Hacker News Reader

Comment by mirimir | Hacker News Reader

I hadn't realized until recently how India is so much like China regarding surveillance and social control. I guess that it reflects how biased against China I've been.

When I've read about the Chinese government's concerns over social unrest, I've empathized with the dissidents. I mean, Tibet and Xinjiang are occupied nations! But I get that China is an extremely diverse country, overall, with lots of ethnic tension.

And conversely, when I've read about the Indian government's concerns over social unrest, I've empathized with the victims of the dissidents. Muslims persecuted by Hindus. Women persecuted by misogynists.

So damn, it's a hard problem. And worse, with increased migration driven by social chaos and war (and eventually, by global climate change), it's becoming an issue in many places. Including the US, where I happen to live.

View on HN

You have got to be kidding me. There is just no comparison between India and China in freedom of anything.

I am sick of people painting India as some bad place where minorities and women are treated badly. Sure we have problems but this narrative of the persecution needs to stop. Give me one country where women are safe. Next compare per capita crime towards women with the top countries in the world and we can have a conversation.

Incidents with minority get all the press. The ground reality is more two way. I remember the whole town being shut down for Muslim processions because who would risk angering the mob? My muslim brothers and sisters generally have a much better status and bonding in India than at least in the US.

I am willing to answer, please ask away.

I get that China and India aren't comparable. China is far^N more locked down. But there are multiple references in the article about learning from China about surveillance and social control. So if I lived in India, I'd be worried. And damn, I live in the US, and I'm worried.

I was worried too but the whole net neutrality fight has been an eye opener. Our generation can be relied to rally upon when push comes to shove.

According to the OECD, 37% of women in India report violence against them at some point in their lifetime.

In Switzerland it is 10%. In Japan it is 15%.

Can you please share the link? I am on mobile.

According to https://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-highest-rape-crime/

India is after US and Sweden. I am using DuckDuckGo and this was the third link in search results on crime against women. I will look up the OECD stats as well.

> Rape was not a crime in France until 1980

This source seems.. questionable.

Also this uses reported rapes, which are affected by culture of reporting and how broadly rape is defined. That Sweden, with one of the highest levels of gender equality, is high on the list, showcases how useless this data is to compare countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Sweden is first on the list because their gender equality situation is so good. The statistic is reported rapes. In Sweden, women actually feel comfortable reporting.

Also Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Look at the numbers for India and others then look at the population difference (gigantic) then draw a conclusion.

And these countries have never had economic problems. Still if the number is 10pc and 15pc that is really high.

> I am sick of people painting India as some bad place where minorities and women are treated badly.

What is accepted as entirely normal treatment of women and children within a marriage in the subcontinent would make your average westerner very uncomfortable. This would be obvious to anybody who has experience with both cultures.

I am curious, what is "normal treatment of women and children within a marriage" according to you in India?

E.g. in India, a man hitting his wife is absolutely normal: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.timesofindia.com/india/60-of-...; https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/global-deve...; https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/03/18/3928602...

OK, some belated edits.

I didn't really mean to say "how India is so much like China regarding surveillance and social control". It's obviously not.

What I was trying to say is how India is so much like China regarding the arguments for surveillance and social control.

I mean, what would China look like now without so much surveillance and social control? Would it in fact look a lot like India? If so, The Chinese government has clearly gone too far. But maybe it would look more like total chaos. In which case their policies, though repugnant to the liberal West, might be prudent.

I honestly have no clue. But it's not a possibility that can be rejected out of hand, I think.

"I mean, what would China look like now without so much surveillance and social control"

Chinese history offers a good hint. Whenever the central government was weak anarchy, war, pestilence and starvation plagued the land.

A strong central government doesn't imply a dictatorship, or censorship. The US has quite a strong central government and you have free press.

True, but the US is very different from China and India.

>> I hadn't realized until recently how India is so much like China regarding surveillance and social control

There is no comparison whatsoever. China has iron clench on its citizens, particularly over net. India has next to zero surveillance.

>> Muslims persecuted by Hindus. Women persecuted by misogynists.

This is patently BS! Please stop regurgitating this narrative! India has second largest Muslim population in the world, Hindus population has been steadily dropping while Muslims population has been increasing. There have been multiple muslim Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Chief Ministers. Infact, India's most of political parties have been accused of favoring Muslim population. India's most famous movie actors are Muslims, many cricketers (India's real religion) are muslims. Wipro and many other successful software companies are owned by Muslim. Had there been persecutions of any sort, there would have been hardly any such examples. So, please stop this BS! Most of such news are blown out of proportion by vested interests, particularly those who look for help from outside India. If you talk to an average Muslim, they would be much happier to live in India than in any of its neighboring states.

>Hindus population has been steadily dropping while Muslims population has been increasing. There have been multiple muslim Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Chief Ministers. Infact, India's most of political parties have been accused of favoring Muslim population. India's most famous movie actors are Muslims, many cricketers (India's real religion) are muslims. Wipro and many other successful software companies are owned by Muslim. Had there been persecutions of any sort, there would have been hardly any such examples.

