India’s Downward Spiral
eff.org
eff.org
[0] http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/07/sanal-edamarukus-situ...
Second you on that one! I lived in various parts of rural India for a little over 12 years, and the deeper I went, the more I saw people there actively voting in droves. And the harder their life and generally poor state of affairs!
sadly democracy in India only has the voting part implemented fairly well. It's a monarch until the next election. Even the voting is neck deep in corruption [1]
[1] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/cash-for-vo...
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-07/news...
It would be interesting to hear from Indians on these issues. I'm not a citizen nor do I live there, but religious conflict often has cost many lives in India. For example, there were the 2002 religious riots in Gujarat which made Modi, now Prime Minister of the country, so controversial; 1,000-2,000 people died and there were brutal gang rapes, people being burnt alive and other horrors. Going back to the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, up to a million people died and many millions were displaced.
In Germany there are laws against free expression of Nazi ideas. Perhaps in India it is appropriate to minimize religious conflict. I don't know enough to offer an opinion but it's a very serious consideration.
If you forbid peoples' expression in the name of avoiding conflict then you simply allow the ideas of the most bloodthirsty, conflict-minded group to dominate, as this group is the group most likely to get offended, and hence suppressing any ideas that offend this group necessarily leaves this group's ideas unchallenged.
Yes. Expressing Nazi ideas can lead to violence, extremism, racial and religious discrimination, anti-democratic activity among other things. That's pretty much what the OP said, and is also the original motivation behind India's censorship laws. I am of the opinion that the case for censorship is more justified in India than in Germany. As the Gujarat 2002 riots and Assam 2012 riots (where Indian govt. temporarily throttled sms traffic to prevent spread of rumours) have pretty much proven - tactless media coverage or the spreading of rumours during tense situations could result in the deaths of thousands.
Of course whether those laws are being abused (in ways including the one you described) is a whole nother question.
I didn't say Nazi ideas were banned because of this, I said they were banned because of what _following_ them can lead to. For contrast, compare an idea like "group X treats women like second-class citizen". Following this idea does no harm, it doesn't even do anything, as it's not a prescription that can be followed, it's just a statement. Expressing it could however still lead to a violence if group X is aggressive and conflict-minded. If expressing this idea is banned, then public discussion of the poor treatment of women by group x would be banned, and there wouldn't be any pressure for group x to improve its treatment of them.
I do believe however there is in general liberty to free speech as long as it doesn't involve religious flame wars or speeches filled with national hate (You may want to read up on arrests of pro-LTTE speakers) . The isolated examples quoted in the original article can be argued case by case and as far as I know convictions have not been obtained. So the law is taking it's course. The very act of arresting them is violating civil liberties but there is no strong organization like the ACLU in India (there is PUCL but it's pretty dormant) to help citizens. And common people do not want to spend the money on lawyers and courts. So police force will continue to abuse their powers because no one keeps them in check. I've personally faced police excesses and it was more of a taboo to explain it to your family that you were picked up for questioning. In India, the very act of you being questioned by police is seen as a character issue.
Long story short, when I see first world struggling with civil liberties (I live in USA now), I do not expect India to do better. It is also unfair to compare a much younger democracy with an older democracy that still hasn't figured out civil liberties in digital age completely. I also do not expect India to lead the world in terms of civil liberties in next 20 years (either digital or regular). I do hope the remaining humanity in Indians don't vanish. Otherwise, we'd implode.
This is there even in the Indian Constitution. The govt. is allowed to impose restrictions on fundamental rights in order to maintain order and harmony. First Amendment absolutism is totally out of the question in the Indian context.
Also, I am from the East though I grew up in the West, and the attempt to deflect criticism just on the basis of "it's a different society" is disgusting, a hindrance to progress, and frankly quite racist. There is an ongoing campaign in India against the practice of dowry, I guess you also want to argue "Westerners don't understand that India just traditionally has dowry"??
There is hardly any problem related to dowry. Come, have a look. 'Dowry' exists in media which consists of third grade students turned women-right activists.
For mathematically minded people, I will just quote recent supreme court judgment about the reality of dowry and dowry harassment lawsuit (498(a) IPC):
"The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal."
