Computer Consultants - India following facist model (according to Indian author)

Author

India following facist model (according to Indian author)

Straydog

2006-07-21, 7:57 am

India: Government Brutality, Injustice, and
Questionable Democracy.

A sellection of quotes from the book "An Ordinary Person's Guide to
Empire" by Arundhati Roy (the author of The God of Small Things, on the
NYT best seller list for 49 w

s, and she lives in New
Delhi); ISBN 0896087271, c 2004.

Parts of the book criticise US foreign policy, and other parts criticise
Indian foreign and domestic policy. All of the chapters were originally
given as speeches or were published as articles in major printed media.
The book contains hundreds of sources for details about which statements
were made. The book gives substantial detail about the internal political
and social components of modern India and India's problems and changes
while undergoing modernisation. At one point the author identifies fascist
themes in some government policy and especially in connection with
globalization. The book is easy to read and contains a great deal of
information about the political situation in India, today. If you are a
corporate goon-parasite, then all this doesn't matter. If you care about
democracy, ethics, morals, and people, then read on.

Quotes:

page 12
"According to the State, when victims refuse to be victims, they become
terrorists and are dealt with as such. They're either killed or arrested
under POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). In states like Orissa, Bihar,
and Jharkhand, which are rich in mineral resources and, therefore,
vulneralble to ruthless corporations on the hunt, hundreds of villagers,
including minors, have been arrested under POTA and are being held in jail
without trial. Some states have special police battalions for
'anti-development' activity. This is quite apart from the other use that
POTA is being put to--terrorizing Muslims, particularly in states
like Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat. The space for genuine nonviolent civil
disobediance is atrophying. In the era of corporate globalization, poverty
is a crime, and protesting against further impoverishment is terrorism. In
teh era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with
terrorism." I have sellected just a few passages to show the message that
this book offers and that it is important to everyone, not just India or
Indians.

***
page 13:
"Vast parts of the country are already more or less beyond the control of
the Indian state--Kashmir, the North East, large parts of Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand."
***
"The real issue is that the privatization of essential infrastructure is
essentially undemocratic. The real issue is the towering mass of
incriminating evidence against big dams. The real issue is the fact that
over the last fifty years in India alone big dams have displaced more
than 33 million people.... The real issue is the fact that the Supreme
Court of India ordered the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to
proceed even though it is aware that it violates the fundamental rights to
life and livelihood of the citizens of India."

I should point out that dam construction and other Army Corps of Engineer
projects in the USA have been seriously criticised by environmentalists in
the USA at least as far back as 50 years ago. Many dam construction
projects in the USA have been declared failures and Jared Diamond, in his
book "Collapse" mentioned at least one US dam that was blown up to restore
water flows back to their original nature without loss of non-existent
benefits but with the restoration of the fishing industry in the area.

page 45:
"Never mind that forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F.
Kennedy, orchestrated a regime change in Baghdad. In 1963, after a
succesful coup, the Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq. Using lists
provided by the CIA, the new Ba'ath regime systematically eliminated
hundreds of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and political figures known to be
leftists [reference given]. An entire intellectual community was
slaughtered. (The same technique was used to massacre hundreds of
thousands of people in Indonesia and East Timor.[reference given])....In
1980...[the US said] 'We see no fundamental incompatibility of
interests between the United States and Iraq [reference given].'"

page 55:
"In South Africa, after three hundred years of brutal domination of the
black majority by a white minority through colonialism and apartheid, a
nonracial, multi-party democracy came to power in 1994. It was a
phenomenal acheivement. Within two years of coming to power, the African
National Congress had genuflected with no caveats to the Market God. Its
massive program of structural adjustment, privatization, and
liberalization has only increased the hideous disparities between the
rich and the poor. Official unemployment among blacks has increased from
forty percent to fifty percent since the end of Apartheid [reference
given]. The corporatization of basic services-- electricity, water, and
housing-- has meant that ten million South Africans, almost a quarter of
the population, have been disconnected from water and electricity
[reference given]."

Now how does propaganda work?

page 57:
"...Clear Channel Communications is the largest radio station owner in the
country. It runs more than twelve hundred channels, which together
account for nine percent fo the market [reference given]. When hundreds of
thousands of American citizens took to the streets to protest against
the war on Iraq, Clear Channel orgaized pro-war patriotic "Rallies for
America" across the country [reference given]. It used its radio stations
to advertise the events and then sent correspondents to cover them as
though they were breaking news."

It should be noted that consolidation in the broadcast radio and TV
business continues, today. Same for the book publishing business. Soon,
only a few entities will control all media.

page 71:

This deals with Hindu nationalism. Many passages in the book talk about
this with parallels with the development of Nazi power in Germany in the
1930s.

"On August 15, 2003, Independence Day he [Cheif Minister of Gujarat,
Narendra Modi] hoisted the Indian flag before thousands of cheering
people. In a gesture of menacing symbolism, he wore the black RSS
cap--which proclaims him as a member of the Hindu nationalist guild that
has not been shy of admiring Hitler and his methods [reference
given]."

"One hundred and thirty million Muslims--not to mention the other
minorities, Dalits, Christians, Sikhs, Adivasis--live in India under the
shaddow of Hindu nationalism."

page 85:

Additional text documenting thousands of people killed and hundreds of
thousands of people displaced by Indian police.

page 91:

"Gandhi's Salt March was not just political theater. When, in a simple act
of defiance, thousands of Indians marched to the sea and made their own
salt, they broke the salt tax laws."

page 97:

"The U.S. government used the lies and disinformation generated around the
September 11 attacks to invade no just one country, but two.... The Indian
government uses the same strategy not with other countries, but against
its own people. Over the last decade the number of people who have been
killed by the police and security forces runs into the thousands. Recently
several Bombay policemen spoke openly to the press about how many
'gangsters' they had eliminated on 'orders' from their senior officers
[reference given]. Andhra Pradesh chalks up an average of about two
hundred 'extremists' in 'encounter' deaths a year [reference given]. In
Kashmir in a situation that almost amounts to war, an estimated eighty
thousand people have been killed since 1989. Thousands have simply
'disappeared' [reference given]. According to the records of the
Association of Parents of Disappeared People (APDP), more than three
thousand people were killed in 2003, of which four hundred and sixty-
three were soldiers [reference given]."

The text goes on to say things are getting worse.

page 102:

"Fourty-seven percent of India's children below three suffer from
malnutrition, forty-six percent are stunted [reference given]."

page 103:
"Today, an average rural family eats about one hundred killograms [about
220 lbs.] less food in a year than it did in the early 1990s [refernce
given]."

"But in urban India, wherever you go--shops, restaurants, railway
stations, airports...--you have TV monitors in which election promises
have already come true. India's Shining, Feeling Good."

page 104:

The thing that is happening is that much infrastructure (eg. water
supplies, electricity, transport, telecommunications, health services,
education, etc, that the government was "supposed to hold in trust for the
people it represents, assets that have been built and maintained with
public money over decades--are sold by the state to private corporations."
Guess where that leads?

The book ends with a short glossary of terms, names, etc., that define or
explain political parties, important people, important historical
events, and a long list of information sources (21 pages), and an index.

If you want to see how globalization is affecting the so-called
"developing countries" this is one good book to start with.

maulana_satian@yahoo.com

2006-07-21, 7:57 am

Straydog wrote:
> India: Government Brutality, Injustice, and
> Questionable Democracy.
>

Naa India don't have democracy but democraZy.. 300 million low caste
dalits had concrete evidence to convinence UN....

