Yes, India is a police state - Christopher Soghoian
blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Historically police states like Nazi Germany or Mao's China operated by being well organized at all levels of society. India is absolutely not well organized at all levels of society. Instead India seems optimized for the petty bribe seeking bureaucrat. It's not the all knowing police state. It's the disorganized mafia state.
I had an easier time getting a work permit in Russia last year than India. The sheer amount of paperwork and rubber stamps required for my Indian work permit was the worst I have ever had to deal with and I've worked all over the world. All of this paperwork and stamping allows perfect opportunities for small time bureaucrats to extract bribes and favors from people who just need to get something done. So when I look at something like requiring ID to use wifi I don't see Total Information Awareness. I see Tammany Hall and a genius system that's operating exactly as it was designed, to extract graft from normal people at every possible opportunity.
Disclaimer: I lived in India for 0.5 years in '99 and recently worked there again in 2011 for a month. My answers are based on these experiences and of knowing lots of Indians frustrated with their government.
Immigration is just a genuinely dysfunctional entity.
(Believe me, if I thought I could at any point have paid petty bribes to get the damn thing over with instead of wasting weeks of my time, I think I may have actually done so out of frustration).
No, all of these regulations, permits and rules are classic hallmark of bureaucratic empire building. All those Internet cafés now need to be inspected to ensure that they're keeping track of their customers. The department that manages to grab that privilege has access to more lobbying power, more bribes, and more influence. Any politician would lust after side-benefits like that. So, after any catastrophe, the answer is always more regulations and more inspections, regardless of whether those regulations and inspections would do anything to actually solve the problem.
The reason she is protesting is a law called Army Special Powers Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_%28Special_Powers%...
Why the law was enforced in her region etc is a huge history and is well beyond the scope of a HN comment.
Even that is interesting. It shows us that bureaucracy (and, I'd say, failure to respect one's property rights) can become indistinguishable from a police state.
Agreed - I nearly laughed when I read this title. One could construct a more convincing argument that India is an anarchic state (at least, anarchic in the Snow Crash sense - the government 'exists', but it's not central, and its authority is all but nonexistent. A 'police state' with effectively no authority or power is hardly a police state, at least the way we usually use the term). Obviously India is neither of the above, but you get my point.
Just a few months ago, there was an electrical fire in our garage (in India). Thankfully the private security guard for the house next door was able to convince the private construction workers down the street to put it out, because the fire department took almost an hour to get there. Why? They couldn't figure out where we were, even when given our address, and even after contacting the local police. (The police are a completely separate department, and there is no real equivalent of 911).
Police states may be bad, but how much do you really fear a so-called 'police state' that isn't even capable of locating its citizens when they comply, let alone identifying the ones who don't? India is a very large country, and it's very easy to slip through the cracks if you need to... and sometimes even when you try your best not to[2]!
And this experience will be very different depending on which city/state you're in, which if anything underlines how India is not a police state - it's not centralized or organized enough to be one.
But the second part of your point is nothing new - in fact, this is a dramatic step forwards from the early License Raj[1] days, IMHO.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttar_Pradesh_Association_of_De...
Sad, I am Indian too. Born, raised in India, Bangalore.
The process you describe is something that every 'Indian' here goes through. I was a little taken aback when you said 'I am Indian mind you'. I think you refer to the legal status. Because although I agree that its painful- Being an Indian you experienced what each of your country men experiences everyday. I don't see why anybody would give you preferential treatment- merely because you returned from the US.
Besides this reminds of an incident about Gandhi, when he was asked why he wears and lives like a peasant after living in South Africa as a barrister wearing a suit, necktie, pant and shoes all the time. He replied that only way he can be one among the Indian and convince Indians that he can fight for them is to live like they live, wear what they wear and eat what they eat. To rub shoulders with ordinary Indian in their day to day lives.
Every time a NRI complains about stuff like this I always wonder- legally sure you might be an Indian.
But are you actually an 'Indian'?
Depending on your perception, either there is no such thing as India heritage or it's so broad that it's bordering on being indistinguishable from non-Indian heritage.
1. We are talking about a country of over a billion people who are descendants of different races. Aryans, dravidians(I believe aryan invasion is under dispute but there are more people leaning towards it). I don't know what race the north-east folks are but they are different.
2. We follow differing, and sometimes totally different cultures. North and south India has different cultures; more so with north-east folks.