In the US, the white population has been steadily dropping while the black population has been increasing. We have had one black president, and several black members in Congress. In fact, one of the two major political parties in the US is often accused of favoring black people. Many of the US's most famous actors and actresses are black. Many of the top sports personalities are black. Had there been any persecution of any sort, there would hardly be such examples.

Whatever the situation is in India, I don't know. But your line of reasoning does not shed any light on the matter.

To be fair to the GP, none of those would really be possible in 1960s America or under Apartheid. I think there's some middle ground between both views of India here.

>I think there's some middle ground between both views of India here.

I was pointing out how everything he listed is not indicative of much. You have a lot of great aspects to India, and a lot of really horrible injustices there. Neither should be used to mask or highlight the other.

This seems to be a dissonance and blindness that allows some to more easily form negative opinions of others while seemingly blind to the surveillance and other situations closer home.

This kind of dissonance lulls one into complacency and prevents effective dissent against growing surveillance states and blindness to other problematic issues like demonizing dissent and continuing discrimination against minorities.

One can argue the Snowden revelations, secret courts, secret orders and processes exposed far greater magnitude of surveillance and threats to democracy at home - with no one held to account years later - with the scope and magnitude expanding unopposed.

The complete lack of mainstream activism, protests, any efforts to hold people accountable or get people like Assange and Snowden back home makes comments against China untenable. Without that, commentary about China seems mere posturing and hypocrisy than borne out of any real concern about the issues at hand.

>When I've read about the Chinese government's concerns over social unrest, I've empathized with the dissidents. I mean, Tibet and Xinjiang are occupied nations! But I get that China is an extremely diverse country, overall, with lots of ethnic tension. And conversely, when I've read about the Indian government's concerns over social unrest, I've empathized with the victims of the dissidents. Muslims persecuted by Hindus. Women persecuted by misogynists.

Free press is a hell of a thing. It plays a big role in where your sympathies will end up.

Something to consider is that Indian states were set up along linguistic and cultural boundaries. The national government takes a dim view of anything that would allow dissidents to get a strong foothold within the country.

True. And not just Indian states. Indian villages, from what I've read.

Edit: Again, I'm doing my best to avoid being racist or whatever. It's just mind-boggling how diverse India is. It's like thousands of cultures have been shredded and displaced for thousands of years. And somehow remained incredibly distinct and segregated.

As we seem to be comparing India and China as non natives of either; I visit both China and India a lot (over 10x a year for both, India Jaipur, Delhi and Mumbai) and although I know China is worse (as a surveillance/free country), India feels far worse. It is, for me, the worst country to travel to and work in. It feels like a bad police state; terrorists have won as they (the gov) locked things down and freedom of movement is restricted to the point I would not mind never going there again.

Can you provide some examples? The only ones I can recall for physical freedom are mostly by private entities, such as metal detectors at movie theaters and banks, though the armed military (?) outside airport entrances are obviously not.

Fraud/corruption/money laundering prevention regulations are definitely an incredible hindrance to opening and keeping a bank account in India, however.

The metal detectors and bag inspections are everywhere; supermarkets, malls, hotels and every time you enter even if it is the hotel you stay in all the time for months. Most businesses have guards with guns (rifles often) outside the entrance as well as bag scanners and bag checkers/friskers.

Small and big airports where you can be checked and scanned 3-4 times from entrance to flight. And flying into an airport they check again. And not by friendly people either (contrary to China strangely where border patrol often have a little friendly chat to practice their english; had my bag checked 0 times coming in). Cannot enter an airport before a few hours before your flight even if you have lounge access. Guard said ‘terrorism’ when I asked why (for the umpteenth time as they usually do not answer).

And yes, my friends with businesses who live there complain about the corruption restrictions. But I think that part goes for China as well.

Edit; as I hear from my friends, it all got really bad only like 5 years ago. I did not go then; I have been going for 3.

I think that tracked with the pakistani attack on mumbai, where they specifically targeted hotels and other soft targets.

India has had a lot of terrorist attacks on its soil over the past 40 years. I know of at least 5 major attacks in mumbai alone.

That said, after the TSA was created, flying in America became a pain.

I usually walk around with a backpack. And yes, the bag gets scanned and I get frisked every time I enter a mall or a local metro station. The only time I was asked not not bring something in was at a cinema, where food and drinks from outside were not allowed. I've had to face similar restrictions at European cinemas too. Apart from that, these scanners and friskers have not restricted my movement in any way.

I think the only time I saw someone get turned away was after a bomb blast at a cinema. It was some dude with a computer SMPS in his backpack -- I knew what it was, but the security guard didn't. But that was just once in my lifetime.

I'm not (blindly) defensive of India just because I happen to be Indian. There are plenty of things wrong with India. But this isn't one of them.

> The metal detectors and bag inspections are everywhere; supermarkets, malls, hotels and every time you enter even if it is the hotel you stay in all the time for months. Most businesses have guards with guns (rifles often) outside the entrance as well as bag scanners and bag checkers/friskers.

The metal detectors are just security theater in almost every single place except at airports. When the person doing the checks is asked what it is they hope to find or detect, the answer usually is that they've been told to wave it around. It's just an inconvenience to people than anything to do with security as such.