> A sellection of quotes from the book "An Ordinary Person's Guide to
> Empire" by Arundhati Roy (the author of The God of Small Things, on the
> NYT best seller list for 49 w

s, and she lives in New
> Delhi); ISBN 0896087271, c 2004.
>
> Parts of the book criticise US foreign policy, and other parts criticise
> Indian foreign and domestic policy. All of the chapters were originally
> given as speeches or were published as articles in major printed media.
> The book contains hundreds of sources for details about which statements
> were made. The book gives substantial detail about the internal political
> and social components of modern India and India's problems and changes
> while undergoing modernisation. At one point the author identifies fascist
> themes in some government policy and especially in connection with
> globalization. The book is easy to read and contains a great deal of
> information about the political situation in India, today. If you are a
> corporate goon-parasite, then all this doesn't matter. If you care about
> democracy, ethics, morals, and people, then read on.
>
> Quotes:
>
> page 12
> "According to the State, when victims refuse to be victims, they become
> terrorists and are dealt with as such. They're either killed or arrested
> under POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). In states like Orissa, Bihar,
> and Jharkhand, which are rich in mineral resources and, therefore,
> vulneralble to ruthless corporations on the hunt, hundreds of villagers,
> including minors, have been arrested under POTA and are being held in jail
> without trial. Some states have special police battalions for
> 'anti-development' activity. This is quite apart from the other use that
> POTA is being put to--terrorizing Muslims, particularly in states
> like Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat. The space for genuine nonviolent civil
> disobediance is atrophying. In the era of corporate globalization, poverty
> is a crime, and protesting against further impoverishment is terrorism. In
> teh era of the War on Terror, poverty is being slyly conflated with
> terrorism." I have sellected just a few passages to show the message that
> this book offers and that it is important to everyone, not just India or
> Indians.
>
> ***
> page 13:
> "Vast parts of the country are already more or less beyond the control of
> the Indian state--Kashmir, the North East, large parts of Madhya Pradesh,
> Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand."
> ***
> "The real issue is that the privatization of essential infrastructure is
> essentially undemocratic. The real issue is the towering mass of
> incriminating evidence against big dams. The real issue is the fact that
> over the last fifty years in India alone big dams have displaced more
> than 33 million people.... The real issue is the fact that the Supreme
> Court of India ordered the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to
> proceed even though it is aware that it violates the fundamental rights to
> life and livelihood of the citizens of India."
>
> I should point out that dam construction and other Army Corps of Engineer
> projects in the USA have been seriously criticised by environmentalists in
> the USA at least as far back as 50 years ago. Many dam construction
> projects in the USA have been declared failures and Jared Diamond, in his
> book "Collapse" mentioned at least one US dam that was blown up to restore
> water flows back to their original nature without loss of non-existent
> benefits but with the restoration of the fishing industry in the area.
>
> page 45:
> "Never mind that forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F.
> Kennedy, orchestrated a regime change in Baghdad. In 1963, after a
> succesful coup, the Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq. Using lists
> provided by the CIA, the new Ba'ath regime systematically eliminated
> hundreds of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and political figures known to be
> leftists [reference given]. An entire intellectual community was
> slaughtered. (The same technique was used to massacre hundreds of
> thousands of people in Indonesia and East Timor.[reference given])....In
> 1980...[the US said] 'We see no fundamental incompatibility of
> interests between the United States and Iraq [reference given].'"
>
> page 55:
> "In South Africa, after three hundred years of brutal domination of the
> black majority by a white minority through colonialism and apartheid, a
> nonracial, multi-party democracy came to power in 1994. It was a
> phenomenal acheivement. Within two years of coming to power, the African
> National Congress had genuflected with no caveats to the Market God. Its
> massive program of structural adjustment, privatization, and
> liberalization has only increased the hideous disparities between the
> rich and the poor. Official unemployment among blacks has increased from
> forty percent to fifty percent since the end of Apartheid [reference
> given]. The corporatization of basic services-- electricity, water, and
> housing-- has meant that ten million South Africans, almost a quarter of
> the population, have been disconnected from water and electricity
> [reference given]."
>
> Now how does propaganda work?
>
> page 57:
> "...Clear Channel Communications is the largest radio station owner in the
> country. It runs more than twelve hundred channels, which together
> account for nine percent fo the market [reference given]. When hundreds of
> thousands of American citizens took to the streets to protest against
> the war on Iraq, Clear Channel orgaized pro-war patriotic "Rallies for
> America" across the country [reference given]. It used its radio stations
> to advertise the events and then sent correspondents to cover them as
> though they were breaking news."
>
> It should be noted that consolidation in the broadcast radio and TV
> business continues, today. Same for the book publishing business. Soon,
> only a few entities will control all media.
>
> page 71:
>
> This deals with Hindu nationalism. Many passages in the book talk about
> this with parallels with the development of Nazi power in Germany in the
> 1930s.
>
> "On August 15, 2003, Independence Day he [Cheif Minister of Gujarat,
> Narendra Modi] hoisted the Indian flag before thousands of cheering
> people. In a gesture of menacing symbolism, he wore the black RSS
> cap--which proclaims him as a member of the Hindu nationalist guild that
> has not been shy of admiring Hitler and his methods [reference
> given]."
>
> "One hundred and thirty million Muslims--not to mention the other
> minorities, Dalits, Christians, Sikhs, Adivasis--live in India under the
> shaddow of Hindu nationalism."
>
> page 85:
>
> Additional text documenting thousands of people killed and hundreds of
> thousands of people displaced by Indian police.
>
> page 91:
>
> "Gandhi's Salt March was not just political theater. When, in a simple act
> of defiance, thousands of Indians marched to the sea and made their own
> salt, they broke the salt tax laws."
>
> page 97:
>
> "The U.S. government used the lies and disinformation generated around the
> September 11 attacks to invade no just one country, but two.... The Indian
> government uses the same strategy not with other countries, but against
> its own people. Over the last decade the number of people who have been
> killed by the police and security forces runs into the thousands. Recently
> several Bombay policemen spoke openly to the press about how many
> 'gangsters' they had eliminated on 'orders' from their senior officers
> [reference given]. Andhra Pradesh chalks up an average of about two
> hundred 'extremists' in 'encounter' deaths a year [reference given]. In
> Kashmir in a situation that almost amounts to war, an estimated eighty
> thousand people have been killed since 1989. Thousands have simply
> 'disappeared' [reference given]. According to the records of the
> Association of Parents of Disappeared People (APDP), more than three
> thousand people were killed in 2003, of which four hundred and sixty-
> three were soldiers [reference given]."
>
> The text goes on to say things are getting worse.
>
> page 102:
>
> "Fourty-seven percent of India's children below three suffer from
> malnutrition, forty-six percent are stunted [reference given]."
>
> page 103:
> "Today, an average rural family eats about one hundred killograms [about
> 220 lbs.] less food in a year than it did in the early 1990s [refernce
> given]."
>
> "But in urban India, wherever you go--shops, restaurants, railway
> stations, airports...--you have TV monitors in which election promises
> have already come true. India's Shining, Feeling Good."
>
> page 104:
>
> The thing that is happening is that much infrastructure (eg. water
> supplies, electricity, transport, telecommunications, health services,
> education, etc, that the government was "supposed to hold in trust for the
> people it represents, assets that have been built and maintained with
> public money over decades--are sold by the state to private corporations."
> Guess where that leads?
>
> The book ends with a short glossary of terms, names, etc., that define or
> explain political parties, important people, important historical
> events, and a long list of information sources (21 pages), and an index.
>
> If you want to see how globalization is affecting the so-called
> "developing countries" this is one good book to start with.