3. We belong to different religions with different practices. Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs, Christians, and a lot of other minorities. Owing to the huge population, even the minorities aren't really minorities. The number of Christians in India, for example, is larger than the number of Christians in Australia.
4. We have a vast economic divide. People on the peak and right of bell curve have totally different lifestyle than those on the left. People who are on the extreme right aren't any different from their else-world counterparts.
5. Even among the same income group, the lifestyle differs depending on the location. A person earning 25k/month in a small city and a person earning 25k/month in Bangalore isn't the same thing.
6. Though the low-lives tend to go up in arms every few weeks ostensibly trying to protect the Indian culture, there is no sole authority for deciding what constitutes Indian culture.
If we talk about Hinduism, it has 4 vedas, 108 upnishads, and number of other books. There is no canonical book and many a times the scriptures are contradictory and/or ambiguous. More importantly, Hinduism is based more on orthopraxy than orthodoxy. Many a times courts have quashed bullshit "against Hinduism" litigations ruling that fucking read the scriptures, quote us the exact lines, make sure other scriptures don't say differently; or else don't waste the court's time.
Now one might say that most of my points are about lifestyle, and don't represent Indian heritage per se. I would say lifestyle and companions are a big variable in shaping a person's values and viewpoints. Heritage, as in inheritance, depends on who you are inheriting from, and this hypothetical Indian "who" doesn't have a canonical definition.
Personally, I was trying to look at myself and find out things which would constitute Indian heritage. I couldn't think of anything. Would somebody help me out with what constitutes Indian heritage?
The one thing that united most of India was mysticism and the belief that we are one under some god.
You can experiment with that as a start. It's what bound the Sufis, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and several other religions during the best of our times.
We don't want to emulate our worst times.
The discussion started from a post talking about Indian heritage, and the things which you listed(substitute people from north east with just people) are basic qualities expected in a decent human being - there is nothing uniquely Indian or heritage about it.
> The one thing that united most of India was mysticism and the belief that we are one under some god.
More often than not, I don't see a united India, which doesn't bother me much as long as people treat other people as human beings, and not some abstract entity(viz. Hindu, North eastern, Tamil etc). Countries are imaginary boundaries, intentionally and/or unintentionally created for various reasons(ease of administration among others).
Mysticism is something I never subscribed to. I was indifferent to religion, miracles, rituals from a very young age. I believed a relation between me and god is personal, and priests, temples, rituals have no business being there. Eventually, I became an atheist. Granted not many people are atheists(in India, or any other part of the world), but people not into mysticism is very common. I am pointing this out as you were listing it as something which is inherently Indian, and I am saying it isn't and there isn't an authority which decides the Indian heritage.
> You can experiment with that as a start.
Experiment with what? Mysticism? Show me, I will verify. If it works, at that point, it isn't mysterious any more. If it doesn't, it is just imagination gone wild.
> It's what bound the Sufis, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and several other religions during the best of our times.
If that is the binding factor for you, good for you. For me, I don't give a shit which part of world you are from, what gods you worship, what color your skin is, what language you speak etc etc. You will get basic "one human being to another" respect, followed by "earned respect". If I just met you, you get the basic respect and empathy. If you are a superb programmer, good doctor, good athlete, good human being... you earn my respect. If you are an asshole(homophobe, sexist, xenophobic, wife beater...), you lose my respect. My system works for me and I don't see a reason to switch to Indian or American or Martian system.
Coming to Indian heritage its all mixed up. Even though people have religious beliefs you will see common culture throughout. I can speak for South India. Its practically impossible to point out who is of what language, color, origin, religion or whatever in a crowd of thousand people. Because everybody looks and acts the very same.
In fact these days I hardly remember my religious identity unless someone explicitly forces me to.
Yes exactly my point. Were you expecting rocket science?
The best parts of heritage come from doing the right thing. And doing the right thing is often hard and stark. Today is one of those junctures.
Heritage is not just historic, its being built right now. Your heritage today includes a grand ability to argue, and to mistake articulation for action. You didn't come across as someone who wanted to leave it at that.
Re: mysticism.
> I believed a relation between me and god is personal, and priests, temples, rituals have no business being there. Eventually, I became an atheist.
AFAIK, the personal, as opposed to institution driven, connection to 'God' lands under the penumbra of mysticism.
