> "As India sets the new rules of the game, it is seeking inspiration from China. Although India does not want to go as far as China, which has cut off its internet from the global one, officials admire Beijing’s tight control over citizens’ data and how it has nurtured homegrown internet giants like Alibaba and Baidu by limiting foreign competition. At the same time, regulators do not want to push out the American internet services that hundreds of millions of Indians depend on."
This is the main point. The main reason the government wants data to be stored locally and is also looking at controlling companies is for surveillance. But unlike China, not all platforms have Indian created equivalents. Fortunately for the citizens of India, regardless of the state of surveillance in the U.S., the U.S. companies do fight a lot more against these controlling measures than any Indian born company ever would. Indian companies like Reliance Jio, which considers "data as the new oil" (the parent company, Reliance, was built on crude oil), and many others have had a thirst for more data for sometime now. [Incidentally, the logo of "Jio" is a mirror image of "Oil" in a certain font]
> “There is a strong feeling in many quarters that the reason that India has not been able to develop a Tencent or Baidu or Alibaba is because we have not been nuanced in our policies.”
This sounds kind of naïve. It's not because of data related policies that these haven't happened.
> "Officials were furious after the Cambridge Analytica scandal this year revealed that Facebook had shared private information on 87 million users, including 560,000 Indians, with a political consulting firm that had sought to influence Indian elections."
This is ironical, because the governments (both central and state governments) didn't even acknowledge issues or took responsibility or made a statement that data leaks from their own sites would be dealt with seriously. Their game is like this — "if we leak data, then it's not an issue, but if someone else is, then we will be outraged". It's just pseudo-nationalistic sentiment that the current central government has been fostering. A search for "Aadhaar data leaks" will show many such instances and the lack of a decent response from the governments.
> "They also warned that India has fewer legal protections than the United States against government searches and data requests, so private data stored in the country could more easily end up in the hands of the police."
This is very true. The central government has shown that it has very little interest in getting a good privacy law in place. The one recently released publicly has so many issues that concerned citizens have started https://saveourprivacy.in/ . Please share this site with every Indian citizen you know.
As an Indian citizen, my only hope is that foreign tech companies resist the crippling moves by the executive. The courts move very slowly, but they're the (mostly) dependable arm here.
> The main reason the government wants data to be stored locally and is also looking at controlling companies is for surveillance. But unlike China, not all platforms have Indian created equivalents. Fortunately for the citizens of India, regardless of the state of surveillance in the U.S., the U.S. companies do fight a lot more against these controlling measures than any Indian born company ever would.
There is a national security component that you are missing. The day we do not needs borders for people, we will not need a border for data. But we are not there yet.
> “There is a strong feeling in many quarters that the reason that India has not been able to develop a Tencent or Baidu or Alibaba is because we have not been nuanced in our policies.”
This is very reasonable. Your country does NOT need a new Google or Tencent. Because they already exist. The only way India can develop its own companies is by creating an artificial scarcity thru regulation. I see quite often asked Why does Europe not have tech giants? The easy answer is that they already exist and there is no way that small start-ups can fight them.
This does not mean that to create that needs is good for the citizens. Maybe it is good that Europe depends on Google, Apple, etc than to try to create new local ones, as non-tech businesses can benefit early from their technology. But if the goal is to create your own tech giants, it is not possible when you are competing against well established cash-rich monopolistic companies.
> "They also warned that India has fewer legal protections than the United States against government searches and data requests, so private data stored in the country could more easily end up in the hands of the police." The central government has shown that it has very little interest in getting a good privacy law in place.
From my perspective, you may prefer that your data is in hands of another country, not even because they are more ethical but because they are just less interested in what you are doing. Local police in NewYork does not care what you are doing in New Delhi. So, the effect is the same. Your data may be safer in hands of people that have no political nor policial power over you.
From a strategic standpoint its extremely bad to have the data in some other country. It can be used for all kinds of creatively drstructive purposes. Also protectionism is not that bad as long as competition is stiff in thr local market. Why would you want your local market to be taken advantage of by companies from other countries ? Free markets as a great idea was actually popularized by Britain in the 1800s because it always favours the incumbents. Given their industrial prowess no wonfer they said that. I would prefer tht local companies be given preference over foreign ones but low performers must not be bailed out on taxpayer money. They must be weeded out. That has been the go to approach to development in Japan, South Korea and China. With those policies in place they now have more tech giants than Europe.