Kamal R. Prasad

2006-08-09, 3:58 am

I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you keep
talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its practice of
slavery, you may want to look at another view of Indian society wrt
caste system.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/15franc.htm

The author Francois Gautier is a french man who was inspired by Indian
culture and hinduism, and settled down in India. The caste system did
empower upper caste people at one pt of time. The Indian constitution
doesn't follow the same path -and this is one of your own fellow
europeans confirming that statement.

regards
-kamal

Straydog wrote:
> India: Government Brutality, Injustice, and
> Questionable Democracy.
>
> A sellection of quotes from the book "An Ordinary Person's Guide to
> Empire" by Arundhati Roy (the author of The God of Small Things, on the
> NYT best seller list for 49 w

Straydog

2006-08-09, 7:57 am

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Kamal R. Pra

wrote:

>
> I won't deny anything of what Arundhati has written. But since you keep
> talking of dalits as an excuse for the US to continue its practice of
> slavery,

Well, we've been over this before and the fact is that the slavery is in
Indian rug factories, today, and there is no slavery in the USA. As
another matter of fact, it was only recently that child labor was outlawed
you your country. So, in fact, it is YOUR country that has a long way to
go yet.

you may want to look at another view of Indian society wrt
> caste system.
>
> http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/15franc.htm

Yeah, I actually looked. title: "Anti-Brahminsim Has to Go" but the
article also very clearly stated that this subject is hard to get
published. According to the author, your media stonewalls on the topic.

> The author Francois Gautier is a french man who was inspired by Indian
> culture and hinduism, and settled down in India. The caste system did
> empower upper caste people at one pt of time.

I have read about many of the protests against your "reservations" by the
higher castes. Its just fine with me if you want to have a few decades of
social upheaval just like we did with "civil rights" and "affirmative
action". Maybe someday some good will come out of it and maybe there will
be more justice in India for more people. Right now, I think even black
people today are in a much better situation in the USA than Dalits in
India.

The Indian constitution
> doesn't follow the same path -and this is one of your own fellow
> europeans confirming that statement.

He is not one of my "own fellow Europeans" because I am not European. I
was born and raised in the USA and I'm still here. But he is just one
voice talking about India dealing with its own problems.

> regards
> -kamal
>
> Straydog wrote:
>
>

2006-08-09, 6:58 pm

Straydog wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Kamal R. Pra

wrote:

>
> Well, we've been over this before and the fact is that the slavery is in
> Indian rug factories, today, and there is no slavery in the USA. As
> another matter of fact, it was only recently that child labor was outlawed
> you your country.

Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
necessarily slavery.

> So, in fact, it is YOUR country that has a long way to
> go yet.

Sure, but how? When (Chief Minister) Chandrababu Naidu threatened to
prosecute parents who sent their children to work rather than to school, he
got an adverse reaction from those parents and their supporters and was
forced to back down. Governments can't enforce child labor laws in an
environment where it looks like vote blocs will unseat any government that
tries to enforce the law.

> I have read about many of the protests against your "reservations" by the
> higher castes. Its just fine with me if you want to have a few decades of
> social upheaval just like we did with "civil rights" and "affirmative
> action". Maybe someday some good will come out of it and maybe there will
> be more justice in India for more people. Right now, I think even black
> people today are in a much better situation in the USA than Dalits in
> India.

How about the situation of whites? Have there been any observations or
claims that affirmative action for blacks caused some whites to become
cottonpickers or servants in black households?

Straydog

2006-08-09, 6:58 pm

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, me wrote:

> Straydog wrote:
>
>
> Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
> necessarily slavery.

Child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for the child
and exploitation by the boss/owner/parents who force or need the child to
work for them. Adult labor, by definition, is labor which is paid for.
Slavery is, by definition, involuntary labor without pay and without
freedom to leave, move, or change labor.

>
> Sure, but how? When (Chief Minister) Chandrababu Naidu threatened to
> prosecute parents who sent their children to work rather than to school, he
> got an adverse reaction from those parents and their supporters and was
> forced to back down. Governments can't enforce child labor laws in an
> environment where it looks like vote blocs will unseat any government that
> tries to enforce the law.

Your country will have to look at itself and compare itself with whatever
goals it wants to set (whether by wisdom, democracy, power influence,
corruption, or whatever) and compare itself with other countries and what
they do and why. Kamal continues to insist that slavery exists in the USA
without talking about comparable conditions in India. I do not deny that
exploitation exists in the USA, but I will suggest that there is much less
of it than in India.

>
> How about the situation of whites? Have there been any observations or
> claims that affirmative action for blacks caused some whites to become
> cottonpickers or servants in black households?

As a matter of fact, in the history books, there are records of blacks
also owning slaves. There are records clearly showing that whites were
slaves in the 20th century under other whites (and not in the USA). And,
there are records clearly showing that in the 20th century, there were
peoples "slightly darker" than _whites_ who were slaves of others who
were "slightly darker" than _whites_ and they also were not in the USA,
and I'll wonder if you know enough to guess what I'm talking about.

>

2006-08-09, 6:58 pm

Straydog wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, me wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
> Child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for the child
> and exploitation by the boss/owner/parents who force or need the child to
> work for them. Adult labor, by definition, is labor which is paid for.

Both child and adult labor can be paid for and both children and adults can
be enslaved.

> Slavery is, by definition, involuntary labor without pay and without
> freedom to leave, move, or change labor.

Then, children who are paid and are not denied the freedom to leave or
change labor are not slaves.

> Kamal continues to insist that slavery exists in the USA
> without talking about comparable conditions in India.

Which are the supposed slaves in the US?

>
> As a matter of fact, in the history books,

How about currently? Are any white ministers' or schoolteachers'
grandchildren cottonpickers or maids/ errand boys in middle class black
households?

> there are records of blacks
> also owning slaves. There are records clearly showing that whites were
> slaves in the 20th century under other whites (and not in the USA). And,
> there are records clearly showing that in the 20th century, there were
> peoples "slightly darker" than _whites_ who were slaves of others who
> were "slightly darker" than _whites_ and they also were not in the USA,
> and I'll wonder if you know enough to guess what I'm talking about.

There were lords and lieges in India. Where are there records of 20th
century marketplaces in India where slaves were bought, sold or bartered,
where husbands, wives and children were sundered forever because they were
bought by different purchasers?

Straydog

2006-08-09, 6:58 pm

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, me wrote:

> Straydog wrote:
>
>
> Both child and adult labor can be paid for

How is this phrase different from what I said?

and both children and adults can
> be enslaved.

How is this different from what I said?

>
> Then, children who are paid and are not denied the freedom to leave

Go ask the parents or guardians who tell them they have to work or suffer
consequences.

or
> change labor are not slaves.

As I said, child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for
the child.

>
> Which are the supposed slaves in the US?

Ask him to explain it to you. He considers the H1B visa guys as slaves. I
say they are not, but I will also say they are exploited. He seems to
think there was never any slavery anywhere, anytime except in the USA. He
has made hundreds of posts over the last year to this extent. Just read
the archives. Judge for yourself.

>
> How about currently? Are any white ministers' or schoolteachers'
> grandchildren cottonpickers or maids/ errand boys in middle class black
> households?

In what capacity? As slaves? Very very little in the USA as I read in our
media, but the police sometimes discover what is called "trafficking" of
people, meaning they are brought in illegally and kept locked up in a room
and thus against their will in the USA. Usually they are women from
foreign countries brought in under a promise of a job, but then becomes
someone's sex slave. This gets into the newspapers when they are caught.
It also happens to males who are brought in as cheap labor, and they are
also kept locked up at night, sometimes in chains, and made to work, and
paid little or nothing. Its also in our media. Usually Mexicans/Hispanics,
but can also be Asians. This also gets into some of our media.