I am glad you have those answers, but those are your personal answers.
The answer to your question i.e. common heritage, is linked to 'Indian' history, which in turn is inextricably linked to religion.
For example : When the Mughals first came here, (and ironically displaced the previous Nawabs), they said that they found so many things different between the cultures that they could never foresee common ground being reached.
It was when the Sufi saints came though, and discussed their take on religion, that they found a lot in common with the cultures already here.
> I am saying it isn't and there isn't an authority which decides the Indian heritage.
I am not providing authority, I am providing history. You had a question, you got an answer. If you want your answer to be something else, well read through Indian history.
If anything, the history of India gives space for almost everything, be it a Fakir who wants to be close to gods by being close to the ashes of the departed, or someone who is an atheist and appreciates the logic of code.
----
Your final para is about having normal standards to deal with people. Its a great system, stick to it. But again, your question was about heritage not common sense behavior.
----
I am not sure what you were aiming for in your response. You've been able to point out that India is very diverse, which I agree. I am pointing out as well, that the way that melting pot was bound together was often through mysticism.
----
Here,
The west had its progression from the Greek states, their fall, the dark ages, the renissance, the enlightenment, the reformation, along the way including things like the french revolution, women's suffrage and civil liberties.
India followed another path altogether. Indian heritage is defined by that path.
I was expecting a logically sound, coherent response - not straw-man appealing to mysticism.
My original question was I am having a tough time figuring out what is this Indian heritage, and I don't see which part of me comes from Indian heritage, and not from being a decent(or indecent) human being and common sense. The answer is none. It was as simple as that.
> Your heritage today includes a grand ability to argue, and to mistake articulation for action. You didn't come across as someone who wanted to leave it at that.
"grand ability to argue"
"mistake articulation for action"
Take a breath.
If you don't want to discuss(or argue as you put it), don't throw around bullshit on public forums. More importantly, don't add more bullshit on existing pile(mistake articulation for action? Where the fuck that came from?)
> I am glad you have those answers, but those are your personal answers.
Never claimed otherwise.
> I am not providing authority, I am providing history. You had a question, you got an answer.
No, I don't have an answer to my question that "I am having a hard time figuring out what exactly is my Indian heritage". For the nth time, when you specifically label something as "Indian heritage", it has to be specifically Indian and inherited, not something which is common among people worldwide.
> If you want your answer to be something else, well read through Indian history.
Now what on earth would that mean? If I want my answer to be different, read History? And get the fuck off your high horse. Reading a couple of books and assuming other people don't know about Indian history isn't a commendable quality.
> Your final para is about having normal standards to deal with people. Its a great system, stick to it. But again, your question was about heritage not common sense behavior.
Please stop intentionally misrepresenting my question and your answers. In response to what the hell is Indian heritage question, you had a blurb about helping north-eastern folks, to which I said is a common sense behavior and not some distinctly Indian heritage.
> I am pointing out as well, that the way that melting pot was bound together was often through mysticism.
If you are just going to throw claims around, have some citations for what is your mysticism and how it binds India. And no, "read history" doesn't cut it - cite me particular instances and occurrences. India isn't and was never bound(if it is bound at all) by religion.
EDIT: And if it's still too hard for you to comprehend why I was pointing out India is a diverse country, my purpose was to establish there is no "Indian heritage/culture/tradition/whatever". India is gigantic and diverse, and there isn't a common pattern significant enough to warrant a mention. When different parts of India has significantly different culture and tradition on macro(north-south) and micro(tamil brahmins and non-brahmins, castes within the same religion), Indian culture means nothing, and that is a good thing. Same goes for Indian heritage.
So that's where it came from.
It very justly describes the majority of India.
I used to use the India is too big and diverse argument myself.
Yes India is diverse, yes for every x it's opposite x' also exists.
I use it where relevant even today. Unfortunately with time comes change, and that theory which I thought was unassailable, I can now see nuances in.
Anyway, it seems we are speaking past each other. I wish you well.
I don't know how and why you got the idea I couldn't understand an English phrase consisting of 3 simple words which are most probably part of a 5th grader's vocabulary.
If you find "mistaking articulation for action" thought provoking and profound, good for you. To each his own; many people find "early to bed, early to rise" or "time is money" profound as well. The good thing is I don't have to pretend I don't find it inane and obvious. I did a google search just in case it has some interesting back story like "Keep calm, carry on" - I didn't find anything.