Yup, thats the appeal of china.

Its quite possible, that the China model is a better looking model for most countries - once you get over the lack of freedoms part.

Also china has way more money than India and time investment in its structures.

If it turns out that China has actual deep self correcting ability, even with a centralized command structure, I expect most countries to follow suit in some way or form.

But I must ask, where is freedom of movement restricted in India, unless you are in states where effectively martial law has been imposed?

> Muslims persecuted by Hindus.

Actually Hindus have been persecuted a lot by Muslims. In Kashmir all the Hindus were driven away[1]. Very few Hindus are left in Pakistan and Bangladesh whereas the proportion of Muslims in India is going up since independence.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus

And that is somewhat a good thing. Diversity of thoughts makes up for a good country. Shows up in the GDP. India is far ahead of both Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Very few nations have done well after rampaging on an ethnic cleansing agenda.

> And that is somewhat a good thing. Diversity of thoughts makes up for a good country. Shows up in the GDP. India is far ahead of both Pakistan and Bangladesh.

This argument is ludicrous. India isn't ahead of Pakistan and Bangladesh because of "diversity of thought". That's so reductionist I'm frankly astounded.

It's wrong to force people from their homes, but over this same period the predominantly Hindu Indian army has killed tens of thousands of Kashmir Muslims. It's hard to see how saying "actually the Hindus are the persecuted" is a fair assessment.

And let’s not forget the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat. Also, the Babri Mosque demolition. Indian Army has absolutely brutalized the local populace in Kashmir, and worse they are under state protection such that no criminal action can be taken against them due to a draconian law called AFSPA. Normal democratic rights of these citizens have been suspended there. And all people see is religious divide but no empathy towards the brutalized population.

I know a Sikh who survived the Gujarat pogrom. A Hindu friend hid him and his family. He tells quite the story.

>I mean, Tibet and Xinjiang are occupied nations!

Would you say that for Puerto Rico? Or California and Texas for that matter? Or how about Hawaii? Or, heck, anything that's not an Indian reservation...

Or does it only apply to China's neighbors, with which they had millennia of history with rulers and populations going back and forth? E.g. the Qing Chinese ruled Tiber as far back as the 17th century...

I'm not sure that's entirely true. The geography of Tibet has always made it difficult to rule from afar. Hence, stronger control enabled by new technology seem different than what existed in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECch2g1_6PQ

Yes, I would.

I have friends in Mexico who think of the Southwest and California as occupied territory. And yeah, the Native Americans totally got screwed.

You're correct in pointing out anti-Chinese bias. As you say, there's a long back-and-forth history. And Tibet wasn't such an idyllic place before the latest Chinese occupation. As I understand it, it was basically a theocracy. Maybe even repressive, but with effective programming.

Can any of the places in china even discuss independence in the open? Well, every place in the US can. They even can leave if they get enough votes. Go ahead and let me know when anyone in China gets to vote on anything.

The last time US states tried to secede from the Union it resulted in one of the bloodiest wars in US history where they were forcefully reintegrated.

>Can any of the places in china even discuss independence in the open? Well, every place in the US can

Only when there's no real prospect of it, and as long as such discussion remains a fringe activity that gets lost in the media noise. Oh, and as long as those discussing it are white, and not e.g. native american, or latinos, and such.

There's a long history, from this:

"In the mid-century, the "Cointelpro program" was a project conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to surveil, infiltrate, discredit, and disrupt domestic political organizations which it classified as suspect or subversive. The police documented thousands of extensive carpetas (files) concerning individuals of all social groups and ages. Approximately 75,000 persons were listed as under political police surveillance. Historians and critics found that the massive surveillance apparatus was directed primarily against Puerto Rico's independence movement." (wikipedia)

to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

that suggests that they can't really discuss it that openly.

This didn't go down very well either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

Anyone remember "U.S. Out of North America Now!"?

>And worse, with increased migration driven by social chaos and war (and eventually, by global climate change)

What if US will also be affected badly by global climate change? Then these "uncivilized" people won't be coming to your country.

True enough, eventually. Watch out, Canada ;)

But first, there will be maybe a billion coming north. And there will very likely be concentration camps.

Edit: Also, please don't read my comment as being anti-immigrant. What concerns me is the likely authoritarian response from US governments. And I'm concerned both for them, and for me.

Why do you view those as occupied nations? What about Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, and Puerto Rico?

Well the people in those places are allowed to openly talk about and pursue independence, unlike any place in China at all. Why don't you view Tibet as occupied?

Lol so the bar is asking for independence? Native Americans no longer advocate independence because they've been suppressed for for several generations, they're culture are effectively dead. Same thing will probably happen in China in 50-100 years

Not to mention that most of them died from diseases spread (mostly unintentionally, I admit) by invaders. Also, it's my understanding that China and Israel both justify their behavior from US history.

The bar is whether those occupied consider themselves occupied. Referendums and similar allow to measure that.

It's pretty clear that Tibet considers itself occupied. I know that some in Hawaii do, but do you think they're the majority?

Barcelona

Reply on news.ycombinator.com