligence failure" - there was no intelligence after all !

More on Patents

A well written article on why patents used to "defend" against potential lawsuits are destructive. The article refers to a recent academic work - worth reading.

Patent Wars

An explosion in patent litigation, .... threatens to stifle innovation

Sounds like the crib of an "smoke stack" company out of an emerging economy? Heck No. Its none other than Google thats complaining about software patents as it spends millions on purchasing patents to defend itself against litigation. Google bid $900m for patents of Nortel. Nortel's patents were valued at $4.5bn.

As reported in Businessinsider.com, Jefferies analyst Misek explains how: "Through litigation and licensing, Apple could cause the free Android OS to actually become a burden for OEMs, forcing them to become more conservative in their aggressive pricing plans. This is likely to slow the price cuts Android OEMs are likely to bring. So rather than a $150 Android smartphones, we could see a ~$200 device that is less likely to hurt a lower-cost iPhone ."

Google finally bought more than 1000 patents from IBM.

Readers of this blog will remember my long-standing objection to patents. Big budget lobbying has convinced many that patents are needed for innovation - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It remains one of the key barriers to free trade - a non-tariff barrier that wealthier countries impose on poorer ones. One can only hope that rising costs of litigation, and healthcare will convince the consumers of the "developed" world, that protecting corporate profits for a few is NOT in the larger interest of humankind.