There are also a few stories I've heard/read when Asians pay lots of money
to some guy in Asia to be taken to the USA, then a hundred of them are
loaded onto boats, the boats go out ten miles and they take machine guns
and just shoot all of these guys who think they are going to the USA. They
dump the bodies overboard, and the guys in charge come back to start the
cycle all over. Then, we have these "mail order brides" schemes that some
guys set up, get young girls from Asia (too poor, too ignorant to know
what is going on but they have ideas of a bright future) and set them up
with men in the USA who promise to marry them if they will marry the men.
All they get are exchange of one picture each and one letter each, and it
happens. What happens to the girls is anyone's guess. I think its all a
bad idea.

See below.

>
> There were lords and lieges in India. Where are there records of 20th
> century marketplaces in India where slaves were bought, sold or bartered,
> where husbands, wives and children were sundered forever because they were
> bought by different purchasers?
>

There are many examples. White prisoners of war by Nazi Germany became
slaves in German munitions factories during WWII. When Japan invaded and
treated brutally Chinese and Korean prisoners of war, many became slaves
of the Japanese and some Chinese and Korean women became sex slaves for
the Japanese soldiers. There is some very intense bitterness in both China
and Korea over this, and more bitterness that Japanese school textbooks
either don't mention this or give it much much less attention than Germany
does about its Nazi past.

There is a deep history of slavery going back thousands of years. I have
not read it extensively, but I think there might be no culture that did
not use, at one time or the other, slaves of their own kind or another
kind, one way or the other. In today's contexts, people in advanced
societies might be considered "enslaved" in a way because of
written contracts they sign in connection with purchases that are made
under voluntary conditions but in the haste of poor judgement, they sign
their names on dotted lines without fully appreciating what they are
getting into. There are many things in the modern world that are totally
legal, but questionable in terms of morals and ethics.

Some additional references (FYI):

Below are two sets of references to slavery in India; first, two books,
and second--farther below--a sample of Google results on the term "slavery
in India":

From the book "Atlas of World Population History" by Colin McEvedy and
Richard Jones (1978, reprinted 1980, Penguin): from pages 210-218 covers
slave trade. The legend of figure 3.5 contains the sentence "The east
coast route...which reached as far south as Mozambique, was probably the
most profitable: from its northern terminus at Oman there was considerable
re-export trade to Iran and India."

From the book "Slavery: A World History" by Milton Meltzer
(c 1993): Today there is extensive child labor slavery in the India rug
industry. The book also pointed out something that makes the laws
irrelevant: the law against slavery is on the books in India, but it is
not enforced and there is plenty of selling of children into servitude
today.

Sample of Google search results:

News results for slavery in india - View today's top stories
Terms of forced employment and slavery - Ha'aretz - Apr 14, 2006

Human Trafficking & Modern-day Slavery in India
2004 A Report on Debt Bondage, Carpet-Making, and Child Slavery in India ...
1996 THE SMALL HANDS OF SLAVERY - Bonded Child Labor In India ...
gvnet.com/humantrafficking/India.htm - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

The Small Hands of Slavery: Bonded Child Labour in India
Slavery in India dates back at least 1500 years.31 Various forms of debt
bondage ... Agricultural bondage is the oldest form of slavery known in
India: ...
www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm - 486k - Cached - Similar pages

Child hierodulic servitude (temple slavery) in India and Nepal
in India and Nepal. Hierodulic child prostitution is a generic term which
the ... Historically, these girls served as hierodules, or sacred temple
slaves or ...
www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/hieroras.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (UK)
It was the provisions of the Indian Penal Code 1860 which effectively abolished slavery in India by making the
enslavement of human beings a criminal ...
www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-1833act.htm - 31k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com ]

Slavery in the Modern World
Child "carpet slaves" in India. Kidnapped from their villages when they are
as young as five years old, between 200000 and 300000 children are held
captive ...
www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Seven Children
Seven Children Freed from Slavery in India (by Samuel Grumiau). Brussels/New
Delhi, 26 March 1999 (ICFTU Online):. Tuesday, 16 March 1999 marked the
end of ...
www.corrystuart.com/slavechildren7.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

BroTher zAchary

2006-08-09, 6:58 pm

Straydog wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, me wrote:
>
>
> Child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for the child
> and exploitation by the boss/owner/parents who force or need the child to
> work for them.

I assume you mean forced labor in which the children are overworked,
underpaid, lackadaisical (or lack of) safety environments, and their
wages confiscated, even, by parents. By today's absurd definitions,
were I a child today, I would not have been able to hold many of the
part time jobs (most of which were labor: yard work, trash clean-up,
using a chainsaw to but wood, splitting it by hand, etc.), and I
suspect you would not have either.

2006-08-09, 6:58 pm

Straydog wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, me wrote:

> Go ask the parents or guardians who tell them they have to work or suffer
> consequences.

I've come across quite a few children earning wages; I once spanked one of
them for eating half my fruitcake from the refrigerator. I don't know of
any such parents or guardians but they presumably exist somewhere.

> As I said, child labor, in all advanced societies, is considered bad for
> the child.

That it is bad doesn't, in itself, make it slavery.

>
> Ask him to explain it to you. He considers the H1B visa guys as slaves.

Bah! They're free to return to India to find other jobs without having their
feet amputated like Kunta Kinte.

> In what capacity? As slaves?

As paid laborers earning an hourly wage.

> Some additional references (FYI):
>
> Below are two sets of references to slavery in India; first, two books,
> and second--farther below--a sample of Google results on the term "slavery
> in India":
>
> From the book "Atlas of World Population History" by Colin McEvedy and
> Richard Jones (1978, reprinted 1980, Penguin): from pages 210-218 covers
> slave trade. The legend of figure 3.5 contains the sentence "The east
> coast route...which reached as far south as Mozambique, was probably the
> most profitable: from its northern terminus at Oman there was considerable
> re-export trade to Iran and India."

That looks like the slave trade operated by Muslims, not an Indian
institution in particular.

> From the book "Slavery: A World History" by Milton Meltzer
> (c 1993): Today there is extensive child labor slavery in the India rug
> industry. The book also pointed out something that makes the laws
> irrelevant: the law against slavery is on the books in India, but it is
> not enforced and there is plenty of selling of children into servitude
> today.

You might find this interesting reading.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic...ust/ai_77711999

> Sample of Google search results:
>
> News results for slavery in india - View today's top stories
> Terms of forced employment and slavery - Ha'aretz - Apr 14, 2006
>
>
> Human Trafficking & Modern-day Slavery in India
> 2004 A Report on Debt Bondage, Carpet-Making, and Child Slavery in India
> ... 1996 THE SMALL HANDS OF SLAVERY - Bonded Child Labor In India ...
> gvnet.com/humantrafficking/India.htm - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
>
> The Small Hands of Slavery: Bonded Child Labour in India
> Slavery in India dates back at least 1500 years.31 Various forms of debt
> bondage ... Agricultural bondage is the oldest form of slavery known in
> India: ...
> www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm - 486k - Cached - Similar pages

BTW, the most precise term, which is unfortunately obsolete, would be "the
oldest form of naifty". I know of people who sold themselves into bondage
for a fixed number of years in order to raise money to pay their sisters'
dowries. Curiously, they didn't raise money by getting married and using
the dowry that came with their wife in order to pay their sister's dowry;
to do this was against their principles as per their customs or at any rato
said the lawyer who was telling me about these people.

> Child hierodulic servitude (temple slavery) in India and Nepal
> in India and Nepal. Hierodulic child prostitution is a generic term which
> the ... Historically, these girls served as hierodules, or sacred temple
> slaves or ...
> www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/hieroras.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar
> pages

A canard that has been making the rounds. There were no hierodules in
temples. There was child prostitution, though.

> Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (UK)
> It was the provisions of the Indian Penal Code 1860 which effectively
> abolished slavery in India by making the enslavement of human beings a
> criminal ... www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/huk-1833act.htm - 31k -
> Cached - Similar pages
> [ More results from www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com ]

Ah, but which Indians had been slavers before 1860? As a rule, workers and
Indian masters had feudal relations, not master-slave relations, AFAIK.