I suppose 85% acquittal rate is just collateral damage, except that dowry was exactly how women used to get their parental property rights in India! But that is too Indian for Indians educated in western schools. So instead of codifying dowry as mandatory to protect women's rights from being infringed by her family, feminists would rather use misandry and enable women to vent their frustration on her husband. So we got ridiculous laws like dowry harassment lawsuit (1983) and dowry prohibition lawsuit, and then they realized that husbands demanding dowry is actually a rarity and reality is not at all as media would like to have use believe. So finally they passed equal property rights for women in 2005.
Bit by bit, you know. There is a reason why villages in India give an impression of being lawless.
Regarding second paragraph, the citation is not handy right now, but this is what Indian feminists actually write. You know, the ones actually involved in drafting government policies. There was a similar article by NCW I read around 3 months ago. You can also talk to the head of http://samajsevasamithy.org/ regarding it (I volunteer there).
Regarding the second paragraph, that whole argument comes from Madhu Kishwar but because I don't have the exact url I will leave it at that.
As per the effects of feminist media upon Indian villages (where, as Gandhi said, real India lives), I would ask you to go through these: 1. http://fathersforlife.org/pizzey/DV_is_not_a_gender_issue.ht... 2. http://www.odsg.org/Said_Edward%281977%29_Orientalism.pdf 3. http://www.rediff.com/news/special/ls-election-madhu-kishwar...
Regarding your links about feminism, [1] is not relevant to India, [2] is you being very lazy - I'm not going to read through 400 pages just to entertain your whims, you will need to quote specific extracts from it, and [3] is fairly neutral regarding feminists.
You also seem to getting offended personally that I am pointing out problems with your country. I don't know what to do, other than point out that this reaction is not rational, and that I don't mean personal offence.
Regarding dowry related death, any death of wife within 7 years of marriage is reported as dowry related death. Why? So police-lawyer-NCW nexus can make money out of it by harassing husband. A lot of times even women's family jumps in to make money. That is the level of discrimination women face. For example, the dowry harassment lawsuit (498a IPC) is non-cognizable, which means once filed, it cannot be taken back. Then it is Husband vs. The State. The moment a death occurs police and lawyers will convince family members to file 498a. Then they can simply use it to extort lakhs. My friend himself paid 10 lakhs. Is NCW interested in that data? No. It actively hides the real data, instead relying on vague statistics like 'how many dowry related deaths have been reported to police' and not 'how many dowry related deaths actually happened'. And why not? NCW is run by politicians and wives of corrupt IPS officers.
'leephilips said: "India is the most prominent example of a country with plenty of voting but no democracy."
You said: "It doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, or that we agree with it and won't criticise it."
A perfectly well-functioning democratic society can reach conclusions that are worthy of criticism. People have a habit of blaming the process for grievances they have with the substantive outcomes of the process.
E.g. people on Hacker News rant about how democracy in the U.S. must not be functioning because the drug war still rages on. The drug war is, in my opinion, a policy worthy of criticism. Yet, it's undeniable that it enjoys popular support. It was only this year that marijuana legalization managed to carry a (slim) majority of registered voters. As recently as 10-15 years ago, there was a 2:1 consensus against even legalization of marijuana--forget about ending the drug war entirely.
It's easy to blame the process for results you don't like. It's harder to admit that the process is fine, you just don't like what people do with their right to self-determination.
By "democracy" I have in mind what Americans and Western Europeans mean by democracy, which is decidedly not a simple tyranny of the majority enacted through voting. Democracy in any meaningful sense has some means of self regulation that preserves certain rights and perpetuates self-determination for future generations.
I'm not blaming the process. The U.S. still has a serviceable democracy despite the drug war and all the other examples of bad public policy that are desired by the people. Our democracy has even survived the violation of parts of the constitution that makes it possible. My point was that no democracy can exist in any meaningful sense in a society that has criminalized the discussion of ideas and the expression of opinions. Once that line has been crossed it is not a matter of undesirable public policy, but of democracy eating itself. Surely you agree that there can be no democracy if you're not allowed to talk about how people should vote.
India has become a place where you can be jailed for exposing the physical cause of a weeping statue because you've hurt the feelings of the Catholics who want to believe that it's a miracle. I don't believe democracy can exist under such conditions, but I hope things change soon for this great nation.