When I said "where did it come from", I meant why are you throwing this at me. Did I say by posting on HN I am changing India? It's like you randomly wanted to use some phrase you heard somewhere and posted it in the reply.
> Unfortunately with time comes change, and that theory which I thought was unassailable, I can now see nuances in.
We are well past discussion, but your personal perception change doesn't mean India has changed - it's still diverse and averse to generalizations. If it were uniform, that would have been fine with me. But it isn't, and any attempts to make it look so, or actually make it so(the horror) are just wrong.
Bad roads, garbage on the roads, crowds in buses/bus stops, big queues, bribe, traffic jams, corruption, bureaucracy etc applies to nearly every Indian.
If you feel something about it, do something about it. But saying that you won't come back because things are horrible and there are somewhat better in some promised land then you seriously being to question what they person actually wanted a better India or 'any' better country in general, which is ready built and tailored to their comfort where they can go back settle down 'now'.
I am not saying either is good or bad. But be straight about it.
And saying he's not really an Indian because he lives in the US is kind of petty.
I used to work for Infosys, Bangalore. This is what it looks like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Bangalore... (just one of about 50 buildings)
I couldn't find the image but the area immediately behind Infosys(For those who know, the pathway you take to get to the bus stop on Hosur Road) is in complete contrast - dirty, impoverished.
While passing through that area, it often happened that one of my friends would remark "this is the real India". And I always had the same question - What makes it any more real than the Infosys you are coming from, and what makes them any more Indian than I am(not by choice; I was born one)? Even if some category is in minority(an example; working, middle class people aren't minority in India), it's not any less real than the majority.
I am pretty sure whatever categorization you have for actually being an Indian, most of it won't be applicable to me. But the good thing is, the only thing required for actually being an India is to satisfy the constitutional requirements(born in India in my case). The opinion of what anyone else thinks about being an Indian doesn't matter much(well, so called guards of being Indian do cause trouble, but that's not legal).
But if you complain that life as applied to any ordinary Indian is something you don't like living with, then legally whatever status you might have. You surely can't live in India anyway because you don't want to.
You are not an Indian, you are a "Person of Indian Origin". Big difference.
In many situations, you are better off being white and American than a PIO (this is a very commonly used term). You will get better treatment and are less likely to be cheated by a price-gouging merchant or bureaucrat.
Mendicants are much more aggressive with PIOs. Merchants are similarly more aggressive. I've had one tell me that it would cost $20 to tell me how to get to the security line[1]. When I shook my head and walked away, he yelled at me, 'That's nothing to you - you're rich!'. (He was basing that statement entirely on the fact that I was a PIO, nothing else).
On the other hand, Indians pride themselves on being hospitable as a culture, so they would never treat a white person (a clear foreigner) this way.
When I go to India, I'm very careful to adjust my clothing, hairstyle, etc. so that it's less obvious that I'm a foreigner (trust me, they know). It's better to travel with a local (you probably have relatives there) and not to speak at all - even if your accent is flawless, your vernacular and fluidity is probably subtly off just enough to tip them off. Or, speak in a language that is native to another region within India (so that people think you're traveling from another region, and it will be harder for them to notice your accent).
[1] It's not unusual to have private citizens step in and fill the gaps where there aren't enough public employees to do the job at hand, so yes, this was more or less this guy's entire job. Other people charge to 'watch over' your car in public street parking, etc.
That is interesting. Did you spend majority of your childhood elsewhere, because considering the diversity of India, it's pretty hard to tell.
I don't why you left India. But most people I know leave because of one straight thing- 'money'. Although a more soft term used is 'better life'. But two to three counter questions and it becomes clear that it was always about money.
I am not saying that is wrong. Hell we Indians have a wrong notion about money. We think rich people are evil, I understand that we have a cultural back drop behind this.
I am not saying going to another country to make money is wrong. But it must be stated that way.
'Hey, I am going away because I need to make cash'
is a lot better than.
'Hey, I am going away because this place is crap'.
The latter is a statement designed to hide your intentions and convenient point to a another reason which people feel makes them look good compared to the former.
>>apparently a term that means that I cannot criticize anything about India ever
Aha, that happens when a person contributes nothing back and still expects things to fall in place like magic.
Is it the clothes? Or something else? Please elaborate.
