India will ban duty-free import of flat-screen televisions from August 26

[technobhatt]

most of the people that usually whine about politicians dont even bother to go and vote.... you deserve the politician you dont select... most of the people that usually crib about infrastructure and other poor facilities, dont pay their taxes honestly, that is another kind of corruption...

Can't agree more!!
I read every single post in this thread. And glad to read so many intellectual thoughts here. I am no good to write such great thoughts here.
But I urge to each and every Indian here, we really wanna make a difference next year onwards.... Please go vote and educate your near ones to vote religiously in next year's LokSabha election.
The only thing I am proud about myself right now is... I had voted in last general elections and I didn't vote for these dynastic morons and their slaves and asslickers. I lost, but I tried to keep these looters away. At least I didn't go to malls to enjoy the election day holiday.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Putting things into perspective always help not losing focus. I am just rewording what you have written above in the below paragraphs.

It is imperative to understand that there was no "India" as we know it, during the time the British came in (however few they may be).

It was a scattered landmass ruled by small to medium sized competing rulers competing for resources and land.

In today's context, you can imagine each one as an autonomous country in itself to get the context right. So, there was no single country and actually nothing to divide.

Each country only safeguarded their own interest apparently. Add to that most of the neighboring countries were foes rather than friends apparently. An analogy in today's terms will be, If there is a third nation which were more powerful than India but certainly weaker than India, Pakistan and Srilanka combined were to wage a war on India, will the three countries unite and fight back? Such is the expectation when trying to comprehend the Indian rulers of the past uniting to fight the British (leaving out few obvious pockets of friendliness). In fact, a lot of them would have been happy to get rid of the neighbors.

The British really just made pacts with disconnected autonomous countries initially and finding it to easy took the next steps.

With this picture, it can be argued that the British actually unified India (when they left).

This is actually a picture portrayed in lots of history books outside India and if you think as a neutral person, It is not even far from truth.

If, today, you sit in the safe confines of a single nation and look back trying to rebuild the past, you will face parallax like what your post suggests or what the Indian history books would want you to believe.

Just my 2 cents..

You know a lot of about 300 years of British rule and what great service British did to India during that period. What you don't know is 5000 years of history of India before that time.

Let me give you some hint that will give you keywords for Google searches.

India was not called India, your beloved and worshiped British gave us that name. It was called Bharatvarsha. It was also referred as Aryavrat. Google these and your eyes will be wide open when you see how India actually used to be. Pay special attention to length and breadth of Indian boudaries during dynasties such as Pala, Gupta, Chola etc.

 

[BLASTO]

get over it man.... poms basically looted this country... unification was a by-product.... if they had not come, we would be rich and divided, like europe...

They looted, no questions. They just did not loot 'this country'. There is no 'this country' before 1947. There is nothing to get over.

We would not have been rich and divided like europe. We would have struggled to get independence from the Islamic rulers. Losing wealth to them in the process.. 1000s of possibilities.

I don't support them, just laying down the facts.

most of the people that usually whine about politicians dont even bother to go and vote.... you deserve the politician you dont select... most of the people that usually crib about infrastructure and other poor facilities, dont pay their taxes honestly, that is another kind of corruption...

Corruption is in every household unfortunately. Service people IMO pay tax only due to compulsion and even cut corners where possible.

 

[BLASTO]

You know a lot of about 300 years of British rule and what great service British did to India during that period. What you don't know is 5000 years of history of India before that time.

Let me give you some hint that will give you keywords for Google searches.

India was not called India, your beloved and worshiped British gave us that name. It was called Bharatvarsha. It was also referred as Aryavrat. Google these and your eyes will be wide open when you see how India actually used to be. Pay special attention to length and breadth of Indian boudaries during dynasties such as Pala, Gupta, Chola etc.

No one argues that the indian area was the richest till 1700s. The number one by quite some distance to the second. And no one argues that the area is not looted. I don't understand what made you would think that I don't know.

None of this is against the fact that no single dynasty in that period is powerful enough to fight against the british and they were autonomous powers not willing to join hands with the nearby rulers to fight against british. Which is the single thing I mentioned in my post.