> This is very reasonable. Your country does NOT need a new Google or Tencent. Because they already exist. The only way India can develop its own companies is by creating an artificial scarcity thru regulation. I see quite often asked Why does Europe not have tech giants? The easy answer is that they already exist and there is no way that small start-ups can fight them.
Well, perhaps in the short term, yes, it does create artificial scarcity through regulation. However, if those barriers don't remain in place forever, you can have created a real competitor in those markets.
I find this argument somewhat like saying, without trying any sort of emotional appeal, only to create an analogy, that you shouldn't waste time protecting a baby or make any sacrifices for it. The baby doesn't do anything that adults can't (they already exist), and it simply diverts resources from the adults (dealing with temporary artificial scarcity). All true enough, if you don't concern yourself with the future.
> The only way India can develop its own companies is by creating an artificial scarcity thru regulation.
Programmers that don't work at tech companies work somewhere else, investors that don't invest in tech companies invest in something else. So it's wrong to say that just because a country doesn't have any tech companies it's poorer, and that protectionism for tech companies will make it richer. (This insight, and the ideology it refutes - mercantilism - are 200 years old[1].)
> I see quite often asked Why does Europe not have tech giants? The easy answer is that they already exist and there is no way that small start-ups can fight them.
> Programmers that don't work at tech companies work somewhere else
Yes, but maybe at a lower salary
> investors that don't invest in tech companies invest in something else
Maybe at a lower return. Countries that don't invest in high-growth sectors (which means high-tech) will over the long run have lower growth rates than ones that do.
> So it's wrong to say that just because a country doesn't have any tech companies it's poorer, and that protectionism for tech companies will make it richer.
When companies have a monopoly, they are able to generate an economic rent, which makes everyone except their shareholders poorer.
Furthermore there is the sovereignty argument: a country not in control over its information infrastructure isn't really independent.
So if a country can generate its own equivalents of Twitter, Facebook, Android, Google search, etc, there may well be a good case for it doing so.
The point was not that those programmers and investors are just as well off without protectionism (obviously not), but that the country as a whole is better off because the people that before would have produced knockoffs off western companies now produce something new.
I find it amusing that you'd mention these two in the same breath. I'm glad SoundCloud didn't go under, but it's not like it's all wine and roses over there [1].
There are several European unicorns in the last decade (Spotify and Adyen for example), if you wanted to focus on startups. Alternatively, if the focus is companies in Germany that hire software engineers like SAP does, there's always Siemens, multiple German financial industry firms, SUSE, and so on.
> As an Indian citizen, my only hope is that foreign tech companies resist the crippling moves by the executive...
As an India citizen, why are you not hoping that Indian developers and government grow competent enough to built software with quality that is at par with foreign software?
As an Indian citizen, I find this deeply troubling. We have a lot of software developers here, but what is the dynamics by which government software turn out to be crappy? (Btw, I think irctc raily ticket booking is a work of art) I think instead of pushing against the laws, we should be pushing for more quality in software used by the government. Make the development of such software to be open, and reviewable..
I think the parent comment answers this quite comprehensively - because (it would appear the parent comment believes) Indian companies will work more closely with the Indian government for more oppressive surveillance of its people.
The big multinationals are harder to push around.
I'd imagine, providing Google doesn't get too much negative feedback from it's upcoming censored China search engine, they'll likely make a censored version for India if they see it as a big enough market. Hey presto, the worst of both worlds!
> I think the parent comment answers this quite comprehensively - because (it would appear the parent comment believes) Indian companies will work more closely with the Indian government for more oppressive surveillance of its people.
> The big multinationals are harder to push around.
Thanks, that was what I was hinting at, without providing details. Fin Tech companies have also, in the recent times, fought in the Supreme Court for the biometric based resident ID scheme called Aadhaar because they stand to benefit from tracking people and their transactions. ISPs in India have also shown that any John Doe orders to block several sites are implemented without any questions whatsoever. Indian companies, in my knowledge, do obey government orders without question (as long as it doesn't affect their profits too much) than foreign companies would. We have seen the resistance from others, like with Blackberry being asked to provide interception by the Indian government several years ago and other instances (like the recent instance of WhatsApp being asked to control the spread of fake news and allow the tapping of conversations).
