> In India, the Judiciary has primacy over legislative.
You should read the Constitution before making random statements like these. The Parliament is supreme because every part of the Supreme Court (size, age of the judges etc) is in the hands of Parliament.
Unfortunately, like most countries including the United States, politicians prefer to use the Supreme Court to tackle knotty political issues. So, from the outside, it looks as if these courts are all powerful. Till someone proves that they are not. Like Indira Gandhi did during the Emergency.
The US has Marbury v. Madison. We have the Basic Structure Doctrine. The SCI invented a "Collegium" in the same way that they did the BSD. I am not going to go into whether these things are good or bad.
If the President asked the judges to go pound sand, there is nothing can can do about it except hold a press conference.
I consider the striking down of the NJAC to be illegitimate. If the government of the day had a backbone, every single judge would have been impeached.
> You should read the Constitution before making random statements like these
The NJAC ruling still stands in 2024 and that set the precedent for judicial primacy in India.
Until a constitutional amendment gets passed that legislates a direct path forward, it will stand.
> The US has Marbury v. Madison
And India has SCAORA v. UOI 2014 which is functionally the same.
> BSD
BSD is functionally the same as the American constitution and Bill of Rights.
> If the President asked the judges to go pound sand, there is nothing can can do about it except hold a press conference
The President in the US is the executive, not the legislative branch.
> every part of the Supreme Court (size, age of the judges etc) is in the hands of Parliament
This is the same in the US, but for customary reasons Congress has not touched this can of worms.
The same showdown Modi and the Collegium had over NJAC is very similar to the showdown FDR and the Supreme Court had over the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.
Modi ended up in the same position and the exact same kind of loss like FDR did in 1937.
Under the new tax regime, individual income up to ₹750,000 is tax free due to a combination of standard deduction and 87A.
Given that many small businesses often accept UPI payments in multiple names (husband, wife, mother etc), a small family can actually manage ₹1,500,000-3,000,000 in (legitimate) tax free income.
> “Because despite everyone’s best efforts, sometimes the food spills into the delivery boxes. In those cases, the smell of the previous order travels to the next order and may lead to the next order smelling of the previous order,” Goyal reasoned. “For this reason, we had to separate the fleet for veg orders.”
Would dog-lovers take umbrage if their food orders are delivered from the same bag that also contains dog-meat? Would Jews and Muslims do that if their package was drenched with juices from an order for pork? The answer is obvious. When it comes to Hindus and Jains however, the argument is that their sentiments should not be respected because of "caste" or "purity."
However, I think that shelving the separate uniform colors idea is a good thing. In parts of the country, riders in green uniforms would be prime targets for hooligans of the jihadi-left variety.
> The most obvious result of this scheme is that individual voters in small-population states tend to have more power in choosing the President than individual voters in high-population states, and that difference can skew an election.
The Indian Left:[1]
> enlarging the numbers of lawmakers in relation to population growth in a way penalizes those states that have achieved more in terms of slowing down their demographic growth
Completely inconsistent, self-serving arguments which basically want to change the electoral system because their side is losing.
Not only is this an obvious self-serving attempt to guarantee electoral victory, it argues backwards, managing to make historical demographic facts "racist" in and of themselves. It is also a naked attempt to increase the already top-heavy influence of a few cities over the national political scene, which would effectively disenfranchise voters in a majority of states.
When your accusations of hypocrisy are just picking two random writers who have no connection, attributing them tk two different broad diverse groups that each containing many and different viewpoints and are largely unconnected, and then arguing as if these two broad diverse groups are like a single hive mind that should have one consistent viewpoint... maybe instead of doing a hypocrisy based ad hominem against an entity you’ve invented for the purpose you should just either discuss the actual issue?
You know just as well as I do that these positions are not those of two random writers, but that of the ideological Left in each country.[1][2][3] I have seen these discussed at length on tv, youtube and in print in both countries.
I like this comment, except the last 3 words. Not that I necessarily disagree, but it's not conducive to productive conversation (not to mention goes against HN's guidelines)
How is it surprising that the policies of two factions that have nothing to do with each other, who aren't even on the same continent, are potentially inconsistent with each other?
There is an anecdote that is often used in India about how the Parsis (Zoroastrians who escaped the Islamic conquest of Persia) came to India and assimilated into the society.
When a group of Parsis landed in Gujarat (Western India), the local chieftain posed a question to the leader of the group in the form of a glass of milk. The leader responded by adding a spoon of sugar to the glass and stirring the contents. The answer was found to be acceptable and the Parsis, the tiniest of the minorities, continue to live and prosper in India to this day.
Would they have managed this if the leader had smashed the glass, danced on the fragments, and then taken a hammer to the face of the principal deity at the local temple?
Immigration wiped out Native American tribes, and many other peoples, because the people who immigrated were different and were in no mood to assimilate. Europe is facing this kind of immigration, not the Parsis.
A father who wonders if his daughter will be stabbed in school today may not vocalize such sentiment, but when the time to cast a vote comes, that vote will go to Geert Wilders.
30,000 years worth of missing genetic immunity to essentially every disease imaginable wiped out native populations in the Americas and precipitated the collapse of civilizations there, actually.
That's irrelevant. The point of the story, if you missed it, is that Europeans were not interested in adopting the Native American way of life and assimilating.
Cortez didn't arrive in Mexico and swear loyalty to the local king, and adopt their religion
Another point of the story is that new populations are either going to assimilate (which could be great for the pre-existing population) or they aren’t going to assimilate (which could be pretty bad for the pre-existing population).