I am perplexed about your comments about me mentioning the great service they did or even that I mention anything in those 300 years of regime.. Can you clarify?

I think you need to read again!

 

[moktan]

This learned discussion has morphed into many things. An analysis of history, self-flagellation, praise, diatribe etc.
However it is instructive to note that it began out of a discussion on the increasing (Government inflicted) difficulty in acquiring a flat-screen TV. A consumer good.
My fear is (and this is partly borne out of an excellent book I am reading for the second time- Debt The First 5000 Years by David Graebber) that at some point of time , capitalism the economic system of choice, will not be able to extend a good deal to everyone.
As the book says it will not be able to provide 'everyone in the world the sort of life lived by , say, a 1960s auto worker in Michigan or Turin with his own house, garage and children in college'.
The author calls it 'the crisis of inclusion'.
We would be better of if we learned to appreciate a simpler life.
I would like quote some more from the book. People are free to disagree of course. This is how Graebber sums things up.
"Capitalism's inverterate propensity to imagine its own destruction has morphed, in the last century , into scenarios that threaten to bring the rest of the world down with it."
"The real question now is how to ratchet things down a bit, to move towards a society where people can live more by working less".
"I would like to think, then, to end by putting in a good word for the non-industrious poor. At least they aren't hurting anyone. Insofar as the time they they are taking off from work is being spent wih friends, family, enjoying and caring for those they love, they're are probably improving the world more than we acknowledge. Maybe we should think of them as pioneers of a new economic order of the world that would not share our current one's penchant for self destruction."

 

[ranjeetrain]

No one argues that the indian area was the richest till 1700s. The number one by quite some distance to the second. And no one argues that the area is not looted. I don't understand what made you would think that I don't know.

None of this is against the fact that no single dynasty in that period is powerful enough to fight against the british and they were autonomous powers not willing to join hands with the nearby rulers to fight against british. Which is the single thing I mentioned in my post.

I am perplexed about your comments about me mentioning the great service they did or even that I mention anything in those 300 years of regime.. Can you clarify?

I think you need to read again!

Every large country in the world has had good and bad times in the history. When it's rulers were strong, the coutry would be united, when they became weak, local lnfluential lanlords and warlords will see it as an opportunity to setup their own shop.

India, as a large mass of land, is no exception. To manage a nation this big, in an era of no telecommunication, no fast transportation must have been extremely hard. It is hardly any surprise that a large nation like India had good and bad times as far as governance is concerned. When there was no strong ruler as a central entity to rule all of India as one, small time people became kings of their own little land mass.

The statement that "It is imperative to understand that there was no "India" as we know it" is grossly misleading. India very much existed. There were times of strong rulers and there were times of weak rulers. But India existed, some times as a whole, some times as fragmented counties.

What makes that statement completely misleading is the last four words. "as we know it". My question. Which country has always been "as we know it". Is it Britain? Is it France? Is it Russia? Is it China? Is it Iran? Which country has always existed "as we know it" today?

Even worse is giving the British the credit for that. Who did nothing for India except what was good for themselves. They made one administrative unit out of the then small scattered kingdoms purely for the purspose of ease of administration. there was no "uniting the India" spirit to it.

 

[ghatgepatil]

Just for 'their' ease of administration, they unintentionally did something which otherwise would never have seen light of the day. Fine, but, technically that never happened in true spirit. Our political class made sure of it, to keep their breed alive.

 

[TechHead]

So back to the regular programming - I think the current ruling dispensation has gone a little cuckoo - why not fix the inherent structural issues in the economy, of which there are many, instead of blindly throwing darts at a wall in the hope they will stick somewhere relevant?

 

[Hiten]

My fear is (and this is partly borne out of an excellent book I am reading for the second time- Debt The First 5000 Years by David Graebber) that at some point of time , capitalism the economic system of choice, will not be able to extend a good deal to everyone.