> I'd imagine, providing Google doesn't get too much negative feedback from it's upcoming censored China search engine, they'll likely make a censored version for India if they see it as a big enough market. Hey presto, the worst of both worlds!
I hope it doesn't come to that, and in reality, this won't be so easy to get done in India like it is in China.
> Indian companies will work more closely with the Indian government for more oppressive surveillance of its people.
And having the source open and reviewable does not help with that? The problem with depending on is - this might not be apparent in a short term - is that it allows foreign control over the matters here.
Basically what you are asking is something like asking to be ruled by a foreign power. Because local rulers might pushed around easily by pushed around by local corruption and influence.
Basically there is potential for oppression either way. Do you prefer it to be by your own people or foreign powers?
>likely make a censored version for India if they see it as a big enough market. Hey presto, the worst of both worlds!
I don't know because It looks like that is the worst of the both worlds to me..
> And having the source open and reviewable does not help with that? The problem with depending on is - this might not be apparent in a short term - is that it allows foreign control over the matters here.
The Indian government is in no mood to keep anything open and reviewable, or open to take feedback on. Look at all the data leaks because of Aadhaar and its linkages with various things. There is no openness or even admission of gaps. So I don't see this attitude changing in the near future, even if the parties ruling the country change in the coming years. Please look at the data leaks due to Aadhaar linkage and the responses from UIDAI and the state government arms so far.
> Basically what you are asking is something like asking to be ruled by a foreign power. Because local rulers might pushed around easily by pushed around by local corruption and influence.
> Basically there is potential for oppression either way. Do you prefer it to be by your own people or foreign powers?
I'll answer these together. Based on all the data leaks seen, how poorly government websites and data stores are managed, how government officials respond to security issues with denial first (and filing cases against security researchers for responsible disclosure), and how government officials also routinely use Gmail for communications, my guess is that any data that a technology strong country like the U.S. or China desires is already in their hands or is just an arm's reach away. So my concern with the internal powers having more control is very much valid and upsetting for me, more so when local corporates are also interested in tracking and profiling people, building things with a lot of sensitive data that can be easily demanded and obtained by the government.
The US has good protections against government searches and data requests for US citizens, but probably zero for the rest of us. So, as an Indian, I don't really see how having my data stored in India is much worse than having it stored in the US.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
>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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
This sums up Foreign-Tech companies argument and the Indian govt. response .
> Mukesh Aghi, the chief executive of the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum, a policy group whose board includes top executives at Cisco, Adobe, and Mastercard, said that India risked hurting its own economy by imposing stringent rules on foreign tech companies. He said
> “It requires deep pockets. It requires world-class technologies. It requires a global supply chain,” Mr. Aghi said. “These companies are creating jobs.”
> Ajay Sawhney, the information technology secretary, who is helping to draft the regulations, said the government was keeping an open mind as it developed the final rules.
> “Our framework will be fair to all stakeholders,” he said. “We deeply appreciate the value that the tech companies and their platforms bring to our country.”
> "This sounds kind of naïve. It's not because of data related policies that these haven't happened."
Maybe they are not talking about data related policies but more about policies that could foster local development. Agree with your other points.
As an Indian I'm not sure I endorse all this as 'anti-colonialism'. This is a bunch of government bureaucrats who want e.g. data to be stored in the country so they can access personal info more easily...
Colonialism is a loaded word, but if you look at India trying to force cell phone companies to manufacture in India I think there is a clear desire to drive economic development through policy. I don't really blame them either, China offers a pretty compelling example of what state intervention in the market can do.
Yeah. Many countries do that sort of thing, like the US imposing tariffs on car imports unless a some of the assembly is done domestically. I wouldn't necessarily endorse too much protectionism either—India has a clear example of the benefits of moving towards an open market after 1991. In fact the biggest Indian startup exit is Flipkart, bought by Walmart, which demonstrates the value of free flow of capital.
There is also the example of China which has policies that favor local companies and China has created dramatically more economic value for it's citizens than India's open market.