Becasue I met a nice person in Costa Coffee a few days back and after chatting for some time he revealed he was an NRI here for some falimy affair. He went to UK when he was 15 (he looked 25-30). To me at least he didn't stand out like an NRI. Neither his language or the accent. He was a Kannadiga (Kannada his mother tongue) and me being a north Indian (Hindi my mother tongue), we talked in clear and crisp Hindi for about 15-20 minutes.
Now I will throw a claim which I am not going to back - I would like the other side to back theirs. It is impossible to stand out as NRI, let alone distinctly NRI. There is nothing in your clothes or hairstyle that marks you as such - it's in your mind. I would be happy to be proved wrong, but all I have got till now from two posters is they are distinctly NRI, without stating where does that distinction come from. One post did mention clothes and hairstyle(seriously?). If there is a distinct clothing and hairstyles for NRIs, I am unaware of it.
Now, please do not say he meant once I start about the clean lanes of USA talking to someone on streets of Bangalore then I instantly stand out.
The recent media coverage of the recent riots and migration was distressing, marking yet another nadir in their slide downwards.
I got better reports from following leads on reddit and forums than I did from looking at the media.
At first I didn't give credence to what people said about the media being mouth pieces for various parties. Now I wouldn't trust them if they told me the earth was round.
The judiciary is doing a better job, but are constantly having to encroach on duties supposed to be carried out by the government.
Take the idea of Public Interest Litigations which were propounded by a Chief Justice. They in turn became a corner stone of the fight against corruption. Allowing people to take up injustices so that the common good can be defended.
Fortunately the election commission found its teeth a while back and fought hard against to bring us fair elections. Unfortunately there were some signs of push back against the EC recently, so the next wave is underway by the looks of things.
Similarly the government is headed by what should be the most progressive of leaders, the man who helped create the 1991 liberalization reforms.
Yet it is constantly hamstrung by its own politics to increase its power, and at the mercy of pro communist, anti market, and anti progress swing parties.
The middle class WAS concerned recently with the Anna Hazare campaigns to push for an anti corruption ombudsman.
That was frightening to an extent for the government because they had a vote bank which was apathetic suddenly show signs of life.
The subsequent destruction and implosion of the organizers of the anti corruption drive, have now left the middle class in a stage between waking and sleeping.
The balance of payments crisis was a long time brewing, and books have been written to do it justice.
Heres how it went -
Rajiv Gandhi was murdered in 1991.
That year a "stop gap" intellectual was made Prime Minister, The now un-lamented Narasimha Rao.
He chose Manmohan Singh, a quiet intellectual to be his Finance Minister.
Manmohan was the planner, and Rao the force that allowed him to follow his goals. Manmohan in turn broke the task down and gave it to several different competent people to implement.
At one point, over 3 days, the devalued the RS by 20%.
Following that he told the new commerce minister, P. Chidambaram, that he wanted to abolish the export subsidy, because the lowered RS was enough of an incentive.
That would have ended his Chidambaram as a commerce minister, since it was his only way to encourage exports. Yet he had to agree in the end.
So he asked if he could also announce a formal trade reform at the same time.
He and Montek Singh worked to demolish the import licensing raj and had only 8 hours to manage it. They settled on an exim scrips, which allowed market forces to help settle currency trades, and removed the bureaucrat from the process.
40 years of red tape, vested interest, a wounded economy, and under the hardest of deadlines they managed to slice off a huge chunk of that.
If you think, the details of that are trivial or obvious, please spend some time to read the document.
When asked, Manmohan Singh said that it was worth doing, and Narasimha Rao signed the bill.
Thats how a good team works. They had a good FM, a PM which was willing to do the task, however reluctantly, and well ordered subordinates.
Other countries have faced easier challenges and failed.
And thats only the dismantling of the export license raj. They dismantled the industry side of the raj. Then they went on to abolish the MRTP act, opened up everything from banking to airlines, allowed foreign investment (remember Coke buying thums up?), reduced tax rates, and on and on.
This happened over 2 years. They didn't have to beyond a point though. They could have said "this is well enough".
---------------------
When you say > Those who have studied Indian Economics will know that liberalization was forced on us.
You make it sound like a trivial task. As if one were breaking an egg.
Ask Russia how it went for them after Yelstin, in contrast. I never saw tanks having to protect our Parliament from a coup.
