First let us take the similarities. Both are grass root movements taking place in two big democracies and have chosen the right moment to protest. Both movements pertain to public issues and public anger. Secondly, they took the world by surprise by the overwhelming support received from the public. If Anna got support from all sections of the society so does OWS movement. Even the celebrities have jumped into the bandwagon. Thirdly both are not clear about their focus. If Anna started with corruption and went on to talk about electoral reforms etc so does the OWS which began with unemployment and few getting millions of dollars in Wall Street, have moved on to other issues like Iraq and Afghanistan. Fourthly, both receive adequate funds from the public. Fifthly, they are successful so far without any organization. Both believe in occupying public parks and public places to protest. Sixthly, both have some unreasonable demands. If Anna insists on the passage of his Janlokpal bill within his own stipulated time, the OWS wants the Wall street to reform and to reduce inequalities of income. Also it is not clear how the protestors would improve their position by bringing down the salaries of the CEOs and Wall Street bankers and also why only the Wall street bankers and not the Hollywood stars or the baseball players who also get millions of dollars as their wages. The sixth is that both movements have put the two governments of the day in the dock. The seventh is that they use the modern methods of communication like the Facebook and Twitter to spread the message. The last is that there are question marks about their survival.

As for dissimilarities, while Anna is the undisputed leader of his anti corruption movement in India, the OWS has no such leaders although it is spreading to more than 100 cities in the US and Europe. The second criticism about the OWS is that it has no focus. The third is that while the Anna movement is against politicians, the OWS is against the one per cent super rich and the multinationals..

What is Occupy Wall Street movement? Last week, the movement completed two months and the day was observed with fanfare in New York and other places. It started on September 17 when a group of protestors gathered in Wall Street upset over the high unemployment and the status of economy. It has expanded since then to cover a variety of other issues including the Iraq war and Afghanistan.

While the one per cent are the CEOs and Wall Street bankers, the 99 per cent include those who cannot find jobs to pay back their college loans, and those who lost their jobs and cannot repay their home loans or unable to continue the lifestyle they were used to. The protestors see corporate power and greed as the major factors responsible for this situation and want to snap the ties between big corporations and the government. While there is anger and frustration at the way things are, the protestors have not yet raised any coherent demands on what should be done to right the wrongs. No one is officially in charge of the diffuse movement. In fact, it has different leaders and goals depending on where the occupiers have sprung up. This is perhaps the weakness of the movement.

Added to that is the recent report published by the US Congressional Budget office which stated “for the one per cent of the population with the highest income, average real income after tax household income grew by 275 per cent between 1997 and 2007 while for the other 99 per cent, the growth rate didn't surpass 40 per cent on average.”

The OWS movement has not only inspired people to join the movement but also to open their own wallets to support the cause. A good percentage of the money collected is spent for shelter, food and other essentials and a tiny part is designated just for legal fees to help demonstrators.

In Europe, the issue is clear: Something will have to be done to bail out the poorer nations, which have accumulated large debts and now will be forced to drastically cut back on entitlement programs such as healthcare and other social benefits.

Many politicians, including President Obama, have been trying to harness the popular anger against Wall Street to push their own agenda. While taking questions at a news conference about his jobs plan recently Obama said 'People are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.' The other Democrats have taken that same tack with some senators pushing a plan for a 5.6% surtax on those earning more than $1 million a year.

Republicans were originally hostile to the demonstrations calling them a continuation of class warfare facilitated by Democrats looking for a campaign issue. But GOP leaders have been milder while maintaining their basic position that new taxes on the rich were hurting job creation.

What is the response from the Wall Street bankers? The bank users should thank the OWS movement for the decision by big banks earlier this month to roll back their debit-card fees. This marks the first successful popular uprising. Secondly it has changed the course of economic debate in Washington from unemployment to wealth distribution. But the Wall Street argument is that the CEOs get a lot of money after working hard and reaching the top and the youth want the same salaries even before they began their career.

Both the Anna movement and the OWS are evolving and it is yet to be seen how they play it out. While Anna can claim some credit for making the government bend, the OWS movement can take credit for focusing the attention of the policy makers on the issues they have raised. It all depends on how long they can sustain. (IPA Service)