Very true. Not for everyone but for select few after there are no 'new makets' for developed nations to sell 'products', flaming the war is the tool to get back in the game. What happened to Egypt ? A 5000 year old civilisation on the brink of civil war. Thousands already dead and economy in tatters. Developed countries are very well experienced to handle dictators, pseudo democracies and conflicts (Does anyone finds any of these problems in highly developed top five nations?). Hate amongst each other by religion or territorial disputes helps immensely. Then they 'sell' weapons, after terrible loss of lives there is brief period of peace, Then they loan money for infrastructure, and a 'new emerging' economy is born.
Regards.

 

[BLASTO]

Every large country in the world has had good and bad times in the history. When it's rulers were strong, the coutry would be united, when they became weak, local lnfluential lanlords and warlords will see it as an opportunity to setup their own shop.

India, as a large mass of land, is no exception. To manage a nation this big, in an era of no telecommunication, no fast transportation must have been extremely hard. It is hardly any surprise that a large nation like India had good and bad times as far as governance is concerned. When there was no strong ruler as a central entity to rule all of India as one, small time people became kings of their own little land mass.

The statement that "It is imperative to understand that there was no "India" as we know it" is grossly misleading. India very much existed. There were times of strong rulers and there were times of weak rulers. But India existed, some times as a whole, some times as fragmented counties.

What makes that statement completely misleading is the last four words. "as we know it". My question. Which country has always been "as we know it". Is it Britain? Is it France? Is it Russia? Is it China? Is it Iran? Which country has always existed "as we know it" today?

Even worse is giving the British the credit for that. Who did nothing for India except what was good for themselves. They made one administrative unit out of the then small scattered kingdoms purely for the purspose of ease of administration. there was no "uniting the India" spirit to it.

Your point was British came into India and apparently split it.

my point was, a relatively very small group of people came to India (on the pretext of business), started interfering in politics, and used both financial as well as muscle power to overtake India. But we will be straying from the topic if we go into those details. The summary is - British divided India, in as many ways as they could. And that was their main reason for success in India. There was no way they were more powerful (in military terms) than all of Indian sultanates combined. But yes, they were singularly motivated, whereas Indian Rajas and regional rulers were more interested in going one up on the neighbor with the help of British.

My point was, there was no reason for the sultanates to join hands to work against British united because they were nations themselves. At some part of the history, All parts covering south east Asia till Malaysia and Singapore also belong to Indian empire, Not when the British came.

The fact remains, As the British came, they occupied a group of nations in the Indian sub-continent who were foes themselves.

When I said "India, as we know it", It does not refer to 'for ever in the past', it points to a specific period in time when the British came. There are a lot of nations which were in the current form right then including few you mentioned.

All this is right there in my posts. Not added here for convenience.

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion if you think the traditional look of British came to India and split.

 

[BLASTO]

BTW, TV Import duty anyone?

 

[ranjeetrain]

Your point was British came into India and apparently split it.

Seriously? Where did you get that from?

The fact remains, As the British came, they occupied a group of nations in the Indian sub-continent who were foes themselves.

Which nations? Can you name them?

There are a lot of nations which were in the current form right then including few you mentioned.

Seriously? Can you back it up with any references? Or are you here to fabricate gossip?

Give us some credible references and we will talk about it.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Very true. Not for everyone but for select few after there are no 'new makets' for developed nations to sell 'products', flaming the war is the tool to get back in the game. What happened to Egypt ? A 5000 year old civilisation on the brink of civil war. Thousands already dead and economy in tatters. Developed countries are very well experienced to handle dictators, pseudo democracies and conflicts (Does anyone finds any of these problems in highly developed top five nations?). Hate amongst each other by religion or territorial disputes helps immensely. Then they 'sell' weapons, after terrible loss of lives there is brief period of peace, Then they loan money for infrastructure, and a 'new emerging' economy is born.
Regards.

Agree with this.

It's so surprising how the western world has managed to keep the rest of the world always busy in territorial and other disputes. These disputes are their bread and butter.

Unfortunately, the same can be said about our politicians. The current crop of our politicians have divided our society worse than ever. They are fuelling seperational sentiments in every way imaginable. Caste, Language, Religion, they have not left anything untouched.

 

[ranjeetrain]

There are examples. If you insist I will mention the names. But doesn't make a sense to mention, as I am myself saying that manufacturing sector in India needs a tremendous boost.