The theory du jour is to reduce the importance of Manmohan Singh to the reform process. But these reductions first don't understand the role he played in the first place.
We agree for most things except the last.
No, other fin mins could have stopped short. As I pointed out in my post, this went on for 2 years. Once the BoP crisis was over, and the gulf war induced oil shock was gone, they had no reason to stay on course.
Check a chart on the price of oil for the periods under question, they stabilize pretty quick.
more credit should be given to PV N Rao, who was the driving force and the source of courage behind Manmohan.
Many people fail during crises. Just because some people step up when the chips are down doesn't mean that their achievement was ordained. It means they had the mettle and is actually more praiseworthy for their ability under pressure.
This is also why I brought up Russia. They opened up their markets and it was eaten alive by corruption the way a wolf eats a new born lamb.
Manmohan is given credit as the architecht and designer of the reforms because he designed it and decided who was to head what committe and what they should aim for. He obviously had people execute it. He is given credit where it is due.
HPG Is given credit for Ycomb in a similar manner.
While you may have stopped being a supporter, like many of us, it should have no bearing on his past achievements.
If anything it only highlights how he would have performed with a stronger hand behind the throne, sadly.
I used to never give credence to the insinuations that Indian Media was bought.
After the recent events, I've just stopped trusting them at all.
I got better reports from trawling through the dregs of r/India and then linking to other forums and checking out comments there.
Aside from that firstpost/tehelka come to mind for decent reporting.
What use is a free press, if they spend their freedom on just making up soundbites to garner eyeballs?
Times Now is so hilarious at times. Arnab Gosami almost looks like a stand up comedian in many shows.
- SMS used to spread inflammatory stuff? BAN SMS
- Bicycles used as bomb placement locations? - ID needed to buy bicycles
- E-mail used to claim credit for incidents? - Strong ID proof for surfing the net
- Many terrorists that the incompetent intelligence agencies cannot track? every tenant in any rental place needs to submit to "Police Verification"
- etc, etc etc
Incompetence and Dysfunction combined with corruption & fear - Result > current state of India
RE: Bank accounts - Yeah, I've heard this happen from my friends. But they say that it's quite much easier to open accounts in private banks as compared to the "State Banks". But even they require some sort of person to vouch for you.
That boils down, mostly, to poor infrastructure. It's getting better at airports.
> This is a police requirement that is supposed to track terrorists. Unfortunately, we are yet to see a case where this requirement has managed to stop a terror attack in India.
It is known with proofs that many threats emails were sent from internet cafes. That was the real motive.
> Photocopy issues
I carry color photocopied ids everywhere in India. This is about not knowing where to get what.
> But no nation does it at the cost of its own citizens. No free country harasses, and humiliates, its own citizens.
TSA of the US comes to my mind, and that too, is just a security theatre as has been pointed out so many times here on HN!
Case in point, my driving license has my name and address incorrectly written on it. I didn't make any effort to do this, it was just carelessness by the person filling in the details. I can now continuously use this as an ID everywhere and they believe they are 'tracking' me. Extend this to the other millions of folks out there who have similar documents.
The main issue here is that they are trying to track people with a broken system. Their efforts at security are laughable at best and redundant at worst.
Meanwhile the average Indian citizen suffers from documentation hell. (unless they're friends with someone important ;)
Obviously there's also the question: Should they try to track you ? Unfortunately respect for the average individual in India is so low that this discussion does not make sense there. Privacy has absolutely no meaning in India. It's almost like asking "Should dogs wear collars ?". There are no philosophical discussions involved. Just practical ones.
I am surprised to see crap like this got many points. What's next? something related to Jersey shore?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/hardcore-sec...
I think US has India and virtually all other countries beat.
I expect they are going to start to do random stops for IRIS scans like they do in the middle-east over here soon - you know, for all the terrorists roaming our streets and airports and buses and trains.
And so you have one article suggesting that the police somewhere wasted money on an APC, and now "we have them beat"?
What kind of argument is that?
Try DE-militarizing our police which respond with massive weapon-grade force to unarmed, legal, protests (or shoot a dozen innocent bystanders to get to one crazy person).
PS. Not commenting on article but the quality of newspaper :-)
don't be so certain.
Also another thing which is unique in India, is the home delivery & pickup culture. You can get virtually anything home delivered like fresh meat, booze, and ofcourse snacks(see 2) etc. Also pickup services like laundry (one of many), are really popular.