BTW, have you heard of apprenticeship?
http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2001/oct/

> Slavery in the Modern World
> Child "carpet slaves" in India. Kidnapped from their villages when they
> are as young as five years old, between 200000 and 300000 children are
> held captive ...
> www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
>
> Seven Children
> Seven Children Freed from Slavery in India (by Samuel Grumiau).
> Brussels/New Delhi, 26 March 1999 (ICFTU Online):. Tuesday, 16 March 1999
> marked the end of ...
> www.corrystuart.com/slavechildren7.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

Straydog

2006-08-09, 6:58 pm

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, BroTher zAchary wrote:

>
> Straydog wrote:
>
> I assume you mean forced labor in which the children are overworked,
> underpaid, lackadaisical (or lack of) safety environments, and their
> wages confiscated, even, by parents. By today's absurd definitions,
> were I a child today, I would not have been able to hold many of the
> part time jobs (most of which were labor: yard work, trash clean-up,
> using a chainsaw to but wood, splitting it by hand, etc.), and I
> suspect you would not have either.
>

All depends on some details: i) did/were you working under any exceptions
to the rules (of which there are some, even today), ii) were you actually
being paid by someone other than your parents, iii) who arranged the work
you or your parents or a third party, iv) if the work was part time, it
does not count (I'm talking about child work conditions from the 1800s and
before, which were like adult working conditions in the same era, which
were 10-14 hour days, 7 days a w

), and v) in India, the stories are
that the child labor (paid for, arranged by parents) is along the same
line. And, I'll leave out the workplace hazards & dangers. And, I have no
idea if they have any disability over there for injuries etc to children,
but the books I've been reading say that child injuries on the jobs left
them sometimes with permanent problems. Also left out: they don't get any
education while they are working 10-14/day & 7d/wk.

Video61@tcq.net

2006-08-10, 7:57 am

Straydog wrote:
> India: Government Brutality, Injustice, and
> Questionable Democracy.
>
> A sellection of quotes from the book "An Ordinary Person's Guide to
> Empire" by Arundhati Roy (the author of The God of Small Things, on the
> NYT best seller list for 49 w

by american
liberalism, these cretins are a mixture of
aristocrats/fascists/totalitarians/imperialists/racists, they are
hiding in huge numbers(almost all members) in the republicon party, and
to some extent about 1/3rd of the democratic party. globalism is not
natural, it destroys democracy, and it undermines a countries
constitution, and soveirnity. turning almost all decisions over to
corporations. but some form of trade is to some extent natural.

Kamal R. Prasad

2006-08-10, 7:57 am

me wrote:
> Straydog wrote:
>

The slavery in Indian rug factories is against the law -and requires
better enforcement.
Slavery in the USA is supported implicitly by the law. Your politicians
receive money for ensuring that there is a steady stream of manpower on
restricted rights. If americans have a heterogenity of opinion about
doing away with illegals, H1Bs and numerous other workers on restricted
rights -it is because they are not willing to disown the benefits of
slavery in entirety.
[color=darkred]
>
Indentured labour was outlawed maybe 50 yrs back -but recently, the
govt came out with specific legislation to prosecute individuals hiring
child labour in specific circumstances. Labour when free, is labour and
not slavery. You need to understand the difference between child labour
and child slavery.

> Child labor is not necessarily slavery any more than adult labor is
> necessarily slavery.
>
it boils down to whether the govt has restricted civic rights of
individuals or not. Whether the labour is below age 12 or 18 is not
relevant to the case.

>
> Sure, but how? When (Chief Minister) Chandrababu Naidu threatened to
> prosecute parents who sent their children to work rather than to school, he
> got an adverse reaction from those parents and their supporters and was
> forced to back down. Governments can't enforce child labor laws in an
> environment where it looks like vote blocs will unseat any government that
> tries to enforce the law.
>

yeah -people send their children to work because they are poor, not
because they dislike them or because they are lesser humans or because
the govt is conniving with businesses to perpetuate slavery i.e. hold
them back against their will. I have even seen a shop keeper tell a kid
working in a shop that if he doesn't work properly -he will tell his
father about it. You can find lots of children working in India -doing
mostly menial work in return for money. To change that, you need better
employment oppurtunities for their guardians.

reservations are not a means to bring civil rights to lower caste
people. They are a ploy to get votes by pitting lower caste people
against upper caste people. The folks who advocate it are either
politicians who want votes -or people who want to benefit from the same
i.e. get a free ride on the basis of 3000 yrs of exploitation. They
will talk of 3000 yrs back because the current situation does not
justify that compensation. And americans will talk of it so that they
can justify their own version of slavery.
[color=darkred]
>

looks like a drastic statement. I saw Larry Kind LIve discuss the fact
that blacks are being turned away from voting booths, or their votes
not fully accounted for -either by a dysfunctional voting mechanism or
by keeping too few personnel so that they keep standing in line till
midnight and then walk away due to time out.

> How about the situation of whites? Have there been any observations or
> claims that affirmative action for blacks caused some whites to become
> cottonpickers or servants in black households?

Nope. Its pretty much a given that skin colour determines economic
status in the US barring a few exceptions like athletes, movie stars
etc.

regards
-kamal

2006-08-10, 7:57 am

Kamal R. Pra

wrote:
> me wrote:
>
> The slavery in Indian rug factories is against the law -and requires
> better enforcement.
> Slavery in the USA is supported implicitly by the law. Your politicians
> receive money for ensuring that there is a steady stream of manpower on
> restricted rights. If americans have a heterogenity of opinion about
> doing away with illegals, H1Bs and numerous other workers on restricted
> rights -it is because they are not willing to disown the benefits of
> slavery in entirety.

Restricted rights is not slavery. H1Bs are free to return to India.

> Nope. Its pretty much a given that skin colour determines economic
> status in the US barring a few exceptions like athletes, movie stars
> etc.

An American coworker, an amateur sociologist, once told me that Americans
recognize 3 skin colors - green, white and black [; those with much money
being green people].
>
> regards
> -kamal

Straydog

2006-08-10, 7:57 am

On Thu, 9 Aug 2006, Kamal R. Pra

wrote:

>
> me wrote:
>
> The slavery in Indian rug factories is against the law -and requires
> better enforcement.

Sometime, if ever, decades and decades from now.

> Slavery in the USA is supported implicitly by the law.

There is no de facto slavery in the USA.

Your politicians
> receive money for ensuring that there is a steady stream of manpower on
> restricted rights.

And, a lot of it comes from Indian lobbyists who are happy to see all that
USD coming into India. And, it helps them keep Indian wages down, too.

If americans have a heterogenity of opinion about
> doing away with illegals, H1Bs and numerous other workers on restricted
> rights -it is because they are not willing to disown the benefits of
> slavery in entirety.

And, we don't have very good enforcement of anti-illegal laws, either.

> Indentured labour was outlawed maybe 50 yrs back -but recently, the
> govt came out with specific legislation to prosecute individuals hiring
> child labour in specific circumstances.

All that I read, there is no enforcement.

Labour when free, is labour and
> not slavery. You need to understand the difference between child labour
> and child slavery.

You need to understand that probably the children in India, besides being
malnourished, are NOT getting the money that they work for. AND, child
labor is not in the child's interest.

> it boils down to whether the govt has restricted civic rights of
> individuals or not. Whether the labour is below age 12 or 18 is not
> relevant to the case.

It boils down to whether the govt looks the other way instead of looking
for crimes to prosecute. Bribery and corruption is rampant in India.

