Also your point about "major move that directly affected the entire country but did not end in large scale riots" is vague in its definition of "major move". During the partition, people were forced to leave their homes, belongings, ALL material wealth in the name of religion/politics/whatever and move to a different location in fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

Does demonetization compare to this?

During demonetization, among other things, all the honest Indian had to do was wait in long queues to exchange cash (which is not convenient by all means - its very very harrowing), and the dishonest Indian figured out how to convert their cash to the new currency through the black market.

We can debate about the pros and (many many more) cons about demonetization, but thats another topic. Overall, India today is very different from the India 70 years ago when the partition took place, so I disagree with your comparison as well as your metric for success.

Why is it "morbid"? Did you call out the OP for associating the death of a 100 people due to an economic move like demonetization morbid? If not, then why am I being singled out? Just because my opinion doesn't fit your narrative?

> Also your point about "major move that directly affected the entire country but did not end in large scale riots" is vague in its definition of "major move". During the partition, people were forced to leave their homes, belongings, ALL material wealth in the name of religion/politics/whatever and move to a different location in fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Does demonetization compare to this?

Yes it does. Because the OP was talking about "implementation" of the move and not about "intent". The displacement of people during the Partition was of a small percentage of the entire populace. Yet it was not managed properly at all. Did it not result in the death of close to 2 million people by some estimates? Or is the death of 2 million people due to Partition not as morbid as the death of 100 people due to demonetization?

According to me, demonetization should have resulted in large-scale riots. Even the Supreme Court of India concurred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/demonetisation-sc-q.... In other countries where demonetization took place there were large scale riots and huge political instability. Read up on Myanmar demonetization which led to large-scale riots leaving thousands of people dead.

The very fact it did not end in large-scale riots leads me to believe that it was a success. Whether there are any long term benefits to the move economically remains to be seen.

> During demonetization, among other things, all the honest Indian had to do was wait in long queues to exchange cash (which is not convenient by all means - its very very harrowing), and the dishonest Indian figured out how to convert their cash to the new currency through the black market.

And most of those converting their cash were caught and the rest are still being caught. Did you fail to read the news?

I call it morbid because "not enough people died hence its a success" is a bad argument. What is your cutoff for the number of people to have died for it to have become a failure? How do you arrive at that cutoff?

> "The displacement of people during the Partition was of a small percentage of the entire populace. Yet it was not managed properly at all"

Yes a relatively smaller percentage than demonetization (but not small by any means). Furthermore, less people were affected by partition but the impact to those affected was much higher. In demonetization, more people were affected but the average impact to those affected was much lower. They might even be the same area under the curve in terms of suffering. But how do we quantify that? Simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. More people are affected by the poor air quality of New Delhi but less people die because of it than the partition, does that mean that the air quality measures that the government has taken (banning unleaded fuel etc.) is a success?

> "And most of those converting their cash were caught and the rest are still being caught. Did you fail to read the news?"

Survivorship bias. You only hear of the ones that got caught. There are so many that got away scot-free.

Also, do you always believe or agree with what the Supreme court says or recommends? How do you feel about the mandatory standing for the national anthem before any movie? Should that be something that the state should enforce? Hitler made it mandatory for civilians to perform the Nazi salute towards him.

The cutoff was not given by me. It was given by the nay-sayers including the Supreme Court of India. Who speculated "financial emergency" and "large-scale riots"? Was it people who supported demonetization or those who opposed?

> Yes a relatively smaller percentage than demonetization (but not small by any means). Furthermore, less people were affected by partition but the impact to those affected was much higher. In demonetization, more people were affected but the average impact to those affected was much lower. They might even be the same area under the curve in terms of suffering. But how do we quantify that? Simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. More people are affected by the poor air quality of New Delhi but less people die because of it than the partition, does that mean that the air quality measures that the government has taken (banning unleaded fuel etc.) is a success?

But you are again trying to tie an economic move like demonetization with something inherently negative: pollution. How does pollution compare to the Partition or Demonetization? How does that analogy even make any sense? We are talking about "implementation" of "intent". I gave comparison of Partition because the Partition of India was an "intent" in the same way that the demonetization was an "intent". The "implementation" of the "intent" failed with Partition but not with demonetization. How do I quantify that? See the demonetization exercises carried out by 6 countries before India. It was bloody and ended in either coups d'état or large-scale riots. Both did not happen in India.

> Survivorship bias. You only hear of the ones that got caught. There are so many that got away scot-free.

You are in the realm of speculation here. It is for you to prove that "so many go away scot-free".