Need a new credit card, or a phone connection ? You can have a representative visit you. These kinda of services are primarily possible to India's abundance human resource (and various other factors of course).
In my opinion, these are more accessible that internet based services are they rely on a phone.
Its a pity that blog posts these get a lot of attention because of their extreme nature. Most of the local media tends to be sensationalistic, for grabbing eye balls I guess
My daily reads of good quality Indian news are
* http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/
References:
1 Eg. http://justdial.com
2 Eg. http://www.delyver.com/
It IS absurd:
That in a country which is implementing a Universal Identity system for all its citizens, It wants to track:
1) Where and when you use public wifi
2) Where and when you stay at a hotel
3) Where when and what you send in parcels (all countries prevent sending illegal goods)
4) when you apply for gas
5) apply for a mobile phone
and on.
Words cannot express my bewilderment when otherwise intelligent people argue that this is for the benefit for our country.
India's solution to solving problems is to assume that its citizens are criminals, and that more monitoring will help. And the citizens response is to accuse the government of being criminals.
At the same time it doesn't detract from:
1) Great strides and innovation in mobile value added services. Forget SMSes, or calling up toll free numbers for information. You can give a missed call to some numbers and companies will call you back. That blew my mind when you consider the cost is 0.
2) Lots of human advantages as mentioned, delivery systems to your doorstep.
Both co-exist. Yet explaining one doesn't detract from the other.
And of the examples mentioned, the constant growth of India as a police state IS far more important than highlighting the positives of the country.
But given the population its unlikely these changes can happen in a flash.
There is a lot of resistance to automation, computers and technology in general. Because people think(especially policemen) that it will make their jobs difficult, and make a lot of them redundant. Add to this bureaucracy and corruption makes these sort of changes slow and drags them over years.
Of course, you have to ask why it's often necessary for someone to provide those services. The answer is that oftentimes India's infrastructure is so rickety, it's easier for the corporation to maintain a private courier pool than it is for them to trust the postal service or a private delivery service.
This sounds like something one would expect when you combine ridiculous bureaucracy with lots of poverty.
When you can't remove friction from getting things done, you just outsource anything frustrating to someone poorer.
For a while talking in English in India was considered a sign of being forward and modern. Parents used to take pride that their folks talk in English, even if all they do is swear. It used to look odd, strange and hilarious at times.
And you see this India bashing not just in blog posts and news. But also in Novels and books, giving a bad perspective of India to a already troubled-by-outsourcing west sells well- Because it gives them 'See, we told you...' moments.
Are there problems in India, sure there are! Like every other country in the world. But NRI's talk about India like its the biggest hell in the world. And how they are totally justified in immigrating to a different country. A friend of mine went to do his MS in the US, when he came back for an yearly vacation all he had to say was was how awesome America is and how horrible India is. He seemed to find every reason under the sun why its worth settling down in India.
Well if you want to go out and settle in the west or where ever. Sure you are in full rights and please do it.
But justifying your personal ambitions by talking low of your country and country men to make your ambitions not look greedy is really a cheap way of doing it.
Yesterday or so, a passenger was actually beheaded in a crowded train in W Bengal. Nobody was apprehended. In every town/village/city you will find people being harassed by babus, and victims of extortion or violence by police and/or criminals.
For those NRIs who complain I can present to you the NRIs who try and recreate India abroad and think everything was better in the motherland.
They force their children to learn to be "Indian" act Indian, and then get married to an Indian.
It's called the perfect minority syndrome if I am not mistaken.
Some moan, others wax eloquent. Neither should get to you. Only valid criticism matter, and lessons we can apply here.
Pretty sure the reason why anyone "talks low", is because they are stating facts.
Those 'Facts' don't give you a free pass to endlessly badmouth your country to justify your immigration needs. While the actual 'Facts' you did it for are totally something else.
Pointing out that you need to show your id to use a cyber cafe or other things in the article are neither false nor extreme.
It was awesome during Atal Bihari Vajpayee time.
Wishing BJP(ie Modi) to take over...
Citation, please!
I think HN got linked somewhere.
For people unaware -
Bashing the Gandhi family and Congress is a common past time, but beyond that it gets split across people 2 factions which are rife with, if not build directly out of, hate/venom/ideologies.