Correlation isn’t causation. China could have done even better than it did if it was a more open market, and indeed it didn’t start growing rapidly until the government started getting out of the way in the 80s.
England, France and the US have vested interests in China not growing, atleast a very powerful minority do. Opening markets when these foreign actors very recently attacked your population is basically suicide.
Open markets require a certain level of development. Post-Xi (and his anti-corruption measures), this will be possible.
> England, France and the US have vested interests in China not growing, atleast a very powerful minority do.
I'll admit I don't know much about China, but this seems like a very board statement. Could you expand on it a bit? What powerful minority are you thinking of? Aren't they already growing? I mean, China has pretty much taken over a ton of manufacturing.
I generally use England interchangeably with Britian for Opium War related statements, because the main actors (and beneficiaries) at the end of the day were English, not Irish, not Australian, etc... down the list.
Germans werent huge Opium pushers at the time (compared to the English, French, and American). So score 1 for Germany, good decision on their part.
I would expect not having major part of your economy propped up by illcit trading has long term positive consequences, Germany is enjoying the fruits of that to some extent.
You can predict what people with ill-gotten gains do with their money (it's a different discussion but consider what corruption costs society/economy when looking at the 2nd and 3rd order effects of corrupt money).
>"Also, can you clarify what you mean by “attacked their >population”?"
The opium epedemic and wars drove the Chinese economy into the ground.
British invasion and colonization of India pushed one of the top trading nations and #1 GDP (China & India competed to maintain #1 status for 2000 years) in the world into the ground.
The decline of the Qing dynasty drove the economy into the ground even before the British started opium there. China loves to blame foreigners for all of their problems, but a lot of it was self inflicted.
Your timeline is a little off. The Qing dynasty decline was partly to blame but be sure that almost 1/4 of Chinese young adults under the age 25 being addicted to illegal opium (thanks to western traders) didn't help. If you think that wasn't a contributing factor, it is being ahistorical.
US and Western Europe is facing this growing opioid issue today (during an economic decline), if we are not careful, we will see very clearly the effects (both socially and economically) of opioids poisoning the gene pool en masse.
No, it was symptomatic of a declining dynasty, it didn’t cause the decline in the first place. And even then, it wasn’t as comprehensive as you describe, the Japanese did way more damage to the Qing than the british did.
In 1905, Roosevelt signed a secret treaty with the Japanese on his Imperial Cruise, allowing them to expand into Korea and the rest of Asia.
I don't blame you for not knowing this history, most US historians are/were unaware. Even congress was unaware of the treaty until the documents were released many many years later (post nobel peace prize being handed out).
It's a big part of why most Americans believed Pearl Harbor was potentially a precursor to a Japanese invasion attempt... When it was actually just a slap for breaking a 4 decade long secret treaty that greenlit Japanese expansion (USA renegged on this treaty during the 2nd Sino-Japanese war).
Trump is actively setting trade/economic policy considering 18-19th century history (economic history more specifically).
Remember the Opium Wars and the families it made rich (most famous, Coolidge (descendants of Thomas Jefferson), Roosevelts (through the Delano family), Forbes (John Kerry's family), etc.. in the US). On the otherside of the pond, in 1890 (peak opium crisis), 30% of Britain's GDP was illegal opium smuggling to China.
The seperator between government and companies isn't as big as you think when this much multi-generational wealth and political power is invloved.
Kind of funny that many don't know their own history (Roman history is tough...going through 300 years of US history is trivially easy but most still don't).
Yes, there's lots of ugly in US history. It's been very effectively suppressed. Most Americans will think that you're some sort of conspiracy theorist :(
And by the way, US tobacco manufacturers also managed to addict most of Southeast Asia. I highly recommend Drugs and Rights by Douglas N. Husak (Rutgers, 1992).[0]
Economic history has less incentive to lie and it's hard to retroactively change 100 years of accounting/trade history to maintain a fake national narrative.
Remember in international trade, atleast 3 seperate entities end up with copies of every transaction (buyer/seller/shipper).
If co-relation isnt causation then you can say the same about becoming an open market too right? Also, there is a difference between government ownership of enterprises, private but domestic ownership and foreign ownership. China has tried to ensure that important businesses are owned domestically.