> Also, do you always believe or agree with what the Supreme court says or recommends? How do you feel about the mandatory standing for the national anthem before any movie? Should that be something that the state should enforce? Hitler made it mandatory for civilians to perform the Nazi salute towards him.

I agree with mandatory standing for National Anthem irrespective of whether it is before any movie or in any public place. Now you taking it to the other extreme of comparing standing for National Anthem to that of Nazi salute is completely uncalled for. Are you actually comparing Nazi ideology with upholding the Constitution of India? The Supreme Court only upheld the Articles of the Constitution. Read the order of the Court. This is not some Nazi diktat. Please widen your perspective.

Yet you used that data point to call the move a categorical success.

> But you are again trying to tie an economic move like demonetization with something inherently negative

No, I'm not trying to tie anything. I'm just trying to make you understand the fallacy that might have inadvertently crept into your reasoning (happens to the best of us!) Also I'm not comparing demonetization to pollution, I'm comparing the policy of demonetization to the policy response against pollution. Or to make it even simpler, I'm comparing the government policy to curb corruption to government policy to curb pollution, or the government policy to prevent deaths during the partition. Just because one policy response led to more deaths than another, doesn't mean that the former response wasn't as flawed as the latter. Especially since there are so many differences between the initial conditions that existed during the partition and the conditions that exist today. I will repeat here that simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. Apples and oranges my friend.

> You are in the realm of speculation here

Unfortunately not. Will this data ever be publicly available? No. Did a black market exist? Most definitely.

> Are you actually comparing Nazi ideology with upholding the Constitution of India?

What if I don't agree with some of the articles of the constitution? Can I exercise my free speech rights to criticize the said articles without being charged with sedition? Can I express those free speech rights by not standing up for the national anthem and not be charged for an offence? Unfortunately not. I am being instructed by legislation to sit or stand or perform some other body movement to uphold the legitimacy of a document, or an ideology, which I may or may not agree with. That was true for the Nazi salute as well. There are very very subtle points that deal with things like burning the national flag and not "respecting" the national anthem. I urge you to check out the first amendment of the american constition and US supreme court rulings regarding their national anthem and national flag and what constitutes disrespect and what constitutes a criminal offence. Its fascinating stuff. The Indian constitution and the our Supreme court have a long way to go!

Anyway, time to get on with my life. Do definitely read up on the First amendment and try comparing that with the free speech as guaranteed by the Indian constitution. Its a good perspective to have.

No I did not. I only countered a point that was made by the OP who said demonetization was a failure because 100 people died by citing a point that the Opposition parties in India made during the demonetization phase (about large-scale riots).

> No, I'm not trying to tie anything. I'm just trying to make you understand the fallacy that might have inadvertently crept into your reasoning (happens to the best of us!) Also I'm not comparing demonetization to pollution, I'm comparing the policy of demonetization to the policy response against pollution. Or to make it even simpler, I'm comparing the government policy to curb corruption to government policy to curb pollution, or the government policy to prevent deaths during the partition. Just because one policy response led to more deaths than another, doesn't mean that the former response wasn't as flawed as the latter. Especially since there are so many differences between the initial conditions that existed during the partition and the conditions that exist today. I will repeat here that simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. Apples and oranges my friend.

So you can explain this to the OP of the post who said that demonetization was a failure because 100 people had died. Do you now understand why I'm countering this specific point? Because it makes no sense to compare an economic move with deaths. Apples and oranges indeed.

> Unfortunately not. Will this data ever be publicly available? No. Did a black market exist? Most definitely.

Of course it will be. You are assuming that the RBI will not publish data on remonetization. You are also assuming that the Income Tax department automatically accepts every deposit made between November 8th and December 31st as white money without conducting an audit. In fact, I'll argue that it has become so much more easier now for the Government to easily audit deposits as they have entered the formal system to catch evaders and bring them to book than to go after those who had hoards of cash stacked in their secret lockers.

> What if I don't agree with some of the articles of the constitution? Can I exercise my free speech rights to criticize the said articles without being charged with sedition?

You have already done it.

> Can I express those free speech rights by not standing up for the national anthem and not be charged for an offence?

If you are in India you are duty bound to stand. It is part of fundamental duties of every citizen of India. If you don't like it you can give up your Indian citizenship and adopt citizenship of another country.

> I am being instructed by legislation to sit or stand or perform some other body movement to uphold the legitimacy of a document, or an ideology, which I may or may not agree with. That was true for the Nazi salute as well.

No both are different. When you sit or stand, you do it for the concept of India and not for an ideology. The Nazi salute was a salute for an ideology that only catered to one section of society. The Constitution of India has a place for all except those who question the very ethos of India's existence. If you do not agree with the legitimacy of document you have no business accepting citizenship under the very document. That is highly hypocritical don't you think?