>
> yeah -people send their children to work because they are poor, not
> because they dislike them or because they are lesser humans or because
> the govt is conniving with businesses to perpetuate slavery i.e. hold
> them back against their will.

And, so, a big fraction of the country does not want to change.

I have even seen a shop keeper tell a kid
> working in a shop that if he doesn't work properly -he will tell his
> father about it. You can find lots of children working in India -doing
> mostly menial work in return for money. To change that, you need better
> employment oppurtunities for their guardians.

YOU can tell them that.

>
> reservations are not a means to bring civil rights to lower caste
> people. They are a ploy to get votes by pitting lower caste people
> against upper caste people.

Oh, you can always come up with a different distraction to change the
subject.

The folks who advocate it are either
> politicians who want votes -or people who want to benefit from the same
> i.e. get a free ride on the basis of 3000 yrs of exploitation.

And, other people in the country want to sweep a lot of dust under the rug
instead of changing a wrong to a right.

They
> will talk of 3000 yrs back because the current situation does not
> justify that compensation. And americans will talk of it so that they
> can justify their own version of slavery.

All your own idea of keeping poor people poor.

>
> looks like a drastic statement. I saw Larry Kind LIve discuss the fact
> that blacks are being turned away from voting booths, or their votes
> not fully accounted for -either by a dysfunctional voting mechanism or
> by keeping too few personnel so that they keep standing in line till
> midnight and then walk away due to time out.

How many Dalits in India vote? Why?

>
> Nope. Its pretty much a given that skin colour determines economic
> status in the US barring a few exceptions like athletes, movie stars
> etc.

I happen to have a personal friend who worked all his life, now retired,
in one of the welfare agencies in the USA and he told me, quite frankly,
that his agency had data that actually more white people were on welfare
than black people.

> regards
> -kamal
>
>

Kamal R. Prasad

2006-08-10, 7:57 am

me wrote:
> Kamal R. Pra

wrote:
>
> Restricted rights is not slavery. H1Bs are free to return to India.
>

it is slavery because while in the US, you do not have the same rights
as you had in India or americans have in their own country.

To return to India, one has to dispose off all immovable property like
a car, furniture etc.. If the employer provides relocation -that is
fine. Otherwise, there is a lumpsum to be written off in going back.
And given that H1B salaries are not all that great, most will be
inclined to return only as a last resort. If they were told about
restricted rights before coming to the US, they have a better chance of
opting out and probably will.

The key pt is to tell every potential visa holder to the US that
the US govt is conniving with visa sponsors to perpetuate slavery. Once
they know the govt that is supposed to uphold the law has other things
on its mind -they will be in a better position to take a decision.
[color=darkred]
>
> An American coworker, an amateur sociologist, once told me that Americans
> recognize 3 skin colors - green, white and black [; those with much money
> being green people].

yeah -no doubt about that.

regards
-kamal

2006-08-10, 6:58 pm

Kamal R. Pra

wrote:
> me wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
> it is slavery because while in the US, you do not have the same rights
> as you had in India or americans have in their own country.

Not having the same rights doesn't make it slavery.

> To return to India, one has to dispose off all immovable property like
> a car, furniture etc.. If the employer provides relocation -that is
> fine. Otherwise, there is a lumpsum to be written off in going back.
> And given that H1B salaries are not all that great, most will be
> inclined to return only as a last resort. If they were told about
> restricted rights before coming to the US, they have a better chance of
> opting out and probably will.

They are free to advise others in India not to come.

> The key pt is to tell every potential visa holder to the US that
> the US govt is conniving with visa sponsors to perpetuate slavery. Once
> they know the govt that is supposed to uphold the law has other things
> on its mind -they will be in a better position to take a decision.

Straydog

2006-08-10, 6:58 pm

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Kamal R. Pra

wrote:

>
> me wrote:
>
> it is slavery because while in the US, you do not have the same rights
> as you had in India

You can go back any time you want to India and get those Indian rights.
Slaves can't do that.

> or americans have in their own country.

It is our _guaranteed_ and _real_ birthright, why should you think you
should get the same thing?

> To return to India, one has to dispose off all immovable property like
> a car, furniture etc..

Nah, you can just abandon it and leave anytime.

If the employer provides relocation -that is
> fine. Otherwise, there is a lumpsum to be written off in going back.
> And given that H1B salaries are not all that great, most will be
> inclined to return only as a last resort. If they were told about
> restricted rights before coming to the US, they have a better chance of
> opting out and probably will.

You can also very easily have chosen to become an illegal and stay as long
as you want, just like all the other illegals over here.

> The key pt is to tell every potential visa holder to the US that
> the US govt is conniving with visa sponsors to perpetuate slavery.

Only stupid people believe this. 13% of people here now were born somplace
else, and 60% of those 13% are illegal.

Once
> they know the govt that is supposed to uphold the law has other things
> on its mind -they will be in a better position to take a decision.

The USA is basically a free ride for guys like you. 60% of foreigners here
are illegal. Almost all have been illegal all the time they are here.
And, if the Hispanics get deported, they just come back.

>
> yeah -no doubt about that.

And, if you are illegal, there are lots of lawyers to help you become
legal, but you might go into debt.

> regards
> -kamal
>
>

Kamal R. Prasad

2006-08-11, 3:58 am

me wrote:
> Kamal R. Pra

wrote:
>
>
> Not having the same rights doesn't make it slavery.
>

Before you make an authoritative statement, you need to be sure of what
you are saying.
Do you know anything about the economics of slavery? From an economic
perspective, every human imported on restricted rights is a slave. How
they bring and retain captive labour is the modus operandi -which can
change over time. If the labour was not captive -it could not be
considered enslaved and would not deliver better returns than free
labour.

>
> They are free to advise others in India not to come.
>

which is about what i am doing right now. A better thing for americans
who do not want fingers pointing at them for practising/benefitting
from - slavery, would be to inform every potential newcomer of what
working on restricted rights ientails and how their govt will create
legislation from the ground up to benefit their financiers.

regards
-kamal
[color=darkred]

Straydog

2006-08-11, 7:58 am

On Fri, 10 Aug 2006, Kamal R. Pra

wrote:

>
> me wrote:
>
> Before you make an authoritative statement, you need to be sure of what
> you are saying.

For over a year now, I can tell from what you write that half the time you
don't know what you are talking about. You can't even tell the difference
between exploitation and slavery.

> Do you know anything about the economics of slavery? From an economic
> perspective, every human imported on restricted rights is a slave.

There is a very big difference between "restricted rights" and "no rights
whatsoever" and you do not deal with that fact.

Working under conditions that are more favorable to the boss than the
worker is NOT slavery. You could go back to India any time you wanted.
There were no chains around your arms or legs. No handcuffs. No iron bars.
No guns pointed at your head.

How
> they bring and retain captive labour

Captive labor means physically incarcerated.

is the modus operandi -which can
> change over time. If the labour was not captive -it could not be
> considered enslaved and would not deliver better returns than free
> labour.

You can't even understand the facts. Slaves are economically beneficial
because the slave manager does not have to pay them wages. (Slave
management, on the other hand, does involve costs)

>
> which is about what i am doing right now.

You are mostly complaining about the H1B program and its fine with me if
Indians don't want to come. We have tons of Russians and others, even
Hispanics, in my neighborhood who are on work permitting visas and they
are all happy.

A better thing for americans
> who do not want fingers pointing at them for practising/benefitting
> from - slavery,

I think all readers of these posts by Kamal need to understand their
rights and read the "fine print" on their contracts BEFORE they move to
another country under any visit or temporary arrangements rather than come
first and then get upset when they discover how the law works and then get
upset and then point fingers at the USA as if the USA did something bad.

would be to inform every potential newcomer of what
> working on restricted rights ientails and how their govt will create
> legislation from the ground up to benefit their financiers.

