[Reader-list] Shahidul Alam detained by Indian Border Security Force

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Rakesh, Dear All,

I am perfectly well aware of the fact that nation states are a  
reality. However, not even the relatively short history of nation  
states suggests that passports, visas and border controls are part of  
the order of nature, even of nation states. If you look at the  
history of passport controls, you will find that the generalization  
of the passport dates to as recently as after the first world war.  
when a vast category of 'stateless people' displaced by the war had  
to be accounted for. Visa restrictions in the form that we know them  
today came even later. In fact, much later. So please do not assume  
that passports, visas and border controls are some kind of natural  
phenomena. They arise in specific circumstances, and are always  
challenged.

Rakesh, I actually think it is you who are being romantic if you  
believe that people will stay where they are because some stupid laws  
tell them to do so. If you are forced to move, or choose to move,  
because your life is no longer worth living in a particular place, or  
simply because fancy strikes you, the idea that laws can hold you  
back is really an illusion.

Nor is it mandatory that nation states must always dictate border  
controls of the kind that operate at the India-Bangladesh border  
today. In fact, in many parts of the world, for the citizens of many  
countries, travelling to their neighbouring country does not have to  
make them undergo the indignity of the inspection of the border. As  
usual, as Indians, we believe that what happens at our borders must  
be universal. This only betrays our arrogance.

Nor are relations at border patrols strictly symmetrical. Mexicans  
crossing to the United States, in most instances, have to go through  
a very strict protocol. United States citizens crossing to Mexico on  
the other hand, are hardly checked. I for instance, have crossed  
'illegally' from the United States to Mexico without a Mexican visa  
on my Indian passport, and I was not checked. The situation would  
have been very different if I were attempting to make the crossing in  
the opposite direction.

I think that our lives would vastly improve if South Asia were made a  
visa free zone. Then, people of all South Asian countries could live  
and work in each others countries freely, and could contribute to  
each others societies. I do not think this is a pipe dream, on the  
other hand, I think that the current controls that operate are an  
artificial, impractical and inhuman set of controls that are bound to  
fail at every instance. I am absolutely pragmatic and practical on  
this issue and I strongly believe that  letting there be free  
movement of goods, services and people in South Asia is the only  
sensible way to gurantee a common and secure future. I have several  
friends who are Pakistani, some live in Delhi, some have lived in  
Bombay, and they are valuable members of the life of both these  
cities. Much more valuable, in my opinion, than those xenophobes who  
seem to have nothing better to do than drag the name of their cities  
in the dirt of inhospitability. Someday, the Arabian Sea will be the  
final resting place of home grown xenophobia in Bombay.

However, I am in agreement with you that some kind of green card or  
work permit system that can mature into full fledged citizenship, in  
the short run, is a desirable thing, as is dual citizenship, then  
hard working Bangladeshi migrant workers can have exactly the same  
kind of rights in India as many Indian migrants have in the United  
States. I see nothing wrong with that, and I think it can be a very  
practical arrangement. And frankly, if as a migrant, you pay taxes,  
then I see no reason why you should not vote. If Bangladeshi migrants  
find it possible to stay legally, amass enough wealth to pay taxes in  
Assam, or wherever else, then they should have voting rights, maybe  
on a cascading scale.


regards,

Shuddha


On 19-Jun-09, at 7:19 AM, Rakesh Iyer wrote:

> Dear Shuddha and Malik
>
> This is addressed to both of you, and I hope you don't mind that I  
> address both of you in the same mail.
>
> First, to you Shuddha jee. I think you are being romantic in  
> believing your conception of the world where people can move freely  
> without breaking laws. We are living in times where nation-states  
> (and a few state-nations like India) are a reality. I personally  
> feel it would be great enough if we can have people crossing  
> without any fear and problems. But there are numerous problems  
> associated with such issues.
>
> The sovereignty of a nation is one aspect. In a democracy like  
> India which has been reduced to a competitive exam (on the lines of  
> IIT-JEE or other entrance exams), parties just want to secure about  
> 20-25% of the vote (like saying a student needs to solve 25% of  
> questions to get selected in IIT's), and then win the elections and  
> form a government. And for doing so, all kinds of permutations and  
> combinations are tried (here of course there is no comparison with  
> IIT-JEE, except that permutations and combinations are a part of  
> the syllabus of IIT-JEE). These are done with communities and  
> castes before elections and with different elected members after  
> elections. The end result is a disaster.
>
> In such a kind of democracy where to gain power people resort to  
> competitive populism and not substantive issues, any such kind of  
> migration would lead to a disaster as Malik jee is indirectly  
> pointing out, because those who are migrating would clash with  
> those who currently live for voting and other rights. And already  
> the migration from Bangladesh is proving out to be a heart burn for  
> many.
>
> And being a humanist doesn't mean that we can allow people to come  
> here and then make them live in shanties or slums in the most  
> utterly disgusting conditions, on encroached land, illegally for  
> getting votes cheaply. This is not what humanity believes in.
>
> And we can't wish away the reality of a nation state, so therefore  
> what we do need to do, is to institutionalize the migration of  
> people for employment or business or other basis (maybe say  
> migration after marriage), so that such people can come in, but get  
> voting rights say after 10-15 years (through process of  
> naturalization). Why not do this? May be you can come up with some  
> other step. Let such people till then have labor cards or cards  
> which guarantee them the chance to live in the country, but not get  
> voting rights till they become citizens legally.
>
> Being a romantic will not help in such a case Sir. My suggestion  
> may not be practical as it is mentioned, but why not think of a  
> variant of such a method or even a new method which can ensure  
> peaceful migration without problems, is my moot point.
>
> Now for you Malik jee. First of all, when people come to your place  
> and live there, not only would you lose your former identity, but  
> even they lose their own identity. The tribals of India, when  
> forced to migrate because of displacement due to development  
> schemes like dams and destruction of forests, have lost their  
> identity too. Similarly, when Indians migrate to America, not only  
> would America lose its former identity, but Indians too lose their  
> Indian identity (and here Indian simply refers to the geographical  
> entity called India and the culture and different sub-identities  
> associated with it at different levels).
>
> Ironically, what comes out of it is a new identity in many cases.  
> Take the example of the rule of Muslim kings over India. The  
> identity of the then Hindu would have been lost in certain ways,  
> the identity of a Muslim would also have been lost as they  
> interacted with Hindus, and now we have a situation where Hindus  
> use Urdu and Muslims also have the caste system among them! What a  
> transformation! Isn't this too a loss of identity in some ways, and  
> a modification of identity in some other way?
>
> Secondly, I don't want people to migrate only for menial jobs. Even  
> if they do so, I would like them to come up in their life, as all  
> of us would want to. And more importantly, while I agree with you  
> that the current global situation would not allow us to do so,  
> migration of people across the entire earth is a right which we  
> should strive to achieve to. Making nation-states hasn't helped the  
> majority of people, and we should look to do something different.  
> The middle class anathema of anarchy probably makes them subscribe  
> to an Indian state, but an anarchic state (which our Indian  
> democracy is in and Gandhiji actually wanted this) is any day  
> better than an oppressing system which the Indian state indulges  
> in. India is mine, but not the Indian state.
>
> And last but not the least, Pakistani state has also started  
> fooling its people like our state since its independence, which is  
> why we have the problem of global terrorism (Our state specializes  
> in fooling on development paradigm, Pakistani state is specialist  
> in fooling on Islam and jehad). And it's our responsibility as  
> human beings to fight against the foolishdom and useless propaganda  
> being carried out in the name of terrorism and extremism, or other  
> ideologies. Instead, it seems we are being washed away by such  
> ideologies to become exactly like the enemy.
>
> And this is why the RSS wants Hindus to be organized like the  
> Muslims, so that like the Muslims organize together in a riot,  
> Hindus can also do so and conduct genocides like those in Gujarat.  
> In other words, the RSS wants Hindus to live like extremist  
> Muslims. And the extremist Muslims would like Muslims to be like  
> the way the RSS wants Hindus to be. They are not different, except  
> for their religious and organizational affiliations.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh

Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net