That's an ad hominem that adds very little in terms of substance to your argument as you do not know anything about me or my background.
>>>You talk about a "historical precedent" that goes back to when India firmly identified itself as a socialist country. And from that distant, warped past, you fast forward 36 years to the present and to a country that in 1991 began its journey of economic liberation (which included jettisoning its socialist principles for all practical purposes), and expect us to believe that the two incidents are somehow related?<<<
Entity X has demonstrated a history of Y actions. Ignoring that day while analysing the probability of X doing something in the future is foolish.
Further, while the dialogue might have change. The individuals that hold power in India haven't changed over time. It's highly family oriented and it's reasonable to assume that they will act in a similar manner to preserve their interests.
>>>But what better examples to refute your ludicrous theory than Coca-Cola and IBM themselves, both of which came back to post-liberalization India. To the extent that India likely has IBM's largest global workforce [0], and Coca-Cola pours billions of dollars to maintain its leadership over Pepsi [1]<<<
It's a large market. They dropped the statutes is it unreasonable to presume that they won't capitalise on that? I don't see the point on attributing any emotional qualities to this. There is no profit in petty vendettas.
>>>Surely those companies would know a thing or two about "historical precedents", don't you think?<<<
I'm sure they do. Doesn't detract anything from my point or the analysis I've posted elsewhere. I fail to see the argument you're making over here.
>>>As for the most likely reason behind this $5 billion figure (sorry conspiracy theorists, it isn't extortion either as Indian politicians know Google's power isn't something to be messed with in the age of social/Internet savvy voters) is the old-fashioned plant. I'm guessing Microsoft (the primary shadow-backer behind all anti-Google cases in India) laid out the worst-case scenario off-the-record to a PTI journalist, along with the $5 billion figure. And the journalist was either too lazy to question/research it, or too taken in (journalists like throwing up "exclusives" like this with billions of dollars in the headlines) to reduce it to the decidedly unsexy $~33M.<<<
I've never mentioned anything about that. I merely pointed out that such fines and the Indian government being onerous towards entrepreneurial interests is something well established.
>>>It's just a theory mind you, but having been a business journalist in India for nearly 6 years (and having done stories severely critical of Google, lest you think I'm a shill for them), I think it's much more likely than some of the other fantastic theories in this thread.<<<
Okay. You still haven't refuted the core argument of what I had stated which is simply that there is a power base that would like to do such equity grabs and so on and it's not a convenient place to do business. Is that wrong?