"Democracy" doesn't mean "everything is fair". Democracy is just larger groups having absolute power over smaller groups.
There is absolutely no guarantee that the larger group isn't going to oppress the smaller one. This is why constitutional democracies (where the power of the majority is strictly limited) are a popular compromise.
Democracy sometimes requires sacrificing a privilege for public benefit. India has a very diverse culture (I would say no other country in world has such a diverse demographic) and co-existence can be uneasy. Non-Indians may not understand the compromises one has to make, to coexist harmoniously.
There are two parts to this as I see it with some bit of overlap.
1. A hard core group (could be religious, person centric (e.g., Mahatma Gandhi)) that act as custodians of "sentiments" of larger population. They act with various degrees of violence if they believe that the sentiments have been hurt [1], [2]. The police force itself generally sides with the mob and they cite oft repeated phrase of "natural reaction by the crowd" as a reason for avoiding taking action.
2. Freedom of expression that's curtailed by law and codified in law books.
For me #2 above is far more serious issue. Various courts routinely invoke this law, which is amazingly ill-defined to start with, to suppress any kind of dissent. I can't cite hard data here but in my life time I can clearly see an uptrend in such cases. There's also a harsher (some say draconian) law around sedition. Even if you are a mere sympathizer with a banned group then you will be treated as an enemy of the state; there's no soft middle ground here and you are treated as a militant [3].
Shiny GDP and development notwithstanding India is fast moving towards dictatorship which is really unfortunate as right to dissent is the core of a democratic society.
[1]: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/muslim-techi...
[2]: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/kerala-police-may-b...
[3]: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/du-profe...
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/19/indian-woman-arrested-ov...
But the case you mentioned is one of the small number of such cases (I remember one from the state of West Bengal). And in this case, the over eagerness of local authorities was criticized by both the government and public.
As of now, I would place India somewhere between UK (with its defamation laws) and US (gold standard of free speech) on the free speech issue. I do hope that the government takes steps to make sure that local authorities do not have power to override the right of free speech.
(Disclaimer: Indian citizen)
The "somewhere between UK and US" comment is theoretical and is about what the written law says. The way it is practised is clearly worse than both. You don't have to watch your back when you criticize a politician in the UK, and certainly not when you "like" someone doing that. Even if it was later criticized later on, it did happen, and I would guess it got no consequences for the people that prosecuted the two women.
[1] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kerala-student-life-in-ja...
It appears that there's people in this thread who downvote anyone who's from India and doesn't think things are as bad as suggested.
Many Indians think this way: "Freedom of speech, it's not that bad in India. Modi will change everything."
Shocking thing is that a lot of Indians also believe that these people deserve to be jailed for speaking against politicians. Even worse.. they are beaten by a mob and their house is ransacked.
Here's the video's info:
"""India is currently implementing some of the scariest surveillance schemes in the world. This lecture will shed light on India's surveillance industry, its UID scheme which aims at the collection of all biometric data and on various controversial surveillance schemes, such as the Central Monitoring System (CMS).
When it comes to surveillance, the most mainstream argument is that the majority of India's population lives below the poverty line and that surveillance is an elitist issue - and not a "real" issue which affects the masses. Given that the majority of India's population has mobile phones and that the Indian government is currently implementing the Central Monitoring System (CMS) which aims at intercepting all telecommunications (and Internet communications), surveillance does not appear to be an elitist issue. Given that the UID scheme aims at collecting the biometric data of all citizens residing in India and that most BPL cash programmes require UID registration, surveillance appears to be an issue which (unfortunately) affects the 1.2 billion people currently living in India. And this is to say the least. As part of the Privacy Project, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore, India, is investigating surveillance within the country. The project is funded by Privacy International and aims to map out various forms of surveillance in India, ranging from drones, CCTV cameras and GPS tracking equipment to phone and Internet monitoring gear. This lecture aims to present the research that Maria Xynou has undertaken at the CIS so far, which includes data on the various surveillance technology companies operating in India and the type of spy gear they sell to Indian law enforcement agencies. This research also includes the presentation of India's various controversial surveillance schemes, with an emphasis on the Central Monitoring System (CMS) which unlawfully enables the interception of all telecommunications and Internet communications. India is currently implementing the world's largest biometric data collection and interception of communications schemes. The aim of this lecture is to present India's scary mass surveillance and to discuss its implications on the right to privacy and other human rights."""