> There are very very subtle points that deal with things like burning the national flag and not "respecting" the national anthem. I urge you to check out the first amendment of the american constition and US supreme court rulings regarding their national anthem and national flag and what constitutes disrespect and what constitutes a criminal offence. Its fascinating stuff. The Indian constitution and the our Supreme court have a long way to go!

No we don't have a long way to go. India is a Sovereign Nation. Just because the US has a particular constitution doesn't mean we need to adopt the same. Would you be happy if we adopted the Second Amendment as well? It's ridiculous to compare constitutions. These are documents that are made based on historical as well as cultural differences. The United States is not as diverse as India. It's constitution would wreak havoc in an already fragile Indian society.

> "I'm about to walk into work so there's no time to dance around the facts"

I wasn't expecting a factual rebuttal after you called me "rude, short sighted" and "huffing and puffing" anyways.

If you want to look at a data driven journalism to the flip flops, you can start here: http://www.indiaspend.com/cover-story/how-modi-changed-and-c....

I spoke about: a move that directly affected livelihood of billion Indians, "with a possibility of large-scale riots". Since those large-scale riots did not happen it can be termed a success. Why am I talking about "large-scale riots"? Because the Opposition (even the Supreme Court of India) predicted large-scale riots: http://www.merinews.com/mobile/article/India/2016/11/22/note...

"Supreme Court says situation after demonetisation serious, fears riots":

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/demonetisation-sc-q...

Check how death of popular politicians can lead to 100s of ppl committing suicides in India. Or check how 1000s die every year in train accidents in just one city of Mumbai.

The sad part is even most Indians I meet in US are mostly clueless about conditions of masses. They remain preoccupied with food/bollywood/cricket etc.

I'm not sure where the rest of your argument is going. You seem to be saying that Indian lives are cheap anyway.

The declared criteria for the success of demonetisation has shifted twice so far. It started as "we'll stop corruption", then it was "we'll go cashless" and now it's "we've converted cash saved at home to cheap loans". But even the BJP has never claimed that it was "this will not cause riots".

It seems to me critics show a deep disconnect with people when they claim failure due to inconvenience to people. In India riots can occur on far minor issues than demonetization. So yes people are willing to wait for results but critics are hastily jumping to conclusion that scheme has failed.

Also, is the only counter one can come up with for an economic move is talk about "death of 100 people"? Seriously? In a populace of a billion the death of 100 people for such a huge economic move is close to nothing.

This is a no-true-scotsman argument. I am Indian. I was forced to co-operate with the move because of being an ordinary citizen. I had no choice but to go along.

On a lighter note, the "large-scale riot" theory was not propagated by the Government but by the opposition. Read up articles by P Chidambaram and you'll know what I mean. So don't hold us guilty for using that term :)

Explain to me again how the move was a success. You are assuming a priori that it was a good decision as long as riots don't happen, which they didn't, hence it was good. But why was it good regardless of riots/no riots? I don't see how. So a few hundred crores of black money were caught in raids. That is a drop in the ocean. A hundred times more than that is caught in regular tax raids every year.* It has done absolutely nothing to curb future corruption. What it has done for sure is to reduce spending everywhere and cut down on industrial production and employment.

You are welcome to believe it was successful, just like I believe it was a disaster. We'll find out at some point.

* http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/cash-crunch-rs-242-...

"Countrywide Rs 242 crore in new currency and jewellery worth Rs 15 crore has been seized. The amount is not abnormally high, as I-T sleuths annually unearth Rs 10,500 crore to Rs 11,000 crore in undisclosed income."

Because you are confusing demonetization with remonetization and post-remonetization. All are different. Demonetization ended on December 31st. The move was a success as no riots or coups took place. Why should I take that factor to gauge success? If you look at the history of demonetization, with the exception of Britain, 5 other countries either had large-scale riots or the Government's fell due to coups. The remonetization phase did not even commence and in some instances demonetization was also rolled back. Demonetization is just declaring currency as no longer legal tender. It has nothing to do with implementation or the after-effects. The actual implementation of replenishing cash is called "remonetization" and post-remonetization is the real impact.

Now is remonetization a success? What about post-remonetization? Only the RBI final report as well as Income Tax assessment of those deposits made during November 8th to December 31st will be able to explain. This will take some time to come out. You are assuming that all money deposited in the banks are automatically converted to white. That is where your assumptions are wrong. The Tax authorities have already started auditing these deposits and are actively catching culprits who deposited huge amount of cash during the remonetization phase (see Mayawati's brother as well as her party being investigated for depositing 104+ crores). They'll start with the big fish and then catch the smaller fish.