Cortes’s expedition of literal conquerors arrived by fighting for their lives the moment they met a state, let alone an empire.
Europe and its institutions failing to incorporate wildly conservative religious citizens has a lot more historicity than attributing “immigration” to the implication of native tribes in a post-apocalyptic pre-USA (it’s never Mexico or Peru) being culturally, physically, and biologically colonized.
Because wildly conservative religious people tend to abuse their religion to push their personal agenda. Hell you could say some candidates are pondering to them BECAUSE they know they are easily manipulated without upholding the core of their religion.
Calling the European conquest of the Americas 'immigration' is kind of like calling operation Barbarossa 'tourism'.
I also think the anecdote is kind of ridiculous. There was no India when the Parsis arrived. There was no India for a millennia after the Parsis arrived. The whole concept of assimilation to 'Indian culture' is even more ridiculous than it is to vastly more uniform (and vastly smaller) european cultures, because India, to its credit, is composed of hundreds of distinct cultures. Especially if you are going to backproject India (a country founded in 1947) to 700 ad.
>Especially if you are going to backproject India (a country founded in 1947) to 700 ad.
Ah, the idea that a nation couldn't possibly exist until it got modern statehood (as opposed to being "a country founded in 1947") or is just a perfectly homogeneous blob (as opposed to "composed of hundreds of distinct cultures".)
Sorry, but neither are requirements for there to have been an India - or China, or any other such examples, for millenia. They first is just the modern form of statehood that emerged after the era of nationalist.
India was a nation way before 1947 and before the brits got the fuck out. And I'd argue was also a country, just one under occupation, as opposed to a sovereign one with externally recognized statehood status.
So there's that.
And if "the European conquest of the Americas" isn't exactly immigration, the European settlements in the country we now call US were called and described as exactly that, of innocent "pilgrims" and "persecuted minorities" too. Still they didn't do the native "indian" populations any favor.
I don’t think non-assimilation is limited to people of just one specific religious background. To state the problem is X when factors such as education, household income and circumstances of migration likely have a much higher correlation seem to indicate a sweeping generalization.
>Europe is facing this kind of immigration, not the Parsis.
The US faced this about 200 years ago.
A bunch of dirty, disease-ridden, rapey, religious extremists started invading the US, fleeing from the hellhole country they came from and running amok in the US.
They threatened the very fabric of US society with their criminality and the insular nature of their culture which saw them clustering in tenements that were overrun by disease and crime.
Many, if not most, Americans considered the recently-freed slaves to be a nobler and harder working part of the human species and held their coin purses and daughters closely whenever an Irishman was spotted.
I grew up hearing this story (it's famous in India), but it's not applicable to the current immigration crisis in Europe / US.
For one thing, the Parsis were lobbying to be allowed in. Europe and US are in need of immigrants due to shrinking, aging populations as their populations stop having kids. Their economies require a working class that they need to import. So immigration bans aren't really an option. And because the immigrants have some leverage in this situation they don't have to lobby like the Parsis did.
In the other case: refugees. This is a policy Europe and the US (and by extension the rest of the world adopted due to their negligence in WWII and the need to resolve that conflict post-war. It's another situation where the immigrants / refugees have the leverage and do not need to lobby. The US and Europe could revoke this policy, but they will suffer in the world if they do.
In contrast, the Parsis and the king in whose kingdom they moved to did not have this backdrop, and there was no need to take them in nor any pre-accepted agreement to amend. Additionally imagine if the Parsis had, 3 or 4 centuries later become a "problem" population in India in spite of the story. It's not as if that story alone kept the entire community from ever committing crimes or otherwise changing the fabric of society. In that scenario, it would not be possible to then remove them once they have moved there for generations. The same thing is true in Europe and North America.
> When the BBC released a documentary ... authorities raided the broadcaster’s offices for allegedly evading taxes
"Allegedly."[1]
Western media has a basic competency/honesty problem when it comes to reporting on India. If you want to situate the October 7 terror attacks in Israel within a particular "context," maybe you should do the same when it comes to reporting on communal rioting in India.
The Hyprland guy argues like a free speech absolutist while Drew wants him to join the neo-religious cult of perpetual rage and victim-hood.
Genocide is a tactic. Like nuking, flooding, fire bombing cities. Or beheading people. Or setting them afire. Or punishing entire tribes/clans for the crimes of one individual.
Universal morality does not exist. Whether something is "right" or "wrong" depends on the context in which it is used.
> But it also means the most vulnerable in our society are actually able to buy things.
Forcing banks and digital wallet providers to provide users a prepaid card/digital balance in exchange for cash is a good alternative. This should be a part of the charter/license under which such organisations operate.
Well, the entire Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh was driven out of the region by Azerbaijan as the world watched in utter silence.
These things happen.
Morality and ethics are purely theoretical constructs that are meant to be used against your opponent in order to get them to back down. At least that is how they are normally employed in the real world.
You should read the Constitution before making random statements like these. The Parliament is supreme because every part of the Supreme Court (size, age of the judges etc) is in the hands of Parliament.
Unfortunately, like most countries including the United States, politicians prefer to use the Supreme Court to tackle knotty political issues. So, from the outside, it looks as if these courts are all powerful. Till someone proves that they are not. Like Indira Gandhi did during the Emergency.
The US has Marbury v. Madison. We have the Basic Structure Doctrine. The SCI invented a "Collegium" in the same way that they did the BSD. I am not going to go into whether these things are good or bad.
If the President asked the judges to go pound sand, there is nothing can can do about it except hold a press conference.
I consider the striking down of the NJAC to be illegitimate. If the government of the day had a backbone, every single judge would have been impeached.