China requires non-Chinese auto manufacturers to buy Chinese batteries for their EVs, but Chinese auto manufacturers are free to buy superior Korean batteries for their vehicles. Make someone else bootstrap your industries. It's smart economic policy.
Indeed, batteries are not included in list of components that can be imported duty free to bonded customs zones, as they don't qualify for being "electronic components."
But the situation is the same for all bulk commodities that have to be locally sourced. That is dictated by the initial purpose of free customs zones: give concessions on high value components, but for whatever Chinese industry was good at manufacturing back in nineties, give none.
The companies wanting to make EVs, are completely free to establish companies outside of free customs zones if they don't want to pay double duty.
Theres a whole book about it that makes the claim that development is impossible without state intervention - how asia works. The anecdetoal evidence there is rather compelling.
I want to note that in Canada a lot of government data storage is required by law to be on Canadian soil. From what I understand this is to help mitigate a foreign actor from accessing your data (eg: a search warrant in the US could pull up photos of me from my Google Drive account).
I can’t speak for what it’s like in India though, and I can understand how having data locally can be an avenue for corruption like you say.
Right now if the government wants some information from Facebook they have to go through a whole process... if the info is duplicated on a server hosted by a subsidiary in India, we don't have strong protections where you can just send a questioning policeman away by saying, "get a warrant."
In my view this is not just an 'India' thing, I'm kinda skeptical of the general anti-tech panic that's been brewing over the last couple years. I think the status quo is pretty good and don't want a bunch of government regulators from the US, Europe, China, India etc to be getting all up in Google's business telling them how to run Youtube.
We know the NSA sucks up a ton of internet traffic but what I'm referring to under the umbrella of tech debates is, for example, the wide availability of encryption (so random traffic cops can't unlock your phone), which is an ongoing debate in the US and also mentioned in this article about India.
So, we just default to all data being siphoned into the US so it has a monopoly on PII (personal identifiable information)...? Seriously, no way any asian country should trust foreign countries, that very recently invaded/enslaved them, with their data.
China, India, Russia, etc... all have domestic populations that need to flex their political muscle to achieve freedom in their respective countries, the west can't and won't save you unless there is big money involved (with that money will come foreign corruption)...
Protip: Solve your problems locally, and reap the economic benefit of building your own Indian/Chinese Google... it isn't rocket science and the exercise will be good for your people.
> In my view this is not just an 'India' thing, I'm kinda skeptical of the general anti-tech panic that's been brewing over the last couple years. I think the status quo is pretty good and don't want a bunch of government regulators from the US, Europe, China, India etc to be getting all up in Google's business telling them how to run Youtube.
Exactly.
And I'd also rather we have end-to-end encryption being commonly available so that no options, except perhaps normal cellular telephony, can be trivially tapped by governments.
Sure because fb, google knows how to protect your data ..eh ! I agree with your general view point but no one side is right here. Solution is complicated
it is about economy. India missed the opportunity to make money compare to China where there are lots of home grown company by forcing outside not to penetrate their market
They exported their best talent to innovate for other countries. The only way they can capture some of the wealth these innovations create is to force manufacturers to do it in country.
Strange that they see no value in creating and more in manufacturing.
They see the value, everyone does. They're just not able to execute because it's a country made up of a dozen little countries that all want their share and more.
To do the kind of manufacturing and industrialization China did in the time it did, you need a top down organization that does whatever is needed without having to waste time with people's "rights".
True, people in the west expect every country is ready for free markets and freedom of speech from the get go...nope.
Requires a certain level of development before freedom should be introduced. Especially post colonization, where colonial corruption agents are not fully removed from power in the systems in place.
In modern competitive markets, regaining economic dominance (without the sword) will take time, yes.
Can't actively attack people for 150 years+ (Chinese, see Imperial Cruise, Secret Japan Treaty of 1905) and expect them to, through peaceful means, dig themselves out in less than the time the attack was sustained.
I'm sure many in the west are ready to move on but usually the criminal doesnt decide when it's time to move on, the victim does.
None of the countries you mention sustained a multi-century attack by foreign powers... most endured less than a decade of attacks due to either being an ally/ or racially similar (lets not forget how racist we Europeans were, gladly many have reformed).
Also China is passing/will pass USA (and the world) in most important economic metrics this decade. So, some of your wishes are actively being answered in reality.
