Some illustrious Indians were at the centre of Thomas Friedman’s observations about the shape of the earth in his 2005 best seller. I have my own ideas about the world’s design and my own set of Indians supporting the thesis.
These days, I am convinced the world is parallel. We all know a parallel power centre runs the country. Most Indian policymakers agree we have a parallel economy which is arguably stronger than its parallel. Recently, a ‘parallel chief minister’ was thrown out in a southern state. Rajnikanth movies have shown me the benefits of a parallel justice system. And, last week, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) said it had unearthed a parallel public issue market.
Sebi chairman U K Sinha said he was shocked at the audacity of operators in this parallel market. What shocked me, though, was the nonchalance with which the Street reacted to the news. A sense of “tell me something new” prevailed.
Going through the orders, one could see how well the parallel system worked and managed to successfully create demand for these issues in a dull market. Compare this with the non-starting SME Exchange framework we are trying to put up for several years now. Are there some lessons?
Two people I met last week had interesting takes on how often innovative and efficient systems emerge out of the existing legal and regulatory framework (read ‘in the parallel world’) and are eventually absorbed by the mainstream.
The first one was a consultant. The discussion covered the Companies Bill going into a limbo, lobbying, the story of a company that won a contract and building an airport in an island nation. The agreement had a clause for taking a fee from users after completion. The courts declared it illegal. The government went back to Parliament and legislated to allow the fee.
More From This Section
The second person, a media entrepreneur, was an Anna Hazare basher. He gave me an easy solution to end corruption: “Allow people to earn money. Don’t call it corruption.”
His theory was that if people became too strict about procedural issues, nothing new will come up. He cited the example of the cable revolution: “It was illegal to use dish antennas outside the north-east. But people liked MTV and other things they saw. Cable TV proliferated and was entirely controlled by the elements of the underworld in the initial years. Look at where we are now.”
We have a recorded history of how a leading business group made money in opium trades, which became illegal subsequently. In earlier ‘Street Food’ articles, we saw how large promoters created demand for their own shares through illegal means.
Thus, the big fish are able to get away or influence policy to absorb their sins. It is the small fish which have to work harder and build up enough momentum and scale or risk getting killed.
If something worked well, should you kill it because you did not invent it or find ways of putting it to good use?