Hacker News Reader

Comment by kranner | Hacker News Reader

> Companies being Ambani owned, while worse than a competitive market, is still much better than being Tencent owned.

But better how, exactly?

Much more easier to control than China. Ambani doesn't have an "Ambani liberation army" backing him up.

Think of it this way, why did China spin off Ant Financial out of Alibaba? Had it been in hands of foreign investors, it would be a huge issue later on if it became big. And if it became big, it would be much harder to spin it off that way. You can't spin off 100 billions and not expect strong retaliation from the countries of the foreign investors.

It was much more easier for them to control Jack Ma, and ensure he never becomes too powerful.

While India is a democracy unlike China, and the government can't just get people to disappear with nobody questioning, even without such totalitarian tools, a well functioning sovereign government is always more powerful than any of it's richest people.

OK, thanks for explaining your point. I still think you're conflating Tencent with China as much as you're overestimating how well-functioning the Indian government is. In my view it is grossly incompetent beyond spreading propaganda, horse-trading MPs and MLAs to swing elections, and indeed disappearing people and killing them extra-judiciously in fake encounters. Ambani capturing everything would result in the complete demise of the dregs of Indian democracy as he will remain king-maker as long as he lives IMHO.

We made the mistake of not conflating East India Company with Britain, and it didn't end well for us.

Who was the us in that scenario? There was no India back then, just a set of kingdoms and 'princely states' that hated each other as much as they opposed any European takeover. The present circumstances are in no way similar.

If there was no India before the British, then

a) what was Christopher Columbus looking for?

b) what was Vasco da Gama looking for?

c) what were British/Dutch/French East India Companies looking for?

d) what did Alexander's ambassador Megasthenes write about in his book Indica?

e) where is Mahabharata set? Bharat is still one of India's official names.

India has had a shared cultural history for a very long time.

That it wasn't always called India is a moot point.

I think you misunderstood the parent poster's point. They are talking about India the nation, while you are talking of India the concept. India the concept existed. But India the concept is similar to America the concept or Europe or Africa the concept, not Germany or France. Also, before the British, the last empire to rule over almost all of modern day India was Ashoka, more than 2000 years ago.

If we are being pedantic, Germany didn't exist until 1871.

Umm, the Mughal, the Guptas? Also the pratiharas, rashtrakutas and palas collectively ruled over india too. The Delhi sultanate was pretty huge too, and so was the maratha empire.

But being a single governance group isn't the point. Being culturally similar is what defines India. And it obviously is.

The point here is not the historical name of the subcontinent or any shared cultural history (which all neighbouring states have). It is the lack of a common Indian government, comparable to the present time, that made the mistake of allowing too much investment by the EIC as you seemed to suggest. What the British Empire called India included parts of Afghanistan and Myanmar; modern India certainly has no claim over them.

You're distracting from the point. It doesn't matter how strong the central government is or how divided the population is.

What we are discussing is foreign ownership and foreign power over India, and you just said that allowing EIC too much of these was a mistake

I have not said any such thing. I said GP had argued it. It is absurd because there was no such “we” at the time.

Ambani is not going to claim Ladakh is his or want to build a house in entire Arunachal Pradesh. China on the other hand.... is already doing that. And we don't want that.(period) literally. Ambani can be dealt with. But not an aggressive neighbour who have control over devices and cameras with 50% of Indian youths.

I think you are trying to argue both sides here. If the government is not afraid of doing shady stuff, like the Chinese government, then it is free to do anything to any billionaire, and being rich doesn't get anyone any power, like China.

If the government respects the rule of law, and doesn't do any extra judicial stuff, even then it makes sense to not let a competing foreign power like China be a stakeholder in your important companies.

If the Indian government is not afraid of contravening Indian laws, it can grab Chinese shares anyway.

If it wants to maintain the appearance of being lawful and fair, there is already an Enemy Property Act, 1968 to more or less support grabbing Chinese investments (perhaps with an amendment or two). Under what pretence would they grab Ambani's property? There is Eminent Domain in India, but only AFAIK for land ownership, and even that requires fair compensation at market prices.

It can't grab the Chinese shares without angering China, and anyone in the whole wide world would rather anger any billionaire than China.

> Under what pretence would they grab Ambani's property?

If there is no existing law, government can make laws. I mean the government did nationalize so many banks at once right? The government is sovereign. The amount of power it holds over it's own people, even the richest ones, is far far higher than what it holds over another strong sovereign state.

Anyways this was all about power. There are so many other reasons for ensuring someone in the country holds the wealth rather than your competitor.

> there is already an Enemy Property Act, 1968 to more or less support grabbing Chinese investments

No. The Enemy Property Act, 1968 is specifically made for Pakistani Nationals after the 1965 Indo-Pak War. It is not generic. To declare China as an Enemy a proper War should take place between India and China. Is China ready for such a misadventure?

The Wikipedia article is incomplete on the topic. The act applies to Chinese owned properties as well.

Tencent (and all Chinese companies) are controlled by the Communist Party. The business has autonomy only on questions that the Party has no preference about. It's about the same as a profesional employee working for a business.

I think GP meant that at least very with Ambani, the money stays in India and is circulated inside the country. The services are provided to Indians, we are paid to do the work, and we spend it in India. It's better because the wealth of the country isn't leaking away, or at least leaking slower.

Services provided, persons employed, employees paid etc is all the same whether Ambani owns the shares or Chinese VCs do. Ambani would no more share his profits with other Indians than Chinese VCs would. Both would be subject to the same taxes on income earned in India. Maybe Ambani reinvests some of his profits in India; but for all we know he might choose to do so outside India.

China, an authoritarian state can and does use its financial influence to force it's interests. Do you not see how Chinese vc answer to china and not india? If you think they can just be banned, what else do you think is the Indian government doing?

Ambani is still subject to Indian laws, and even if he leaves, his wealth and empire is answerable to the Indian government.

The companies that Chinese VCs have invested in, in India, are also subject to Indian laws. No I don't think the Indian government can grab Chinese shares in Indian companies. That is why I'm asking what the problem is if the Chinese invest in Indian companies. To me it seems better that investments are spread between Ambani, the Chinese and all the rest rather than letting Ambani own everything.

India does not want more East India Company - like situations, maybe?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com