USA shouldn't blame itself for being passed though, can't hold down a multi-millenia spanning superpower for long, the Chinese people are resilient (and they have a lot of proof of work). Just hope Trump doesn't destroy what could be a great peaceful freindship between nations.
India hasn't missed anything, India rising is just beginning.
Training abroad and repatraiting talent is quite common sense in the grand scheme of things.
I am from India. I just got my I140 (for green card) approved and got 3 year extension for my h1b that is valid till half of 2021. I am going back next month. I don't want to spent the next 50-150 years being an h1b slave.
> As an Indian I'm not sure I endorse all this as 'anti-colonialism'. This is a bunch of government bureaucrats who want e.g. data to be stored in the country so they can access personal info more easily...
As someone who's also Indian, and also remembers Indian pre-colonial and colonial history, I'm entirely on board with taking active measures to ensure we don't repeat the past.
Yes, all governments have an incentive to spy on their citizens - just look at Australia or the US or the UK. But India has very legitimate reasons to oppose foreign control of its technological infrastructure. And unlike those other countries, India has also established a right to privacy.
Same here. As another Indian who wants India to be self sustaining, its high time we start focusing on creating a organic growth environment for Indian companies.
I probably have a minority opinion here, but I think countries should as much as possible have their own tech stacks. There are many ways to do this: home grown web platforms, customized versions of Chromebooks, open source software, etc.
To me one of the pleasures of the world is different cultures, ethnicities, food, local politics, etc. I don’t want a “homogenized world” in which everything seems the same in different countries.
While I can relate to the desire to visit exotic parts of the world (or digital space), the important consideration is well being of the people who live there.
Of course homogeneity is not what we want, and not just because it's boring for visitors. But, I don't think that encouraging people in a different country/region/community (especially a smaller one) to roll their own tools is helpful either. There is so much work involved in creating and maintaining all this stuff - and the resources required are often in short supply. It seems much better if we can all leverage off each other to make better things, to be shared with the wider community.
I think the issue is more about preserving the right amount of local control over tech used locally, rather than building that tech locally from local tools.
Completely agree with this. For some reason there's some knee-jerk reaction to digital independence. I feel like having centralized services like Google and Facebook has managed to to remove a lot of the cultural experience when looking up things in various European countries.
In the beginning it quotes a railway official saying enough of foreign influence. The Indian railways on the other hand is working closely with Google to deliver free wifi in nearly 400 stations. Google has even formed a susidiary to do this - Google Station.
There may be data protection and privacy requirements which come in - but that is not about colonization. A lot of the awareness on privacy is coming as more and more Indians come in touch with the internet and start wrestling with these issues. More importantly, it is the widespread use of Aadhar, a biometric unique identification system by the government which has also triggered the supreme court to look at data privacy issues. Surely a journalist worth their salt would mention this.
Rather than any push back against tech colonization, i would argue that what we are seeing is a greater awareness on the part of government and citizens about the need for data privacy, as well as concern around misuse of social media. And it will extend to local and global players, obviously.
It's true that India wants to build its own surveillance state. Every rational great power wannabe will want to do so, just as every great power wannabe has wanted a nuclear arsenal. Seems like table stakes in that rat race. And who can blame anyone for doing so - it would be stupid to let data with security implications to go through American companies with a potential backdoor after Snowden and Wikileaks, just as it would be stupid to be caught without nuclear weapons after Iraq and North Korea.
I am not as worried about the ease with which Indian citizen's privacy will be violated if these laws pass - systems such as Aadhar are far greater threats to our privacy and those come with the full force of the law and have support from every government in power, whether NDA or UPA or some third alliance. Plus, I would want foreign companies collecting data about Indian citizens to be accountable to the Indian public. The Bhopal tragedy is a good example of what happens when a foreign company isn't accountable to Indians in any manner whatsoever.
Of course, one might doubt whether Indian efforts to secure our data will withstand NSA or Chinese efforts to crack them, but we won't know until we try!
China has a tech industry that is on par with Silicon Valley. India doesn't.
They are on the right track, America is going off the deep end and can no longer be relied upon as a trustworthy and sane ally. The EU is desperately trying to get away from that sinking ship but you can't undo 70 years of geopolitical and economic reality easily.
