Potential Unintended Consequences of an HIV Vaccine

Interesting article. It can be accessed here.

Interview with Salman Khurshid: An 'Evolving' Ministry

Today's interview in The Hindu with Salman Khurshid is quite revealing. In his own ministry, he has virtually no power except to dole out a few scholarships (maybe it ought to be rechristened the ministry of scholarships). He sees his ministry not as powerless but as 'evolving'. This is a little shocking - ideas are supposed to evolve before governments act upon them; here it seems to work the other way round. If whoever came up with this brainwave had bothered to study Darwin, they would have realized that evolution is not a very predictable process and much of it involves wasted effort since only the fittest of the lot will survive. Perhaps prudence and efficiency were not considerations in making this decision.

His other main idea of serving as an equal opportunity ministry is equally fuzzy. I can understand an equal opportunity commission but a ministry? Ministries of social welfare, law and human resources are all already involved in drafting reservations/affirmative action policies; so what is a new equal opportunity ministry going to do? Besides, ministries ought to have enough responsibilities to justify their existence and a ministry with a one point agenda is, much like a one trick pony, quite dispensable. Quotas/affirmative action policies involve long term monitoring and implementation more than drafting which is why a commission is a better answer. Clearly, Khurshid's half-baked ideas are not going to take him or his ministry very far which means his thinking must go through some more 'evolution' before it achieves anything meaningful.

Craigslist and Business as a Community Service

Here. A very interesting article about Craigslist, its owner Craig Newmark and CEO Buckmaster. Success of its philosophy is a good reason to rethink present day business models.

GOI Not to Appeal Against Delhi HC Decision

All major newspapers have reported today that the government of India has decided not to oppose the Delhi HC's decision in the Naz Foundation case when it comes up for appeal in the Supreme Court. With this decision, Naz foundation's victory is now pretty much a foregone conclusion.

I am not aware of many cases where the attorney general chooses not to defend the law of the land (however bad it may be in intent or practice). In that sense, this is somewhat unusual and represents a departure from the usual practice. But in light of the natural sympathy and support of the concerned ministers for the rights of gay people, this is quite understandable.

I share that sentiment but do question whether such a method of legislation through the backdoor via the agency of the court is the proper way to do it. The big question that remains is what the outcome of this case will mean to constitutional jurisprudence in the future. Will article 15 now end up being amended to include analogous grounds not included within its text much as with article 21? Will the laws and outcomes of foreign court cases provide the sole basis in the future for the Supreme Court to determine reasonableness under article 21? Does this mean that more and more laws are now going to be amended/overturned on the ground that they have been abolished or replaced by newer versions in the West?

The transaction cost of a court case will always remain lower than that of a legislative battle. So are we now condemning the legislatures to a moribund state for good because they cannot 'perform' with the desired 'efficiency' unlike the relatively 'more efficient' courts? There is another small problem with this newly minted system. The people of India and their elected representatives do not formally figure anywhere in it. Activists demand change, the media campaign for their cause and courts respond to it basing their judgment on the fact that some other countries also have the same desired outcome (as the US Chief Justice said, 'standing over a crowd and picking out your friends'). The law stands changed and the people are presented with a fait accompli. The outcome may be desirable in this instance but that does not alter the larger point: neither the people nor their leaders are left with much of a say in what the laws that govern them ought to be and in particular, what their own constitution means or ought to mean.

The final decision may be sweet news and will undoubtedly launch the Indian media into another frenzy but the trail of wreckage of hallowed constitutional principles (including the basic question of popular prerogatives in a sovereign democracy) this case would have left during the course of its journey will endure and cause much damage to the system for many years to come.

NYT on Pakistan

Acorn has a point. The New York Times does seem clueless about Pakistan.

Nobel Peace Prize May Do More Bad Than Good

A well-written critique of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Africa's Non-Existent Crisis

I was a little surprised to read this but things may actually not be as bad as they are made out to be.