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

81–90 of 126 posts

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#81

Post by alephnerd »

hef19898 wrote: post #77
dumty37 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Print tends to lean more AAP or Shanta Kumar style BJP than Modi style BJP, Congress, etc. This is a reflection of politics and biases in the Delhi/Haryana/Punjab/HP/JK/Ladakh/Uttarakhand region in general.

There are different political dynamics there than - say - in Purvanchal/Bihar, Kutch/Western Rajasthan, Eastern Jharkhand/Western West Bengal, etc. My hunch is most Indian posters on here are probably going to be techie posters who grew up in ethnolinguistically mixed (mix of Indo-European and Dravidian speakers) Southern India cities like Bangalore or Hyderabad.

Also, both the posters you are responding to are trolls. Please don't feed 'em!

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#82

Post by valarauko »

portpecos wrote: post #72
valarauko wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, though the UPA was still short of even a simple majority in the Lok Sabha, and was held up by outside support from the Left Front. The BJP's simple majority in the Lok Sabha from 2013 onwards is the first time any single party has held a majority since the 80s.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#83

Post by portpecos »

valarauko wrote: post #73
HaloZero wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1984: Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (77%)

1980: Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (65%)

1977: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (56%)

1971: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a super majority (68%)

1967: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (55%)

1962: Nehru's Congress Party at 73%

1957: Nehru's Congress Party at 75%

1952: Nehru's Congress Party at 74%

If the complaint is, "Supermajorities aren't a Democracy", then it must be agreed upon that India hasn't been been a Democracy under the Congress Party for 32 years out of the 75 years of independence.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#84

Post by alephnerd »

hef19898 wrote: post #75
himalayan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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

Kinda. A lot of Indian internet commentators tend to resort to antisemitic tropes without realizing the implications, due to a lack of awareness and a bit of cargo culting American political discourse on reddit or 4chan.

There is a regional bias to all of this discourse of course and it could be an upper level social sciences course unto itself.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#85

Post by valarauko »

portpecos wrote: post #76
valarauko wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 for…

Makes sense that it's the system we inherited. For what it's worth, I'd rather have my representatives voice dissent loudly rather than compliance. I wish that dissent was channelled productively rather than show for the TV cameras, but alas, that's what we've got. I do think it's a superior system to the two party US system, especially for such a large and diverse nation like India. It desperately needs reform, though.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#86

Post by valarauko »

portpecos wrote: post #83
valarauko wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1984: Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (77%) 1980: Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (65%) 1977: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (56%) 1971: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a super majority (68%) 1967: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (55%) 1962: Nehru's Congress Party at 73% 1957: Nehru's Congress Party at 75% 1952: Nehru's Congress Party at 74% If th…

> If the complaint is, "Supermajorities aren't a Democracy"

Is anybody actually saying that? For what its worth, I do think super majorities are corrosive long term for the multiparty Westminster style parliamentary systems. There is little incentive for compromise building or genuine debate on bills. It might even work if political parties had visible internal debate and discussion, and we can largely agree that this is not a thing in Indian political parties.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#87

Post by [deleted] »

valarauko wrote: post #61
portpecos wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also need clarification on what he means by Modi bypassing parliament to pass his own bills. That’s not how a parliamentary system works. Imagine Tony Blair bypassing the House of Lords and the House of Commons to pass his own bill. Or Obama bypassing the Senate and House of Representatives to pass his own bill. It’s a very strange claim to me.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#88

Post by neeleshs »

valarauko wrote: post #86
portpecos wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1984: Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (77%) 1980: Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (65%) 1977: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (56%) 1971: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a super majority (68%) 1967: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (55%) 1962: Nehru's Congress Party at 73% 1957: Nehru's Congress Party at 75% 1952: Nehru's Congress Party at 74% If th…

> If the complaint is, "Supermajorities aren't a Democracy" Is anybody actually saying that? For what its worth, I do think super majorities are corrosive long term for the multiparty Westminster style parliamentary systems. There is little incentive for compromise building or genuine debate on bills. It might even work if political parties had visible internal debate and discussion, and we can largely agree that thi…

>>Also Modi has the distinction of passing maximum bills without debate and bypassing the state senate altogether

I think this comment can be interpreted that way to some extent. Reads like one person has the power to bypass an entire legislative house. That's not the reality though.

I do agree with you that having supermajority for a long time is not a good thing. Unfortunately for India, that's how it has been historically (Congress for long periods of time and now it looks like BJP)

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#89

Post by dhruval »

valarauko wrote: post #86
portpecos wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1984: Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (77%) 1980: Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party got a super majority (65%) 1977: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (56%) 1971: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a super majority (68%) 1967: Indira Gandhi's Congress Party got a majority (55%) 1962: Nehru's Congress Party at 73% 1957: Nehru's Congress Party at 75% 1952: Nehru's Congress Party at 74% If th…

> If the complaint is, "Supermajorities aren't a Democracy" Is anybody actually saying that? For what its worth, I do think super majorities are corrosive long term for the multiparty Westminster style parliamentary systems. There is little incentive for compromise building or genuine debate on bills. It might even work if political parties had visible internal debate and discussion, and we can largely agree that thi…

The original claim was that the senate was bypassed (non-democratic).

A majority in the Senate is democratic if democratically elected etc.

Whereas increasing the power of the executive as is the trend in the USA by bypassing the house / Senate is corrosive to democracy in my view.

Re: Indian government withdraws Personal Data Protection Bill

#90

Post by randomperson_24 »

oaiey wrote: post #28

I do not understand why legislator of a non-US country is not instantly copying GDPR. It has solid spread already and the rules are adequately balancing customers, law and company interests (yes, that does not look like but hey, advertisement is still possible). International collaboration is much easier like that. GDPR has this very fancy article saying: This all applies, except a law says otherwise. As a government…

India doesn't have enough purchasing power to convince big tech companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) to store the data of Indian residents in India. Also, there are not many local tech monoliths with consumer apps to fall back on (like China had).

Since India depends heavily on apps & services by big tech, I doubt such requirements like GDPR has would be enforced. Although the right to ask a website to delete all information about one and so on are quite good and could work.

Post reply on HN