> .. trying to establish strong data protections ... as Europe did, while giving the government the right to obtain private information as it sees fit...
Data protections like the EU did may sound good. But it took the EU years to develop the framework, another 4 years before into effect, and even more time before it's fully adopted.
India doesn't exactly have a record for graceful administration (thinking of the currency debacle). And if you do this with less elegance than what the EU did.. you risk creating a huge (expensive) mess..
Tech platforms bring a lot of value. By enabling commerce and many local enterprises. Trying to move too fast could have very bad consequences. Even the slow stuff the EU did, was somewhat of a mess..
And then let's not even get started on the mess access to private information without a warrant would bring..
I hope they move slow make something with less negative side effects than what the EU did. Then this could be good.
Misleading article, there are local startups everywhere. But no one in India is going to get rid of google, twitter , instagram , whatsapp or facebook, not simply because there are no alternatives but also because, we are living in a winners take all economy. Amazon is a fast growing ecommerce giant in India, infact India is their fastest growing market so much so that Amazon gives its Amazon prime service for as low as $20 per yr.
The Indian government has a long and well documented track record of cluelessly attempting to censor and regulate the global internet, to serve domestic special interests and religious fundamentalists and right wingers.
This whole thing is such a phenomenally stupid idea in nearly every way. Foreign companies have had longer to develop and are superior in nearly every single way. Why supress them? The data protection laws are a good idea, though I suspect corruption and surveillance, which the Indian gov wants to keep, will largely nullify any and all benefits of such laws.
Because they don't answer to the country's government.
US-based internet companies answer to the US government only. This is an implication of nearly every site's terms of service. For example, Y Combinator's says you can't post illegal stuff and even mentions the US directly. The implication is "don't get us in trouble here in the US -- we couldn't care less what's legal or illegal in your country." Not very respectful of their sovereignty.
Obviously, indian authorities hold nearly zero power over these companies. They can't enforce indian laws on US citizens. It's not like they can show up at their doorstep and arrest people for failing to comply with a court order or something. Their only law enforcement weapon is to block the site, preventing them from reaching indians at all. That's why having local alternatives is extremely valuable.
"Colonization" is a heavily loaded word and it's frankly, immature from NYT to use it. Data Protection Regulations (in the same vein as GDPR) are a good thing for consumers.
As someone who is concerned about user and data privacy, I like these developments. What's anti-colonial about it other than just a catchy headline?
So when India wants to limit the ability of foreign companies to undercut local prices, it's a good thing. When America wants to do the same we're suddenly the bad guys...
It didn't, it was more of a poke at New York Times. They have harsh language for any form of US protectionism whatsoever (some of their arguments are certainly justified mind you), but not a peep when talking about India.
Its a good point, if you overlook the fact that the British destroying the Indian & Chinese economy (through war/invasion) created a vacuum for the US economy (British colony at the time) to flourish.
So the US closing up trade at this point is immoral from a historical perspective and shows an obscene level of hypocrisy when compared to what it has promoted for the 50+ years post WW2.
Never forget India was #1 in world GDP (for more than 1000 years) pre-invasion.
> Its a good point, if you overlook the fact that the British destroying the Indian & Chinese economy (through war/invasion) created a vacuum for the US economy (British colony at the time) to flourish.
You're making some sort of moral argument, but the argument against protectionism isn't moral. Protectionism is stupid from an economic perspective, no matter if India or the U.S. does it. If there's a moral argument to be made, it's against protectionism: It denies citizens to partake in free trade and therefore makes them poorer.
What's in it for India if everyone has to use the (inevitably crappier) Indian version of Google, Facebook or Amazon? It's not like anybody outside of India is going to want to use that stuff, so it doesn't bring in foreign capital. It'll just reallocate local tech talent to a domestic market that is less profitable than the international market. It makes no sense.
That's exactly why people need to bring in emotions and hot words like "colonialism": To make a psychologically powerful (but irrational) case. It might just work.
> Never forget India was #1 in world GDP (for more than 1000 years) pre-invasion.
I'd be skeptical about estimates on GDP dating to 1000 A.D., but if there's anything to learn here it's that you should probably spend some of that GDP on defense, lest you get invaded by tiny-old Britain.