What? Where did I say this?

You are assuming that this is the be-all and end-all of this scheme. You are assuming that the Income Tax authorities won't look at and audit the deposits made in the banks when you declared that "It has done absolutely nothing to curb future corruption".

This might be a stat for you but if it was your kin maybe you won't feel the same way.

I compared demonetization carried out by India with demonetization carried out by other countries. When I see that there were large-scale riots and coup d'état in other countries but no such thing happened in India I will definitely take this as a success. You want to have a narrow negative perspective of 100 people dying you can continue to have that. I have a wider positive perspective that no large-scale riots or coup d'état happened that would have sent the Indian economy in a downward spiral or worse: civil war.

Are you actually comparing currency to transportation ? People have a choice in the mode of transport. Your villager however can't use bitcoins because his Rs.500 note isn't legal tender.

"I have a wider positive perspective that no large-scale riots or coup d'état happened that would have sent the Indian economy in a downward spiral or worse: civil war."

Your standards for a successful policy are shockingly low. And stop lying, you have no sympathy, you just called a 100 deaths as having a "narrow perspective".

Do you also disagree with the countless economists that have criticized the move based on theory and facts. Or is that "foreign propaganda" for you ?

Also, you wish to ignore facts and reasoning posted by economists all in the name of "disruption". And FYI The Planning Commission of India AKA "Policy Pundits" consists of renowned economists.

Forget the Planning Commission of India, we have had the worst experience with a Prime Minister, who was an Economist, and had no spine to take on the corrupt or even implement his own policies. India practically lost 10 years of it's growth to this useless economist. So no please, we don't need more economists. We have more than enough Economists. We need someone who can take tough policy decisions.

As I said earlier, economists have a place. He was great as a Finance Minister and RBI Governor. But the moment he became a policy decision maker (rather than just a policy maker) he failed miserably. Do you understand this basic difference? This is the reason I say that economists cannot take policy decisions. They can make the right policies if they are dictated by someone higher up the chain but are incapable to take the same decisions if they are given a chance.

The evidence for that is the GST reform. GST was the brainchild of Manmohan Singh and his Planning Commission when he was the Prime Minister for 10 years. But he failed to get the damn reform passed in the Indian Parliament mainly because he did not know or understand political maneuvering. How is it that the same GST reform, which was Manmohan's brainchild, passed by Narendra Modi (who is his opponent) without any troubles?

    > I don't see how it cannot
    > be termed a success

If not, the last few days of pounding payment in Jodhpur trying to find working ATMs, and being stuck for 30m in queues when they finally got their money delivered all seems in vain. That, and, you know, the 100 deaths.

Yes it has. It depends again on your perspective. Looks like you have only read news of 100 deaths but failed to read news of the many political babus, black money hoarders and tax evaders getting caught with huge amounts of cash (with both old and new notes).

It would be helpful if you cited your sources for this. From what I've seen and read, most people found a way to launder their black money through brokers. [2] That's not just speculation, most of the 17 trn rupees of cash has found its way back into legal channels. [1]

You were also very cavalier about the downsides of this move. Yes, those 100 deaths are a loss, but far more people were affected. Many did not have any money for a month or more because their employers did not have cash to pay them. There were 8 million affected workers in the beedi industry alone, more in other sectors. These are daily wage labourers, remember. [2]

Many farmers were forced to sell their crops for pittances to make ends meet. One example is cauliflower being sold for ₹ 1/kg. Its usually sold at ₹ 12. The prices of soyabeans was down by 77% [2]

Judging by your comments on this thread, you neither know nor care about this. You speak as if the only downside to this entire affair was 100 people dying, all the while citing 0 sources.

[1] https://espresso.economist.com/4cf0ed8641cfcbbf46784e620a031...

[2] http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21711094-without-cash-ind...

No I care about it. But the problem is that most of them did not cite sources and were rhetorical. So I had to reply back in rhetoric. Since you cite sources I'll reply with sources too:

"It would be helpful if you cited your sources for this. From what I've seen and read, most people found a way to launder their black money through brokers. [2] That's not just speculation, most of the 17 trn rupees of cash has found its way back into legal channels. [1]"

Sure. Firstly your news reports are based on here-say and incorrect data. The correct RBI data is available in this article: http://swarajyamag.com/politics/the-rs-11-lakh-crore-deposit...

Always refer to RBI bulletins and press releases. Don't believe motivated reports.

