The end of the standoff involved, as it had to, a climbdown by both government and the activists. The government had to retreat from the position initially adopted by prime minister Singh that only the government and no one else had the right to suggest how rules and laws should be framed. Forced to back down, and with the help of lawmakers among allied and opposition parties, Parliament suddenly looked like a united front.

Once three conditions - including the lower bureaucracy under the Lokpal, forming similar bodies in states and having a citizens' charter for the delivery of public goods - were included, the activists were ready to make a deal.

As the Lokpal now moves to the legislative grind, we will, of course, encounter hurdles in framing the new law and implementing it. For example, the lower bureaucracy reports to state governments.

Will making it answerable to a Central Lokpal infringe on states' privileges? Can even a fair and efficient Lokpal ensure the delivery of public goods across India, eliminating petty corruption? And what will be the cost of running what promises to be a vast administrative structure running parallel to the executive and the judiciary? At the moment, all these are imponderables.

No democracy as vast and varied as India has ever attempted anything like this before, so there are no historical or practical lessons to be drawn from anywhere else in the world. Parallels with tiny Scandinavian nations are meaningless, because India's size and complexity dwarves them.

Yet, a start has been made, and hurdles along the way will have to be overcome. Above all, the Hazare movement has achieved something unique: it forced an increasingly opaque, self-absorbed and arrogant administration to retreat and it forced Parliament to look at itself and assume its responsibilities with dignity. These are no small gains.