>"Its a good point, if you overlook the fact that the British destroying the Indian & Chinese economy"
I only mentioned Britain because I followed it by compounding China and India.
If we are only talking China specifically, it was invaded by a mixture of 8 nations simulataneously (multiple times), including British, Americans, French, Germans, Russians and the Japanese in just the 19th century (see Opium wars through Boxer Rebellion).
There is a difference between US and India,
US attracts many people with its free culture, so many people in US were from various places.
In case of India, their population is of their own.
> “As a country, we have to all grow up and say that, you know, enough of this,” Vinit Goenka, a railways official who works on technology policy for India’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party, said at a conference last week.
So did India had already fixed it's railroads and now is taking on the internet?
I also see Indian government recently requested British government for soft reparations.
i.e., to identify the fact that British have completely exploited India in terms of their finance.
They also said, when British ruled India, they killed nearly millions of people on purpose and their exploitation of Indian work-force.
This is also raising an awareness among some of Indian population.
They were in plan of rewriting their history books, about their world's first University, astrology mathematics, Vedic sciences, medical sciences ...
The list goes on.
Obviously India contributing more than 27% of GDP for more than thousand years and there achievements in mathematics,
Number system, trigonometry,calculus, algebra and Invention of surgery...
There open-trade system, and being a free culture, they used to have places for debate, and everybody can worship which ever God they want, if one doesn't like any God, you can create one and pray.
There used to be a lot of competition for admissions to Indian universities from all over the world.
And ofcourse yoga, mediation, home for Hinduism, Buddhism,...
> They were in plan of rewriting their history books, about their world's first University, astrology mathematics, Vedic sciences, medical sciences ... The list goes on.
That seems to be to much, but what I have pointed out was mostly facts.
Indeed one can dig up the Greek ancient writings where they write, too much of gold is being sent to India because of their fine textiles.
Let's talk of basic common sense, when people colombus discovered (if they consider it that way), America he called the native people as red-Indians, it's not that colombus was searching for America, but he indeed sailed to find India.
Disclaimer: I'm a catholic by birth and so was I'm right now.
But what i consider Mahabharat, is a collection of stories teaching people how should one behave in life.
I don't remember the exact name of the character, but their is a person who thinks one should be good to everyone but later he realises one needs to fight and defend others when somebody is taking advantage of one's goodness.
That's what they call as Dharma.
This is the main point. The main reason the government wants data to be stored locally and is also looking at controlling companies is for surveillance. But unlike China, not all platforms have Indian created equivalents. Fortunately for the citizens of India, regardless of the state of surveillance in the U.S., the U.S. companies do fight a lot more against these controlling measures than any Indian born company ever would. Indian companies like Reliance Jio, which considers "data as the new oil" (the parent company, Reliance, was built on crude oil), and many others have had a thirst for more data for sometime now. [Incidentally, the logo of "Jio" is a mirror image of "Oil" in a certain font]
> “There is a strong feeling in many quarters that the reason that India has not been able to develop a Tencent or Baidu or Alibaba is because we have not been nuanced in our policies.”
This sounds kind of naïve. It's not because of data related policies that these haven't happened.
> "Officials were furious after the Cambridge Analytica scandal this year revealed that Facebook had shared private information on 87 million users, including 560,000 Indians, with a political consulting firm that had sought to influence Indian elections."
This is ironical, because the governments (both central and state governments) didn't even acknowledge issues or took responsibility or made a statement that data leaks from their own sites would be dealt with seriously. Their game is like this — "if we leak data, then it's not an issue, but if someone else is, then we will be outraged". It's just pseudo-nationalistic sentiment that the current central government has been fostering. A search for "Aadhaar data leaks" will show many such instances and the lack of a decent response from the governments.
> "They also warned that India has fewer legal protections than the United States against government searches and data requests, so private data stored in the country could more easily end up in the hands of the police."
This is very true. The central government has shown that it has very little interest in getting a good privacy law in place. The one recently released publicly has so many issues that concerned citizens have started https://saveourprivacy.in/ . Please share this site with every Indian citizen you know.
As an Indian citizen, my only hope is that foreign tech companies resist the crippling moves by the executive. The courts move very slowly, but they're the (mostly) dependable arm here.