The reason we need this biomertic data would be to ascertain the identity of over a billion people where unique names, places of birth and the existence of birth certificates aren't the norm, not in order to constantly police the populace.
If you could make more explicit the problems with gathering biometric data of citizens, (which shouldn't be used for security purposes anyway) then I'm sure I would get a better understanding of your position.
What !? This statement has NO factual basis, and is completely incorrect. (PS: I have a Aadhaar card (aka UID) myself).
And there is practically zero debate on the issues:
1. Is the govt. capable and competent enough to keep the data safe from external and internal threats ( If I had to put money, I would say all or part of the data has already made its way to at least one foreign govt.)
2. Are there enough safeguards in place to prevent this data from being misused? In a country with widespread and endemic corruption and where there have been incidents of govt. indifference or even collusion in events that cost thousands of lives and/or billions of dollars; Can the govt. be trusted with this data at all?
3. Is such a system (whose capabilities and scope far exceed those of most if not all first-world countries) really a priority in a country with grinding poverty, societal issues, illiteracy, inadequate healthcare, poor sanitation, corruption, decrepit infrastructure.
Right now, the Indian masses are probably not educated enough on the issues to have this debate and the govt. is using this fact to try and deploy it as fast as possible.
Since 2005 to get this you need a medical blood and X-ray test (to ensure you don't have HIV or TB - I wouldn't be surprised if DNA was analysed too), prints of all 10 and the sides of your hands and retinal scans. Last year the relevant authoring announced it had biometrics for 118 million people [0], which considering the population is just under 10 million isn't bad (there is a high turnover in expat workers).
The ID cards are actually quite advanced, they contain the biometrics and PKI. Pretty much everyone (even government authorities) still use signatures and photocopies of the cards for verification though...
[0] http://www.id.gov.ae/en/media-centre/news/2013/7/9/emirates-...
Secondly, I think most people over-estimate the Indian government's technical ability. We are nowhere near US or China in mass surveillance. No Indian agency has the expertise anywhere near NSA or PLA Unit 61398. And unlike in China where there are many popular local tech companies, Indians use products of American companies (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.). So the government can neither ask the companies for data (like US) nor get the companies to actively participate in any form of censorship (like China). As long as the US companies follow basic security practices (HTTPS, SSL, 2-step verification, etc..) and don't sell out, we should be fine on the internet.
(Disclaimer: Indian citizen)
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint...
http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/india-your-aadhaa...
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aadhar-scheme-how-safe-an...
I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed so far. You can safely assume the number to be much higher, misunderstood and often under-reported. Dig deep and you'll find a lot of unreported reality!
[1] http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uidai-gets-first-complaint...
Edit: I see two more new links.
One of them talks that a NGO has filed a case against UID agency. Government's welfare schemes now require UID. Why? I have given some of the reasons in the first paragraph of the parent comment.
For the second link, government wants everyone to have a bank account. Because now the money from different welfare programs will be directly transferred to the bank accounts. No need to go to government office and collect money. Please read more explanation towards the end of the article you posted!
Edit: Your claim: "I know at least 22 cases that have been suppressed". What you have provided: 3 links from a quick Google search, that too without checking their content.
a belgian company sold an ID system to the rwandan government, it was used by one tribe to find people from another tribe so they could kill them
these systems are deadly in the wrong hands - if the info is not there, it can't be abused.
And it is oh so convenient! I'm moving in a few weeks, and I had to fill in a form on a website and the tax authorities sent me some papers to sign and return. And that is all! Now all government agencies, the banks and larger companies that I deal with, and all magazines I subscribe to will have my new correct address in their system within days.
What makes you think that? In the UK maybe, but certainly in Spain no one thinks twice about their ID cards. It's just something you have and use to identify yourself - both in public administration and in private transactions, for example paying money into a bank over the counter.
"these systems are deadly in the wrong hands" - In the context of this thread, I hope you are not comparing Indian government with the Nazis. Such a comparison would be misusing the Nazi term and insulting the severity of crimes committed against Jews.