That is fine: point your finger at the corporate executives and our
crooked politicians who do favors for Big Business in exchange for
campaign contributions (i.e. money-bribes).

> regards
> -kamal
>
>
>

alexy

2006-08-11, 7:58 am

"Kamal R. Pra

" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote:

>
>Before you make an authoritative statement, you need to be sure of what
>you are saying.
>Do you know anything about the economics of slavery? From an economic
>perspective, every human imported on restricted rights is a slave. How
>they bring and retain captive labour is the modus operandi -which can
>change over time. If the labour was not captive -it could not be
>considered enslaved and would not deliver better returns than free
>labour.

Well, before you start making up your own definitions for words
willy-nilly, to force them into a situation where they don't fit with
normal usage, you need to think a little about the nonstandard
definition you are proposing.

Using your definition, every executive who has an incentive plan with
"golden handcuff" provisions is a slave, since they lose the right to
that money if they leave the current employer (just as an H-1B would
suffer economic loss if they left their current employer and had to
move back home). In fact, everyone participating in a remitment or
savings plan in which payout of employer-contributed money is
conditioned on certain period of service (vesting schedule) is a slave
with your definition. Real slaves don't have the options to chose to
suffer those economic hardships.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy

2006-08-11, 7:58 am

"Kamal R. Pra

" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote:

> To return to India, one has to dispose off all immovable property like
>a car, furniture etc.. If the employer provides relocation -that is
>fine. Otherwise, there is a lumpsum to be written off in going back.
>And given that H1B salaries are not all that great, most will be
>inclined to return only as a last resort. If they were told about
>restricted rights before coming to the US, they have a better chance of
>opting out and probably will.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that all the folks coming
here on H-1Bs are as stupid as the India-bashers and you make them out
to be. Packing up and moving half-way around the world without finding
out the rules under which you would be working? How stupid could
someone get? Do you really think there are many H-1B's that dumb?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy

2006-08-11, 7:58 am

alexy <nospam@asbry.net> wrote:

>"Kamal R. Pra

Kamal R. Prasad

2006-08-11, 6:58 pm

alexy wrote:
> "Kamal R. Pra

" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that all the folks coming
> here on H-1Bs are as stupid as the India-bashers and you make them out
> to be. Packing up and moving half-way around the world without finding
> out the rules under which you would be working? How stupid could
> someone get? Do you really think there are many H-1B's that dumb?

I don't know if they have to be dumb to believe that things will work
out just fine for them.
Most H1Bs from my experience think of the USA as depicted in hollywood
movies. They would expect tall skyscrappers, zero poverty, blondes
floating around in bikini etc..
They really need to be made aware that the US govt creates legislation
to suit a business purpose and it has other things on its mind besides
law enforcement. I doubt if any of them knew of K street when they took
a flight to the US. I didn't - for sure.
Regardless of whether it is in their best interest to stay out of the
US, how can you have 2 sets of opinion -one saying that H1Bs take away
jobs and other saying they shouldn't be discouraged or warned about
coming in to the US?

regards
-kamal

> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Kamal R. Prasad

2006-08-11, 6:58 pm

alexy wrote:
> "Kamal R. Pra

" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
> Well, before you start making up your own definitions for words
> willy-nilly, to force them into a situation where they don't fit with
> normal usage, you need to think a little about the nonstandard
> definition you are proposing.
>

>From an economic perspective, it is the same as slavery. The
implementation as is traditionally defined -isn't the same. There are
no whips or nets involved. The employer doesn't beat up slaves -but it
does form a captive labour market from an economic perspective. They
just remind the slaves of their status as captive labour by way of
legal clauses enacted by the US govt and something that is to be taken
care of by the INS/law enforcement. For H1Bs -the reminder comes subtly
coz they are well educated and can return home in the worst case. For
illegals from mexico, the reminder comes bluntly. Even illegals aren't
enslaved by your definition. But ask any and all of them, not a single
one of them will deny that they live in the shadows under threat of
deportation should the employer inform law enforcement about their not
doing a good job. The law enforcement which will take them to task is
the same one that is finding it difficult to locate them as long as
their employers are happy with their work. Im talking of 12 million
people as evidence of my claim and its not something that can be
refuted so easily..

> Using your definition, every executive who has an incentive plan with
> "golden handcuff" provisions is a slave, since they lose the right to
> that money if they leave the current employer (just as an H-1B would
> suffer economic loss if they left their current employer and had to
> move back home). In fact, everyone participating in a remitment or

Not exactly. The golden handcuff is an incentive to stick with an
employer. But a conflict with the visa sponser jeopardizes one's legal
status to s

alternative employment or be physically present in the
US. I have broken golden handcuffs and taken up alternative employment
and it kind of compensated me for the loss incurred. It didn't
endanger my legal status and or my right to s

alternative employment
which I consider suitable. In India, one doesn't have to earn the right
to change employers or be physically present by working from an
employer. The right comes by default -not just to citizens but even to
foreigners on a work permit. In contrast, the US govt has created a
legislation so that workers earn their bearings aka liberation by
contributing to an employer. Even the green card process requires
employer to certify that green card applicant has contributed to the
business and consequently to the economy before he can be rewarded with
a green card. Further, H1B visa sponsor can veto transfer or recommend
to the INS to deport a person coz he didn't leave on good terms. The
INS has powers to deport any H1B applicant on 24 hrs notice without
reason and termination of employment (if informed to the INS) does
require H1b visa holder to leave within 24 hrs of being terminated
-failing which the visa holder would be in violation of the law and
subject to punishment/forcible removal. All of this is legal jargon
which can be verified and which I am not exagerrating. The thing that
is not mentioned is that the matter will become relevant only if the
employer has business reasons to do so.

> savings plan in which payout of employer-contributed money is
> conditioned on certain period of service (vesting schedule) is a slave

One isn't a slave by that definition. The thing that defines slavery is
taking away civic rights. If I don't like an employer in India -I can
dump him and his options and take up another job. Im 100% free to do
so. In the US -that freedom is not present. If it looks like it is
present -that is because of how well the legislation is worded.

> with your definition. Real slaves don't have the options to chose to
> suffer those economic hardships.

H1Bs do have the option to choose whether to work on an H1B or not -but
once they come over to the US, take a car loan, buy furniture etc..
that ability is lost either partially or completely. To give my own
example. I dumped a toyota camry le when leaving the US. The only
person I know of having a camry is my last company's CEO [didn't check
current workplace for car ownership] and he is so freaking rich -he can
retire any moment. So, if a person comes in and 6 mtsh later decides he
wants out -he won't be able to get out easily if you understand the
diff in salaries between the 2 countries and the amt the H1B will have
to write off or pay back.
Im trying to tell them before they land -as to what to expect from
the US govt, coz telling them after they land is not much different
from telling that after their having fallen into a ditch.

regards
-kamal

> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy

2006-08-11, 6:58 pm

"Kamal R. Pra

" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote:

>
>alexy wrote:
>
>I don't know if they have to be dumb to believe that things will work
>out just fine for them.
Okay, how about pathetically naive.[color=darkred]
>Most H1Bs from my experience think of the USA as depicted in hollywood
>movies. They would expect tall skyscrappers, zero poverty, blondes
>floating around in bikini etc..
> They really need to be made aware that the US govt creates legislation
>to suit a business purpose and it has other things on its mind besides
>law enforcement. I doubt if any of them knew of K street when they took
>a flight to the US. I didn't - for sure.
>Regardless of whether it is in their best interest to stay out of the
>US, how can you have 2 sets of opinion -one saying that H1Bs take away
>jobs and other saying they shouldn't be discouraged or warned about
>coming in to the US?
>
>regards
>-kamal
>

