3 ms·

Demonetizing the most widely-circulated banknotes and now 'no consent required' by the government to get fingerprints. So much for the world's largest democracy

• the_common_man 9y ago
  Why bring Demonetization into this? That was an excellent move by the govt. Sure, the implementation could have been better but there is no change in this world that has not caused pain to the citizen. Maybe you can enlighten me of some radical changes which were super smooth and caused no trouble to anyone?
  • chdir 9y ago
    > That was an excellent move by the govt The jury is still out on this one. Any hard proof or statistics that say otherwise ? Wish there was more transparency.
    • manquer 9y ago
      I don't know what macro economic impact it had. Pretty much all the currency came back through the various loop holes in the rules. The liquidity crunch continues to create lot of problems to majority of the country who do not have access to banking and financial services. Nobody really knows the cost of all this and all for what? I still see unaccounted money floating every day and nothing seems to have actually changed
  • hd4 9y ago
    Because we programmers tend to pick up on patterns forming. Once the Indian government sets a trend of repressive anti-citizen behavior, then we can trace it back to the earliest steps in this direction and maybe come up with a solution after understanding the cause.
  • devnonymous 9y ago
    > That was an excellent move by the govt Pray tell what exactly was achieved by demonitisation?
• mankash666 9y ago
  How is this supposed to be undemocratic? The prime minister is still polling very high and his party had emphatic victories in recent state elections. This is what democracy looks like - the enforcement of the will of the majority. The case is on whether this democratic law is constitutional. They're backing a social security number with biometrics, and for that to be implemented, people will need to consent.
  • hd4 9y ago
    I didn't say it was undemocratic. But it is a sign of a government going down a path of no longer putting the interests of the citizens first. And we have many lessons from the past about governments who don't mind curtailing the liberty of people, all for the sake of security.
  • sfRattan 9y ago
    Democracy has become an empty word. It never reflected modern systems of government (neither those that come close to respect for individual liberties nor those that do not) and its adjective form democratic really only refers to the processes of appointing leadership. A better word for the sort of thing happening here in America and (it would seem) in India might be anti-liberal, but then that word has political baggage of its own in the United States, and a similarly distorted meaning. Perhaps 'illiberal-democracy,' as a liberal democracy implies a republic with at least semi-democratic election to leadership underpinned by a lowest common denominator of shared values: peace as an ideal, individual liberty, some property rights, and an amount of cultural openness or tolerance. In the United States, we've seen Trump rise in the wake of two waves of Republican success in the low turnout midterms of 2010 and 2014 and after even earlier stratagems to control State governments and thereby all the redistricting following the 2010 census (to jam a proverbial foot in the door of every valuable Congressional election until 2020). All very Late-Roman-Republic maneuvering and none of it 'democratic.' Of course, if we had a more directly democratic system things would likely have been even uglier, independent of who came out on top. When 51% of people get their hands on the power tap, they like how it feels, and not in a good way for the other 49%. Though, I suspect from your comment you might agree. Feel free to snark at me if I'm wrong. > This is what democracy looks like - the enforcement of the will of the majority. Change 'will' to 'whims' and we're on pretty much the same page. Though what's happening in India sounds more like the gradual march of bureaucracy and its exploitation by interested parties rather than a will or even whim of the majority of voters.
• sremani 9y ago
  Indian Democracy has its similarities and differences from (classical)liberal democracies, which are themselves are rarity in the West. The Central government in India is weak, Modi is trying to accumulate power and steps like these concentrate more power to Center than States. Mostly to kick in economic reforms among other things, and with great confidence I can tell, it will fail. Having said, that an imperfect democracy is acceptable over some idealistic vapor-cracy. There is room for improvement, heck yeah, but delivering Democracy to 1.2 billion people even in its crude form is not a small feat.
  • manquer 9y ago
    With culture as diverse as India , Central government is be weak by design. The current government does not represent all the different people in the country. For example the current ruling party has never won even the smallest of representation in any election in the history of my state and for good reason Both BJP and Congress have Delhi centric view points and in the case BJP strong communal tones as well. If the state powers are not strong then who will represent people like me? Yeah democracy is not easy to deliver to a country like ours, but we already had it in good measure and now we are loosing it piece by piece .
• addicted 9y ago
  The arguments are sound. If we did have an absolute right, then suicides and late stage abortions would be legal. So the question isn't whether citizens have an absolute right. Because that's already been decided. The question is where do you draw the line. Personally, I do think we should have an absolute right (therefore I'm in favor of late stage abortions and suicide). But clearly others, and the law, think differently.