"if the info is not there, it can't be abused" - We can't move to the stone age now. Your car registration details at the DMV can be used against you. Your SSN details can be used against you. Information is stored about every citizen, in every country.
I hope that people realize that schemes such as UID present many benefits - reducing corruption, bring transparency, and ultimately, giving power to the people.
i wasn't comparing the Indian government with the Nazi's - but i will say there has been a long history of religious bloodshed in India, it doesn't take a major leap of imagination to see that someone with nefarious intent towards Hindu's, Muslims, Sikh's etc should not have access to extensive information about them - human nature being what it is, and looking at what has happened in those circumstances throughout history.
This is subtly different from "citizens can authenticate themselves to the government". Universal identity systems result in no place to hide from the system, which can be used against people that the government (or individual corrupt officials!) doesn't like.
Do you believe that the government can keep private information on a need-to-know basis? There is a lot of evidence they cannot.[1]
Oh, so their elected officials weren't really elected democratically? Because, you know, that's something you have to prove first before you can make assertions such as the one above.
Just because no one else in here (or even the original article) has mentioned it: cell phone encryption is illegal in India. All GSM is done in the clear. Think about that for a second. It means any citizen with a few hundred dollars worth of hardware can rival the best abilities of the NSA.
.... But, uh, why would the government require that, when they can just listen to the signal after it's been unencrypted at the base station?
Blackberry threatened with suspension because of encryption: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/blackberry-india/5732
(I guess not all GSM is done in the clear since you can use encryption but must share your keys.)
Right now a lot of ex-intelligence employees are whoring themselves out to state governments and international businesses, offering their products and consulting services. There's a lot of money to be made, especially since a lot of the expertise is held quite tightly by the incumbents.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democrac...
The 1st amendment to US constitution gives people freedom of speech and ensures that government can not pass any laws against it. On the other hand all the "rights" that Indian constitution gives are subject to other government approvals which means you can have Right X to the extent that other existing laws allow.
Despite that several of laws except the IT laws are pretty good and time tested. IT law however is horrible and puts a prohibitive cost on various IT businesses.
Indian classified company Quikr (like CraigList) has hired 200 people just to screen each and every post to make sure it is not "offensive".
When it comes to US constitution, the 1st amendment is the stricter condition that each and every other law should meet. Any law passed that is not consistent with 1st amendment thus becomes invalid.
Opposite is the case with Indian constitution. All the rights given by Indian constitution are totally subject to other laws passed by Indian government. Which means "freedom of expression" is a right as long as no other law prevents it. So basically government can deny you that right any time and in any case it wants.
There are total 8 grounds on which a government can pass a law to further lower the freedom of speech. These 8 grounds cover almost every possible case.
I managed to sell my bike on Quikr so clearly it works. Indian business face trust issues by default.
"Time tested." lol. Many laws in India date from the times of British Raj, and were outdated even then! -http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-29516976
Nope, nothing has changed, and while everyone had high hopes for the new govt, it will be foolhardy for any government to simply let go of such easy censorship on the public.
In India its okay to burn a bus in `protest', but not post a facebook comment to criticize some politician.
1. This is old (2012). There was a major government change in May 2014. The earlier government censored a lot of stuff. Mainly because their performance was below average and they did not want people talking about it.
2. The new government (led by Prime Minister Modi) is very oriented. (Checkout the central attendance system implemented by them in a couple of months: http://attendance.gov.in/). They have been pushing for broadband internet connectivity in villages.
IMHO This is not as applicable today as it was 2 years ago.
My $0.02
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Black-money-case-Cant-disclo...
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Black-money-case-Govt-not-re...
- Surveillance is bad but depending on country's internal and external security situation, it may be a necessary evil.
- Removing content offensive to politicians is unacceptable.
Bacon article? A Muslim gets offended.
Computer article? A Luddite is offended.
Photos of art? A blind man is offended.
That rabbit hole is infinitely deep. Oops I just offended rabbit lovers.
It would allow discussion on such topics without fear of reprisal.
With my lack of coding skills would this even be possible?
NO! (it is only possible WITH the required skills!)