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy

2006-08-11, 6:58 pm

"Kamal R. Pra

" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote:

>
>alexy wrote:
>
>implementation as is traditionally defined -isn't the same. There are
>no whips or nets involved. The employer doesn't beat up slaves -but it
>does form a captive labour market from an economic perspective. They
>just remind the slaves of their status as captive labour by way of
>legal clauses enacted by the US govt and something that is to be taken
>care of by the INS/law enforcement. For H1Bs -the reminder comes subtly
>coz they are well educated and can return home in the worst case. For
>illegals from mexico, the reminder comes bluntly. Even illegals aren't
>enslaved by your definition. But ask any and all of them, not a single
>one of them will deny that they live in the shadows under threat of
>deportation should the employer inform law enforcement about their not
>doing a good job. The law enforcement which will take them to task is
>the same one that is finding it difficult to locate them as long as
>their employers are happy with their work. Im talking of 12 million
>people as evidence of my claim and its not something that can be
>refuted so easily..
>
>
>Not exactly. The golden handcuff is an incentive to stick with an
>employer. But a conflict with the visa sponser jeopardizes one's legal
>status to s

alternative employment or be physically present in the
>US. I have broken golden handcuffs and taken up alternative employment
>and it kind of compensated me for the loss incurred. It didn't
>endanger my legal status and or my right to s

alternative employment
>which I consider suitable. In India, one doesn't have to earn the right
>to change employers or be physically present by working from an
>employer. The right comes by default -not just to citizens but even to
>foreigners on a work permit.
Your work permits for foreigners are totally unrestricted? That's
weird. And totally contradicts what was found by the US Committee on
Refugees and Immigrants:
:Right to Earn a Livelihood India did not permit most refugees to work,
:open bank accounts, rent houses, or run businesses. Although some
:Myanmarese refugees worked in the informal sector, they did so without
:the protection of the law and were subject to arrest, detention, and
:deportation. Refugees reported workplace violations including harassment
:by Indian nationals, unpaid overtime, and sexual and gender-based violence.

>In contrast, the US govt has created a
>legislation so that workers earn their bearings aka liberation by
>contributing to an employer. Even the green card process requires
>employer to certify that green card applicant has contributed to the
>business and consequently to the economy before he can be rewarded with
>a green card. Further, H1B visa sponsor can veto transfer or recommend
>to the INS to deport a person coz he didn't leave on good terms. The
>INS has powers to deport any H1B applicant on 24 hrs notice without
>reason and termination of employment (if informed to the INS) does
>require H1b visa holder to leave within 24 hrs of being terminated
>-failing which the visa holder would be in violation of the law and
>subject to punishment/forcible removal. All of this is legal jargon
>which can be verified and which I am not exagerrating. The thing that
>is not mentioned is that the matter will become relevant only if the
>employer has business reasons to do so.

Having to play by rules you don't like, and might not have had the
sense to determine before you agreed to them, does not constitute
slavery. If I go to France on a tourist visa, I don't have a "civic
right" to earn a living, but that doesn't make me a slave.

I think a lot of people would be sympathetic to a discussion of the
unfairness or ill effects of the rules of H-1B. Many or most of them
will say "tough shit" in response to whining about having to abide by
the rules under which you accepted the visa and calling this
requirement that you abide by the rules you agreed to "slavery".

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Kamal R. Prasad

2006-08-11, 6:58 pm

alexy wrote:
> "Kamal R. Pra

" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Your work permits for foreigners are totally unrestricted? That's
> weird. And totally contradicts what was found by the US Committee on
> Refugees and Immigrants:

Firstly, you are talking of political refugees and Im talking of work
permit holders in India.
Secondly, the US govt's statements need not represent the truth. To
convince me of the statute, you would need to point me to the Indian
govt's statements.
Thirdly, I can tell you that lots of refugees in India do work legally.
Tibetans are employed by the Indian army. I have come across Iranian
refugees [escaping the cultural revolution] working in some Indian govt
departments too. India is like a Noah's ark for people fleeing
religious and political persecution. I can count parsis (unconverted
Iranians), armenian and syrian christians, tibetans and burmese
people, hippies/drug addicts disowned by their society from the west,
semetic jews as some of the people who migrated to India -never to
return or to to flee persecution. The oinly community that didn't
integrate but was segregated was muslims (both native and central
asian/arab) and thats because of a culture clash/doctrine for forcible
conversion.

> :Right to Earn a Livelihood India did not permit most refugees to work,
> :open bank accounts, rent houses, or run businesses. Although some
> :Myanmarese refugees worked in the informal sector, they did so without
> :the protection of the law and were subject to arrest, detention, and
> :deportation. Refugees reported workplace violations including harassment
> :by Indian nationals, unpaid overtime, and sexual and gender-based violence.
>

there are always businesses and people in authority who want to take
advantage of refugees. The statute and the general public is clear that
all individuals will be treated at par. In the US, one can buy a green
card by becoming an investor. In India, either the govt will grant
citizenship for free or will not grant no matter what one is willing to
pay. Most of those who become citizens happen to be v poor or
penniless. Neither does the govt nor do the people gain anything by
their becoming citizens and its essentially a hand out because the
situation in their own country is bad. In contrast, the US is stinking
rich and yet they will grant green card either after working for it, or
on investing or as a national interest waiver i.e some technocrat
brings value to the table and that will help to improve the std of
living of the citizenry. So, its always because there is something to
be obtained and its like a trade and not a hand out.

>
> Having to play by rules you don't like, and might not have had the
> sense to determine before you agreed to them, does not constitute

What i am sating is not that you should change the rules to my liking,
but inform every potential newcomer that this is what the rules say
both explicitly and implicitly by way of caveats/loopholes etc. I have
decided that i do not like your rules and so do not want to go to the
US on an H1B under any circumstance. It doesn't mean I want you to
change the rules for me, or that I have a grudge against americans for
having constructed rules to benefit them.

> slavery. If I go to France on a tourist visa, I don't have a "civic
> right" to earn a living, but that doesn't make me a slave.
>
because ur going as a tourist. If you go to work, and they tie you up
in regulations -that is a different case.

> I think a lot of people would be sympathetic to a discussion of the
> unfairness or ill effects of the rules of H-1B. Many or most of them
> will say "tough shit" in response to whining about having to abide by
> the rules under which you accepted the visa and calling this
> requirement that you abide by the rules you agreed to "slavery".
>
If I accept to go on an h1B today after knowing everything about it, I
will not be whining about it.Im sayign those who don't know what the
regulations imply ought to be told about it. If you do not wish to
profit by landing them ina trap aka slavery, you shouldn't have a
problem informing them upfront that this is what it boils down to.
Conversely, if americans want to keep mum and bring in H1Bs and then
let them figure out the facts -that indicates a desire to benefit from
slavery. And by slavery, i mean creating a captive labour market. Its
captive in practice but doesn't appear to be so in theory coz ur
politicians have done a good job of wording legislatio.

regards
-kamal

> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Day Brown

2006-08-11, 6:58 pm

BroTher zAchary wrote:
> Straydog wrote:
>
>
>
> I assume you mean forced labor in which the children are overworked,
> underpaid, lackadaisical (or lack of) safety environments, and their
> wages confiscated, even, by parents. By today's absurd definitions,
> were I a child today, I would not have been able to hold many of the
> part time jobs (most of which were labor: yard work, trash clean-up,
> using a chainsaw to but wood, splitting it by hand, etc.), and I
> suspect you would not have either.
>
I was born on a farm, and remember it well; was I exploited by not being
paid cash money, or was I rewarded by being taught something of what it
took to put food on the table and recognized for my contribution to that
process? Imagine "self esteem" that is actually the result of doing
something productive.

anon

2006-08-11, 9:57 pm