Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

accessnow.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#71

Post by valarauko »

portpecos wrote: post #67
valarauko wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not GGP, but I assume they mean that bills were passed through parliament without any real debate or amendments, since the governing party holds a super majority.

The UK has done the same when having a party majority in the House of Lords and House of Commons. In the US things are different. Even if there is a party majority in the Senate and House, the Filibuster is powerful enough to table the party majority’s bills.

Unfortunately, the way things proceed in India tend to be more crass - where the opposition often tries to physically prevent the tabling of controversial bills. We've had occasions where members grabbed papers off the Speaker's desk, and members routinely try to block proceedings by entering the well of the House and sloganeering. This leads to the Speaker adjourning the session and/or the opposition staging a walkout during the actual vote. It's not uncommon to see parliamentary sessions with only the treasury benches full for the vote.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#72

Post by portpecos »

valarauko wrote: post #63
woweoe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India does not have a single party majority either but an alliance majority

The BJP by itself has a simple majority in the Lok Sabha, and makes up over 87% of the NDA's members in the Lok Sabha.

In 2009, Congress Party made up 78% of the UPA's members in the Lok Sabha.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#73

Post by valarauko »

HaloZero wrote: post #70
valarauko wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not GGP, but I assume they mean that bills were passed through parliament without any real debate or amendments, since the governing party holds a super majority.

I thought Modi's party only had a super majority in the lower house though, don't they need both houses?

The party holds a simple majority (~ 55%) in the Lower House, while the alliance holds a near super majority (~ 63%) - the Indian system holds a super majority at 2/3rds of each house present and voting, not the total membership of the house.

The alliance does not hold the upper house, though they have a near simple majority.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#74

Post by naruvimama »

krageon wrote: post #34
kobiguru wrote: post #15

In case you are serious about understanding why it was pulled out and really care about the details for such an action, I highly recommend you check the Joint Committee on the Personal Data Protection report [1] the Press Release section where they released the 534 pages report on it. Gist of it is - the committee recommended major changes across the board in all sections of the act so the IT Ministry would rework th…

"It is a democracy" doesn't mean that it isn't also a frequently irrational cesspit. That doesn't necessarily mean it's any worse than at least two other superpowers, but it does mean it's not good. It's not due to the NYTimes coverage that the country seems the way it does, it's the exported culture (i.e. it is the face of IT-related international crime) and the types of incidents that can be found there (closing of…

No post body was provided.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#75

Post by hef19898 »

himalayan wrote: post #51
alephnerd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India is a diverse country with diversity within both the federal level and the state level. I have listed a subset of sources I and friends of mine from Indian policy backgrounds (IAS, IPS, MHA, etc) tended to trust. This is not a complete list, and shows my own regional biases. Feel free to AMA me or discuss additional recommendations in this thread. I don't get much of an opportunity to discuss Social Sciences sin…

Quoted post unavailable.

So, the anti-semite anti-Soros propaganda has reached India now?

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#76

Post by portpecos »

valarauko wrote: post #71
portpecos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has done the same when having a party majority in the House of Lords and House of Commons. In the US things are different. Even if there is a party majority in the Senate and House, the Filibuster is powerful enough to table the party majority’s bills.

Unfortunately, the way things proceed in India tend to be more crass - where the opposition often tries to physically prevent the tabling of controversial bills. We've had occasions where members grabbed papers off the Speaker's desk, and members routinely try to block proceedings by entering the well of the House and sloganeering. This leads to the Speaker adjourning the session and/or the opposition staging a walko…

Maybe India takes inspiration from her colonizers?

"How did the British Parliament become a place where the person speaking is constantly interrupted while the US Congress is one where the audience is quiet?"

Answer: "It didn’t become such a place, it always was such a place. It started life as a collection of people sent by various towns to meet the King to petition him for some action or other. It was a totally formless group of individuals admitted to the King’s larger meeting hall when and if the King permitted. As such they would shout over each other in the attempt to get the King’s attention. Over the centuries it became more formalised and more structured, and a modicum of order imposed. But it has always had the character of a rowdy everybody against everybody discussion rather than an academic debate.

Famous Parliamentarians, particularly Winston Churchill, have enjoyed it being so and encouraged it. The width of the gangway is still two swords lengths, so they cannot engage swords across it, and the cloak rooms outside still have ribbons intended for you to hang your sword before entering the chamber. Parliament values its traditions of being a barely orderly town meeting."

I don't know how accurate that answer is, but it was the top comment in quora. Other sites show similar answers.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#77

Post by hef19898 »

dumty37 wrote: post #52
alephnerd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India is a diverse country with diversity within both the federal level and the state level. I have listed a subset of sources I and friends of mine from Indian policy backgrounds (IAS, IPS, MHA, etc) tended to trust. This is not a complete list, and shows my own regional biases. Feel free to AMA me or discuss additional recommendations in this thread. I don't get much of an opportunity to discuss Social Sciences sin…

Quoted post unavailable.

So, the right leaning newspapaer? I think OPs list pretty well ballanced and great source for non-Indians to learn about politics in India.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#78

Post by ridiculous_leke »

darth_avocado wrote: post #68
blueblisters wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A majority in a parliamentary system still allows some room for debate and dissent since MPs are, in principle, representatives of their constituency and not of the party. However, in India, it is illegal for an MP to vote against the party line - that is grounds for their disqualification - due to the anti-defection law. Any debate is pure theatrics at this point and the party leadership is free to pass any law they…

> in India, it is illegal for an MP to vote against the party line That is not true at all. Anti-defection law is applied when elected officials run on a party and once elected decide to change their party affiliation. Not for individual bills.

It's not illegal. But that ensures their eviction from the party and can potentially destroy their political career.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#79

Post by ridiculous_leke »

TheArcane wrote: post #41
anuraj wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that is true on rhetoric - on practice it is not. While 60% of bills went through parliamentary scrutiny prior to 2014 - the number today is just above 10%. Also Modi has the distinction of passing maximum bills without debate and bypassing the state senate altogether.

A sad consequence of one political party having a majority in the parliament. Modi supporters tout it as a harbinger of efficiency bill passing when in reality it's just eroded democracy.

How did it erode democracy?

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#80

Post by valarauko »

darth_avocado wrote: post #68
blueblisters wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A majority in a parliamentary system still allows some room for debate and dissent since MPs are, in principle, representatives of their constituency and not of the party. However, in India, it is illegal for an MP to vote against the party line - that is grounds for their disqualification - due to the anti-defection law. Any debate is pure theatrics at this point and the party leadership is free to pass any law they…

> in India, it is illegal for an MP to vote against the party line That is not true at all. Anti-defection law is applied when elected officials run on a party and once elected decide to change their party affiliation. Not for individual bills.

The Anti-Defection Law can very much be applied if a legislator votes against a party whip, even for a bill. There are calls to limit its applicability only to votes on the government, but that is currently not the case.

Quoting from PRSIndia [1]:

Does the anti-defection law affect the ability of legislators to make decisions?

The anti-defection law seeks to provide a stable government by ensuring the legislators do not switch sides. However, this law also restricts a legislator from voting in line with his conscience, judgement and interests of his electorate. Such a situation impedes the oversight function of the legislature over the government, by ensuring that members vote based on the decisions taken by the party leadership, and not what their constituents would like them to vote for.

Political parties issue a direction to MPs on how to vote on most issues, irrespective of the nature of the issue. Several experts have suggested that the law should be valid only for those votes that determine the stability of the government (passage of the annual budget or no-confidence motions).

[1]: [The Anti-Defection Law Explained](https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/the-anti-defection-law-expla...)

Post reply on HN