 

[shanmune]

This thread is good in a way I feel like reading an history book ...
Vow !!! ... how many diverse opinions, different perspectives, ...

These days, I have started showing some interest knowing our political history .. Even there, I am amazed to see historians from different backgrounds giving different perspectives and views ... Also, I see our history being used as political hot potato by different political parties ... I am trying to find a balanced understanding of our history .. Anyway, this subject has been the most contentious and controversial one and so I am not going into that ...

Coming to he INR value falling down ... In one of my posts, I have mentioned where the the import of the capital goods being too high when compared to our exports. I just read an article where I got to know some details on China dumping their goods into India and how that was affecting our CAD and the INR value. Even in the open market philosophy, dumping is considered to be an unfair trade practice and that's why we have all those anti-dumping laws. It needs to be seen as an instrument for ensuring fair trade and is not a measure of protection per se for the domestic industry. It provides relief to the domestic industry against the injury caused by dumping. Now coming to the main point, in the last few years, the chinese dumping has increased so abnormally that led to these following situations :-
1. Chinese import is 3 times more than our export to China.
2. 1/4th of India's total import is from China

Adding more salt to the injury, the number of anti-dumping legal cases initiated by India has dwindled down to a great extent even though the actual dumping from china increased (I would say abnormal increase..) by leaps and bounds.
I think the Government of India has to seriously think on the unfair trade imposed by China.. So it looks like China is not only threatening our political map, but also the Indian economy. By the way, this issue is not the only factor for the current CAD problem, but one of the major causes.

so any thoughts ????

 

[just4kix]

The topic has got diverted, I feel.

I think that import of TV is not banned. It is just that such TVs will be excluded from the Rs. 35K free baggage allowance and people will have to pay the full duty. The government's argument is that 8 out 10 (Indian) people coming to India are bringing with them large flat panel TVs. The government is not only loosing out on import duty revenue but a lot of foreign exchange too. Not let us keep politics out of the government and inspect this statement on pure face value.

I will take the second statement first, i.e., loss of foreign exchange. While this is directly true it is not strictly true. If an Indian resident buys a flat panel TV in cheap markets such as Thailand, Singapore, UAE, etc., then he does spend his $$$ and cause loss of forex. But then if the same person were to buy an equivalent TV in India, s/he is indirectly spending the forex because 100% of the panels are imported (if not the complete TV). So I take this with a pinch of salt.

As far the first part, i.e., loss of revenue, this is correct. Duty free baggage allowance is given to import a reasonable amount of personal effects back into the country and for such items, the person should not be penalized. Now, unless the person is a long term resident outside India and now returning to India on Transfer of Residence (TR), how can a flat panel TV be termed as "personal effects"? Under the TR scheme, the one (and only one) TV will be counted under "personal effects" and will have the reduced duty applicable. So, I think that it is quite fair that government is charging full duty on TV.

As regards to whether this is going back to the dark ages (aka pre 1991 days), then again, I beg to disagree. We can argue as how much should the rate of duty be. But to say that because certain items are excluded from duty-free allowance and equating this to draconian rules, I will not bite to that. What will happen is that this will discourage passengers to buy cheap TVs outside. "Special tours" to Bangkok/Singapore/KL will also reduce drastically. In the long run, government will be able to cut rampant spending. If the hypothesis that "people will stop buying TVs outside" becomes true, then government will not get revenue by means of direct customs duty. But at the same time, people will purchase locally and this will result into revenue gain.

 

[Vishal]

The topic has got diverted, I feel.

I think that import of TV is not banned. It is just that such TVs will be excluded from the Rs. 35K free baggage allowance and people will have to pay the full duty. The government's argument is that 8 out 10 (Indian) people coming to India are bringing with them large flat panel TVs. The government is not only loosing out on import duty revenue but a lot of foreign exchange too. Not let us keep politics out of the government and inspect this statement on pure face value. ..

Thanks for a very relevant and precise commentary.. I will add one more detail to explain why perhaps the govt acted as it did.

