Foreign owned property in Goa, (Part One)

Digital Drifter

In this case, it's slightly different, an issue of land I'll come to. With respect ot foreign ownership of companies, there is no issue. With the exception of a %age ceiling to foreign investment, telcom,banks, power stations, retail and petrol, water stuff, there IS foreign investment. & one sided I may add, forced by the World Bank(see Delhi Jaal Board, PWc RTI case).

With respect to land, the 50s-60s famines and subsequent cold war intrigues convinced the powers that be a)food security needs to be fixed-the start of the Green revolution b) "agricultural" land ownership is key to a) above. A lot of safeguards & chekcs were builtin which were circumvented. So if someone is going to get caught, saying everyone else does it, is not going to cut it.

BTW, can you name one country in first world which allows 100% foreign ownership of their telecom grid? It'll NEVER happen. Same brouhoua over the ports takeover by UAE, everyone acts like the French but don't dare call themselves French.

__________________
Click here for the Indiamike train guide in PDF

Digital Drifter

Ahh, the ties that bind and gag. Consider these sentence fragments "Kobe, an african American..." "Ahmed, a 2nd generation pakistani british muslim..."


Somehow they're Americans, British FIRST seems to escape a lot of writers, wonder why? BTW, Sonia G is Indian but neither she nor anyone else can take away her Italian heritage.

As for questioning her loyalty to the Indian Constitution, PERSONALLY, she's Indian, so there's nothing to question her about. But others are well within their right to insinuate and rumour. After all, race politics are not the exclusive provenance of any one country.

sirensongs

Let each and every country look after itself and its own people first.

...As long as they don't complain when other countries do the same. ("Sorry, you can't buy a company or own a house here...we're looking after ourselves and our OWN people first.") All I'm asking for is consistency....

The question of who is "their own" is a valid one. They didn't specify non-Indian citizens (any number of "foreigners" could be citizens), just those who weren't the right shade of brown.

Sorry, I really don't understand the second part of your answer at all, Nick...?

__________________
"Why do people go to India to find themselves? India is where you go to lose yourself."
Feringhee: The India Diaries

sirensongs

So the writer noticed ethnic nuances - did anyone deny them property (or any other)rights based on their ethnicity? the right to hold office?

The writer is just being accurate, much as they would be in saying "Singh, a Punjabi" or "Nair, a Malayalee."

Alas, they are not....:-( Did anyone ever say they were?

Perhaps I'd better stop before I am forced to resign my offices of profit. ;-)

Nick-H

Granted!

And, obviously, I have a personal point of view on this.
It seemed to make sense at the time

Anders

Sweden has no restrictions on telecom ownership by foreigners and I would expect that to be the same for the vast majority of the countries in the first world.

Nick-H

In fact it is just the sort of thing that UK would do.

Not only privatise the railways, gas, electricity etc, but sell it to other countries!

dzibead

Not necessarily. They said "persons of non-Indian origin." Unless they're using that terminology in a way that diverges from the definition of "person of Indian origin" under Indian law, a person can be "of Indian origin" and be very, very white - or black, or yellow, or whatever. There may be an element of racism behind this campaign - I frankly don't know enough about the particular political movement involved to comment intelligently - but to assume a racist motivation simply from the phrase "persons of non-Indian origin" itself suggests overeagerness to jump to the most negative conclusion.

dzibead

Well, last year the s**t hit the fan in the U.S. when a Chinese oil company that's owned by the Chinese government tried to buy the American oil company Unocal. See this story, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062302065.html

Concern over the extent of foreign investments and property ownership is certainly not unique to India. It may not manifest itself until a country or a certain segment of its population starts to feel vulnerable, which may be why it seems that the "vast majority of countries in the first world" don't fret about the issue very much - they aren't feeling vulnerable to being economically colonized by a stronger country. But I don't think any country is truly as completely "wide open" as some writers think India should be. And countries tend to get particularly touchy when they think some foreigner is taking over some segment of the economy or the culture or whatever that has particular significance to the "national psyche" -- look as Japan's history of protectionism toward its rice farmers, for example.

Frankly, it seems to me that some people here who are making invidious comparisons between protectionist tendencies in India vs. the supposed openness of other countries aren't well-enough informed to have a useful opinion on the subject.

Nick-H

I'm all for India protecting its own industries and its own people.

I'm all for any country doing that.

Digital Drifter

I stand corrected.

Digital Drifter

All well and good but do you mind? Please, don't use big words like "invidious", I had to look it up. & I hate that!

& it makes you sound like a lawyer. so there!

sirensongs

Good point. How is "of Indian origin" defined under Indian law?

My impression, incomplete as it may be, is that "Indian origin" has always been used to indicate genetic "Indian" heritage. That's why this phrase is used rather than the more logical "Indian citizen." After all, anyone could (in theory at least) be an Indian citizen.

Every PIO I know who holds a PIO passport has a mother or grandmother back there who was "Indian" -not on paper, but genetically. I've never heard of someone whose became Indian via citizenship being called "of Indian origin" but if they can be, I stand corrected.

So does anyone know this definition (Person of Indian Origin)? Not what we think it might be or what it maybe should be, but the actual legal definition as it stands?

sirensongs

Originally Posted by Digital Drifter
BTW, can you name one country in first world which allows 100% foreign ownership of their telecom grid? It'll NEVER happen.
Anders said:
Sweden has no restrictions on telecom ownership by foreigners and I would expect that to be the same for the vast majority of the countries in the first world.

Don't know how this got brought into it - no, I wouldn't think ANY country would allow foreign ownership (in whole or part) of its utilities and basic services. Doesn't make sense (in that I agree with Nick).

We were discussing the right or lack thereof of foreign nationals to own private property, such as a residence; or a privately owned commercial interest.

Weren't we?

dzibead

Heh! I learn something new everyday here, so why shouldn't you!

And I am a lawyer ... so I just can't help myself ...