> You were also very cavalier about the downsides of this move. Yes, those 100 deaths are a loss, but far more people were affected. Many did not have any money for a month or more because their employers did not have cash to pay them. There were 8 million affected workers in the beedi industry alone, more in other sectors. These are daily wage labourers, remember. [2]

Why are these daily wage laborers not paid through cheques or wire transfer? The Government of India already has a "Jan Dhan Yojana" which is a simple form that facilitates opening of bank accounts (along with e-banking facilities) for lower income groups without going through any hurdles (all you need is an Aadhar card to open the account). In fact, even the employers can do it for their laborers on their behalf (I have already done it for my maid servant). The real story is that the employers wanted to pay cash so they can fudge their Book of Accounts with a higher entry and claim tax deductions. There was no real-world transaction to back their claims and the Income Tax department had to take them at face value.

> Many farmers were forced to sell their crops for pittances to make ends meet. One example is cauliflower being sold for ₹ 1/kg. Its usually sold at ₹ 12. The prices of soyabeans was down by 77% [2]

I definitely sympathize with farmers. However, this is a short-term impact. Many of these farmers are adopting digital payments (PayTM, BHIM app etc) to transact and the Government is conducting camps educating farmers on digital payments. I recently bought bananas from a street vendor (who sell on carts and don't have a proper outlet) by paying through PayTM. You just need to wait for the long-term impact of this policy to play out.

I hate to break this to you, but most people don't actually have bank accounts, and if they do, they don't know how to use them. Most of those bank accounts that were opened in the Jan Dhan Yojana scheme have ₹1 ($0.015) or less in them [1].

These laborers mentioned in the article I linked did not have accounts which they could use. That's why they threatened to strike if they weren't paid in cash. You live in a bubble if you think lower income groups are rapidly adopting digital payments. Sure, the help at your place did, but I've met many people living in the heart of Bangalore who can't afford a smartphone. These same people also don't have a bank account. Or who knows, maybe they have a 0 balance account in their name somewhere.

Its quite easy to talk of "short-term impact" and "long-term gain" when you're not facing any of the short-term impact yourself. I doubt you or your family went to bed hungry on any day during November and December. Millions of Indian families did, while they didn't have to. This could have been executed better.

Lastly, you're citing an article from December 2nd to prove that a lot of money that was outstanding on Nov 8th hasn't been collected. I linked one from January 4th. Which do you think has more up-to-date data?

[1] - http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21707234...

Maybe not in November or December. But definitely in the past. But I did not and still do not hold any Government's policy decision accountable for my past situations. What I always look for is disruptions to existing systems. It doesn't matter who conducts these disruptions as long as it is done. These are very much necessary. For example, my father always says how lucky I'm that I now have access to computers and internet and he did not have any such facilities during his time. However, I realize that whatever I have today would not have been possible if not for bold reforms of the 1990s. Today I understand the necessity for disruptions. The longer you delay necessary disruptions the more hardship you create for future generations because innovations don't wait for you to catch-up.

    > quite easy to talk of
    > "short-term impact" and
    > "long-term gain" when you're
    > not facing any of the short-
    > term impact yourself

Your Jan 4th article has no data on the amount of money deposited. My advise to you is to go back and re-read that article. RBI has still not released the latest data. The last release was on December 13th. Articles written after that are just here-say and speculation.

> I hate to break this to you, but most people don't actually have bank accounts, and if they do, they don't know how to use them. Most of those bank accounts that were opened in the Jan Dhan Yojana scheme have ₹1 ($0.015) or less in them [1].

That is not the Government's problem. The Government had already instructed owners of private and public companies to open Jan Dhan accounts for their laborers. The owners either failed to do it or purposefully chose not to open accounts to evade tax. Now they have no choice but to open for them.

> These laborers mentioned in the article I linked did not have accounts which they could use. That's why they threatened to strike if they weren't paid in cash.

In my comment in the previous reply I already mentioned that they did not have because the companies failed to open accounts for them. Don't skip reading my comments please. I can't answer the same point again and again.

> You live in a bubble if you think lower income groups are rapidly adopting digital payments. Sure, the help at your place did, but I've met many people living in the heart of Bangalore who can't afford a smartphone. These same people also don't have a bank account. Or who knows, maybe they have a 0 balance account in their name somewhere.

That is no excuse for not moving to digital payments. The same excuse was cited in the 1990's when the computer and telecom revolution was taking place in India. People were comfortable with typewriters and found computers intimidating. Today you find most of the workforce quite comfortable with computers. Even with telecom revolution the biggest beneficiaries were the lower income groups. They completely skipped fixed line telephony and moved straight to mobile phones. I agree with you that many find digital payments intimidating and many don't have smartphones but they have no choice but to adopt it now because of disruption in informal economy. You are on Hacker News. You should know better what is the outcome of disruption. There will always be a short-term negative impact followed by a long-term positive impact.