More than individuals buying a cheaper TV while on vacation, it actually has turned into a massive smuggling operation. Operatives travel to these countries to buy large quantities of TVs etc to sell in the grey mArket across the country. As an anecdote, my BIL was on a flt from BKK a month back. He mentioned that in his 200-250 people flight, there were 72 TVs !!! These operators have an arrangement with customs to keep them warm too.

How is this different from Gold smuggling in the 70s and 80s. Clearly, given the very challenging economic times in India, the govt had put an end to this. Although I am not sure if its the right thing in the long run.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since these posts, but anyway...

Maybe you can use your knowledge and guesswork to try answer my long term doubt.. hyeah:

Something that always perplexed me is, why are not many white people around?? I mean 300 years is quite a long time not to leave any footprints??

Although we still come across the occasional person who will blame British rule for any single thing wrong 60 years later, mostly India never got into the the foreign scapegoat thing. Nor did they see the need to kill, destroy and drive out the last remains of their colonial rulers (sad thought: maybe they were too busy killing each other at the time?) at the time or keep them out later. In a country where the people discriminate against each other according to skin shade, there is surprisingly little discrimination against white (although black does not fare quite so well). Frankly, it surprises me that India is so accepting of those who ancestors oppressed it.

The other side of the coin is that immigration into India, for those of non-Indian origin, is almost impossible. For all the vast numbers of Indians seeking and achieving permanent residency in other countries, there is no reciprocal scheme in Indian law.

Certainly there are thousands of non-Indians who would jump at the chance to live here. They can get visas as students, with difficulty as workers (sure, it should be difficult: India is hardly short of people), or they can marry. That's it.

I believe there actually quite a few ex-pat workers. I seldom see them either: I think many stick to their own community and that's it.

This may explain why you don't see more white faces.

get over it man.... poms basically looted this country... unification was a by-product.... if they had not come, we would be rich and divided, like europe...

Unified or not, those into such things have explained to me India's wealth before and after colonisation. The British did not only come here to carry away natural resources, they also imported, and, towards the end, their imported goods (textiles especially, I think?) were sold at prices that destroyed Indian industry. Brits came here when India was rich; they left it poor.

most of the people that usually whine about politicians dont even bother to go and vote.... you deserve the politician you dont select... most of the people that usually crib about infrastructure and other poor facilities, dont pay their taxes honestly, that is another kind of corruption...

For decades I used to say, "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in," and I didn't bother. But that's wrong: every small voice counts. I'm not an Indian citizen, I don't have any vote. That's not just because I'm "foreign," neither do all the non-Indian Indians who have foreign passports/citizenship. A vote is valuable, don't waste it.

 

[Vishal]

I am sorry sir but this is not smuggling. This is a legal loophole and exploited by the citizens and they are perfectly entitled to it.

.. Which has been closed.

 

[just4kix]

...
personally I think we are taking this thing of revenue loss to the exchequer a bit too far. We know our government is not efficient and only 15% of the revenue reaches the intended beneficiary then why are we so keen to fill the state exchequer.
Secondly we have given some people authority to manage our affairs and if these people decide to tax the air we breathe in and if we don't pay this air tax then will it also be the loss of revenue to the state and will it be a criminal offense?
more laws only lead to more evasion. LCD being excluded from 35k duty free list will result in only a. lcd smuggling b. passengers bringing in some other items like mobile phones or computer stuff or perfumes or may be any other thing. So will the government next ban mobile phones or computer items and after banning these move on to next items? ...

If the collected revenues do not meet the purposes that they are collected for, then this is failure of system and in particular policy and administration. But that cannot equate to state - abolish tax because the revenue is not reaching the cost center.

Next, if the government taxes the air we breathe, then we should challenge such tax in courts and throw out the party that forms the govt. But if you decide to evade the tax then you become liable for action. Sad. But true.

Finally, the issue about smuggling and all that. I doubt whether this will give rise to smuggling. I believe, that we all like to believe so. But that may not be the case. Smuggling goes on even now. How else otherwise do markets such as Gaffar Market, Burma Bazar, etc. survive and thrive? What will happen is that it will give these "smugglers' markets" a reason to jack up the prices.