Its sort of the Republicans vs Democrats, with less long term ideals and more unalloyed hate.
Ask either side for data or logic and they usually can't get too far. If they do, they have their own skewed interpretations of what happened.
Both sides are bad, one is more vocal.
I am a native Bangalorean. And from what I know of history our state. Close 99.99% of IT growth work you see today was the work of Deve Gowda(JD-S) and SM Krishna(Congress). On top of that biggest projects were conceived under Congress- IT Park constructions, Bangalore Metro etc.
Not a single thing has happened under BJP. The biggest scam in Karnataka's history mining scam happened and was done by BJP MLAs.
Avoid venting your political opinions here. like 'intended' user mentioned rationally there is hardly a party in India which isn't corrupt.
rationally trying to describe the shit ideas of the congress(gandhi family) while the stupid UI at ycombinator does not add \n after I press enter.
the ideology that thinks the nation is before the single individual, will not think twice adding stupid restriction like those mentioned by "Christopher Soghoian".
the ideology is like this: since they care(as shown by providing free mobiles to poor etc..) they have a right to act like parents and impose such violation of personal rights.
the thinking foundation itself is wrong.
The same thought that imposes ban of cars above 16 km/liter average (ie Ferrari will never show its face in India)is responsible such stupid laws.
The same thought that created ibfindia which is now censoring simple words "menstrual" on TV because they think its their job to care what enters my ear is responsible for such stupid laws.
congress is like a physco slut girl friend of every Indian
AMERICA IS A POLICE STATE WHERE IF YOU DOWNLOAD AND SHARE A FEW SONGS, YOU WILL HAVE TO SELL YOUR HOUSE TO PAY THE OUTRAGEOUS FINES. ALL IN THE NAME IF THE RIAA.
The article appears in an Indian paper, why single out U.S. as the country to compare to?
Also, just because other countries have other restrictions (wrong or otherwise), that doesn't justify such restrictions in India.
P.S. Avoid typing in all caps. It comes off as rude.
Yes India has some issues with policy and infrastructure, however they are trying to sort this problem out. Have you heard of the 4g network that's a work in progress?
If you actually read the article you would know that non Indian wrote it.
"It’s a police state here in Delhi. Just finding a place with public Wi-Fi is a serious effort, and then they copy my passport."
Now hold on since when was India, Delhi. Do you even know what a police state is?
"Some want only a government-issued ID. Some insist upon an ID with a photograph. And there are some who have a fascination for your passport or driving licence – nothing else will do. I mean, just to check a mail, which will take 5 minutes, you have to fill in a form (particulars in a register) and submit a copy of a “proper” ID"
I live in the UK. I'm 27 years old and when I go to the buy cigarettes. I am asked for Id, only photo id will do. I have no driving licence so am forced to use my passport. Same thing happens when I buy alcohol and at bars clubs. Having to give my id to an arrogant bouncer who can blatantly tell I'm over 18 is greatly annoying.
Every internet café I have ever been to in the U.K has CCTV. the owners of the internet café also has to keep a record of all sites visited. Maybe India should take this big brother approach.
Dead wrong. Jawed Anwar wrote it, a ToI columnist. He just quoted Soghoian's tweet and used that as linkbait. I posted this article on HN, without the question mark as heading, because this is one headline where Betteridge's law would not apply.
Sorry, but that is just not true.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112
With regards to the second link, that law is a fair way off and already faces quite stiff opposition. Similar but less intrusive laws already in place which require ISPs to retain certain logs if requested have not yet proved too onerous (and have not been abused on a large scale), and certainly don't interfere directly with most peoples use of the net, at home or in public spaces like internet cafes. This isn't to say that I support the existing laws, I don't, but they are in no way of the same type, scale or intrusiveness as the situation described in the article.
Or where we block sites at the drop of a hat, did you miss the recent instructions where the govt and their lap dogs went after social media? The new 'evil'?
At what point will you decide that for every flaw of theirs you can point out, there is also a tradition of civil rights and organizations fighting against infringements of those rights.
In the US, UK and many other countries biometric ID systems were shot down because of the huge issues they raised for civil rights.
India? We have a few people arguing against it and the rest of the country for it.
Whats worse, a lot of us are willful in our ignorance.
1) courier companies opening your packages - check
2) problem furnishing address proof if
working in a different city - check
Having experienced most of these things, I totally agree with the article.