What is the upside we got with demonetization that we can call success?

Did it end black money? No.

Will it end counterfeit currency? No.

Does it help citizens in any way? No.

Then what exactly is the success we achieved here?

Modi have blood of 100 citizens on his hands this time instead of thousands like it was in Gujarat riots under his leadership. Is that the benchmark of success?

70% of those polled (average of all polls conducted by media and independent media houses) disagree with you. I, as a Free Citizen of India, disagree with you.

You fail to mention about all those getting caught with counterfeit currency and black money and still continue to be caught. Are those the figments of my imagination? Or are you only seeing one side of the coin? The side that suits your narrative?

> Then what exactly is the success we achieved here? Modi have blood of 100 citizens on his hands this time instead of thousands like it was in Gujarat riots under his leadership. Is that the benchmark of success?

This is a ridiculous and a very weak argument to counter an economic move. I'm sorry that you are incapable of understanding a perspective beyond the deaths of 100 people.

We measure success or failure of such economic policies with statistics, not by political opinion polling.

> You fail to mention about all those getting caught with counterfeit currency and black money and still continue to be caught.

They have been conducting raids to catch black money hoarders and counterfeit currency forever. They have escalated it recently, but it could have been done without demonetization as well.

> I'm sorry that you are incapable of understanding a perspective beyond the deaths of 100 people.

What benefit did we get out this whole scheme?

My family have personally suffered significant monetary loss on our 100% tax paid cash, and suffered significant loss in business because of this chaos.

Millions of citizens have hard time feeding their family because of this jumla.

Over 100 people have died due to demonetization scam[1]. It is not an opinion, they are not even just facts and statistics, 100 real people have died and their families have been destroyed. Let that sink in.

[1] Modi ji gave immunity to Politicians, so Political parties can deposit unlimited amount of cash tax free. I thought demonetization was a scheme, but it turns out it is a major scam.

I am a NRI, me and my family have significant amount of Indian currency in US. All of it is 100% tax paid.

Indian Government has provided us no way to exchange currency or deposit it in our account if we are outside India. Modi declared our hard earned money as black money, and labelled us as criminals.

My father in India runs a cash and carry wholesale businesses. His typical customer is a street vendor in some remote village. When they come to my father's to buy inventory, they pay in cash because that is the only way for them to accept and make payments in villages. Most of them don't even have a bank account.

When Modi announced demonetization, his business dropped to almost zero. Two months since, it still hasn't recovered much. His business is seasonal (woolen products), most of it is in winter months only. Demonetization has turned this whole year into a major loss for him and it has literally crashed their Industry, which is resulting in layoffs.

Modi ji gave immunity to Politicians, so Political parties can deposit unlimited amount of cash tax free. I thought demonetization was a scheme, but it turns out it is a major scam.

So you have 6 months time to deposit your old 500 and 1000 notes which even resident Indians don't enjoy as a privilege. Why are you whining?

Previously, we could simply exchange Indian currency to any other currency abroad. But now there is no way for us to exchange money in US.

My whole family will have to go to India to exchange money, one person can only carry a maximum of Rs. 25,000. So six members of my family would have to take time off from work and go to India to exchange 1.5 lakh Rupees. Moreover, it would cost us around Rs. 6 lakhs to make a trip to India.

I don't want any privilege, I just want my hard earned money back.

> Why are you whining?

I am not a blind bhakt. I lost 1.5 lakhs in this Modi's scam, this scam also destroyed my father's business in India.

Modi killed over 100 people and destroyed millions of jobs, so he can write off bad loans worth billions for his cronies.

You shouldn't have kept so much INR with you in the first place. What is the necessity to keep 1.5 lakhs hard cash in US when you can't even use it? Most of my NRI friends don't even carry cash. Even when I travel abroad I normally use International Debit/Credit cards issued by my bank. If there is a dire need to carry cash I normally convert it to dollars as soon as I land in the destination country.

You kept this stash of money without converting it to the dollar equivalent. It makes no sense to me at all and raises even more suspicions. Also, most of my NRI friends have NRO accounts which they have already used to deposit their old notes when they visited India during the demonetization phase. So it is purely your own doing to hoard INR in a country where it is not even recognized for trade.

> I don't want any privilege, I just want my hard earned money back.

In all possibility, you won't get it back. You had all the time in the World to convert your INR to USD through a local money exchanger. But you chose not to and decided (for whatever reason) to hoard it instead. If I were you, I would have converted my INR to USD as soon as I landed in US. I would rather have US dollars than have INR. If I needed INR I could have easily converted it back when I landed in India.

> I am not a blind bhakt. I lost 1.5 lakhs in this Modi's scam, this scam also destroyed my father's business in India. Modi killed over 100 people and destroyed millions of jobs, so he can write off bad loans worth billions for his cronies.

Nobody killed anyone or destroyed "millions of jobs". It is your own doing. You chose to stash INR instead of converting it to USD as soon as you landed in US.

He never said he will "write off bad loans". You are now spreading pure propaganda. He only classified these bad loans as NPA. Learn the difference between a loan write off and an NPA before spouting nonsense.

It's my hard earned tax paid money, and its my choice in what form I want to keep it.

The currency note says "I promise to pay the bearer the sum of one thousand rupees."

The Government and RBI are defaulting on their debt obligation against the promissory note. It is plunder and loot of massive proportion, even Congress wasn't this corrupt.

> So it is purely your own doing

My fault is that I trusted Indian Government and economy. After suffering through this Modi scam; my #1 priority is to close all my accounts in India, liquidate all my assets in India and withdraw all investments from India.

I will never make the mistake of trusting Indian Government and economy again.

Sure you can. But you need to bear the consequences as legal tender does not have unlimited liability (in other words: the debt obligation is not absolute). Because the Section 26, sub-section (2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, empowers the Union Government on the recommendation of Central Board to declare that "any notes issued by the Reserve Bank will no longer be legal tender."

Also, Section 26, sub-section (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act states that: "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), every bank note shall be legal tender at any place in 4[India] in payment or on account for the amount expressed therein, and shall be guaranteed by the 5[Central Government]."

It clearly states that the bank note will be legal tender at any place in India and shall be guaranteed by the Central Government. It does not say that the bank note will be legal tender outside India and does not give any guarantees. Yet, the Government opened a window for NRI's to deposit their notes (if they have any) with their respective Indian banks in India.

> The Government and RBI are defaulting on their debt obligation against the promissory note. It is plunder and loot of massive proportion, even Congress wasn't this corrupt.

That's your opinion. I don't believe it is plunder or loot. Hoarding of cash (whether tax is paid or not) is equivalent to loot as it stops the money from being in circulation thereby causing the RBI to print more and more notes to compensate for an increasing demand for these paper notes. If you had deposited in the banks the Government would have used it for public good (and guaranteed you interest + principal amount). Notes that have been hoarded are neither useful for the Government, for the public nor for the hoarder thereby putting a huge stress on the overall economy. Unfortunately for you, you fall in the basket of hoarders who paid tax rather than basket of hoarders who did not pay tax (black money hoarders). But you hoarded nevertheless and there in lies the problem. You may say it's only 1.5 lakhs. But just imagine if every single of the 1.25 billion Indians think the same way. Like I said earlier, all my NRI friends used to deposit their money into their NRO/NRE accounts and if they carried cash they would convert to equivalent USD as soon as they landed in US. I mean, who in their right mind would not want USD in favor of INR? Especially outside India where it has no legal value (except in Nepal and Bhutan)?

> My fault is that I trusted Indian Government and economy. After suffering through this Modi scam; my #1 priority is to close all my accounts in India, liquidate all my assets in India and withdraw all investments from India. I will never make the mistake of trusting Indian Government and economy again.

But you will trust a Government that prints "In God we Trust" on it's own notes? Was it not Roosevelt who passed the "Executive Order 6102" in 1933 which "forbids the Hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States"? The reason given by Roosevelt: "Hoarding of Gold stalled economic growth and made depression worse".

Also read up on "The Crime of 1873".

Anyone who have cash for emergency purpose is a hoarder? Is cash illegal?

99% of my money is in bank, less than 1% of it is cash; out of which only a small fraction is INR. I require it for travel and emergency purpose.

Andhi Bhakti is not allowing you think rationally. Good luck with the jumlas, now that Modi has confiscated our money... he is sending you 15 lakhs soon.

> So now anyone who doesn't worship Modi is anti-national hoarder?

By all means worship Modi as much as you want and you still won't get your cash back. What you did is sheer stupidity. Keeping so much INR as cash-on-hand in a country where it enjoys no legal status is ridiculous. Even the RBI guarantees apply only if the cash is within the confines of Indian territory. It's jurisdiction does not extend to the United States. That's the reason NRI's have to visit India to exchange cash. This law was made by Modi's predecessors who ruled India for 65 years.

> Anyone who have cash for emergency purpose is a hoarder? Is cash illegal?

Cash outside India is not recognized as legal tender by the RBI. It is not Modi who made that Law. You keep 1% or 10% for so called "emergency purpose" it doesn't matter. Once it is outside India it is as good as a piece of paper.

Which "emergency purpose" does cash become valid outside India? You can't use that cash for anything. It is not recognized as legal tender in USA.

I have never had to keep greater than 10,000 rupees cash-on-hand at any given moment. Even during emergencies. Credit/Debit card is more than sufficient. All hospitals accept Credit/Debit cards. My Credit/Debit card works in any country I travel to. When in India I can use my cards for travel/emergency purpose as well. The only places where I actually need cash is for street vendors and the rare case where I take autos/buses instead of Uber/Ola. I don't need freaking 1.5 lakhs for this. I can do well with a few hundreds. Who are you trying to fool my friend?

> Andhi Bhakti is not allowing you think rationally. Good luck with the jumlas, now that Modi has confiscated our money... he is sending you 15 lakhs soon.

Rationally? You think keeping 1.5 lakhs cash-on-hand is "rational"? If I had so much money as cash-on-hand I would always be a worried man. I wouldn't want to lose it or have it stolen.

There are no jumlas. Your stupidity is the reason you lost that money. I would understand if a chaiwala in India had so much cash-on-hand. That's the reason the Government allowed upto Rs. 2.5 lakhs to be deposited without being questioned (but that will definitely be audited by the tax authorities). But an educated NRI, who is not even living in India, having that much cash is beyond me.

This is a blatant lie. RBI allows you (a.k.a NRIs only) to deposit this money till 31st of March 2017 in it's branches. Modi never declared your hard earned money as black money or labelled you criminals. I'm now beginning to wonder why you have significant amount of Indian currency in the US. What use is it for you there? RBI has strict rules about how much INR you can take outside India (Rs. 25000 per person). This rule was made to ensure that if/when you return to India you have enough INR for lodging/transportation/flight expenses etc. You don't need INR to transact outside India anyways so this whole thing of having a "significant amount of Indian currency in US" is suspicious to me.

> My father in India runs a cash and carry wholesale businesses. His typical customer is a street vendor in some remote village. When they come to my father's to buy inventory, they pay in cash because that is the only way for them to accept and make payments in villages. Most of them don't even have a bank account. When Modi announced demonetization, his business dropped to almost zero. Two months since, it still hasn't recovered much. His business is seasonal (woolen products), most of it is in winter months only. Demonetization has turned this whole year into a major loss for him and it has literally crashed their Industry, which is resulting in layoffs.

I would have believed this story if it wasn't prefixed with your excuse to not be able to deposit your INR stash just because you are an NRI. This whole thing sounds really fishy to me.

> Modi ji gave immunity to Politicians, so Political parties can deposit unlimited amount of cash tax free. I thought demonetization was a scheme, but it turns out it is a major scam.

No he did not. Mayawati and her brother are already under investigation for a deposit of 104 crores into their party bank accounts. AIADMK chief secretary was arrested for laundering black money. More such political arrests have happened (including some BJP workers and party members who were showing off to the entire World that they were clean but were actually hoarding black money).

This argument is also not convincing. I'm sorry but I'm beginning to doubt your story. Especially when you mentioned that you are an NRI and have significant amount of INR in the US. It just doesn't add up. RBI notifications prohibit you to carry so much INR outside India and this rule existed for many years. How much INR do you have with you?

Previously, we could simply exchange Indian currency to any other currency abroad. But now there is no way for us to exchange money in US.

My whole family will have to go to India to exchange money, one person can only carry a maximum of Rs. 25,000. So six members of my family would have to take time off from work and go to India to exchange 1.5 lakh Rupees. Moreover, it would cost us around Rs. 6 lakhs to make a trip to India.

> This rule was made to ensure that if/when you return to India you have enough INR for lodging/transportation/flight expenses etc. You don't need INR to transact outside India anyways so this whole thing of having a "significant amount of Indian currency in US" is suspicious to me.

We have a big family in US, and almost everyone have 20-25k INR for travel expenses. That makes a total of 1.5L in my household. All my NRI friends and relatives are suffering this loss.

> I would have believed this story if it wasn't prefixed with your excuse to not be able to deposit your INR stash just because you are an NRI. This whole thing sounds really fishy to me.

I just busted your propaganda of NRI's allowed to exchange money, but you ignore the fact that you would have to travel to India and spend over 1 lakh per person to exchange money.

Clearly, you have neither have experience exchanging money has a NRI nor running a local cash business. Yet, you accuse others of lying. From your post history, you sound like a BJP propagandist.

I don't think anything was said about it being a success or otherwise