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

[anupam chakravartty]

Dear Rahul,

"Do you think that homes should be locked? Do you think that people should
be allowed unrestricted entry to other peoples homes at all times?"

what were you referring to when you posed this question to shuddha and made
it publicly available to other readers on this list? a burglary in your
house? in that case i think i misread this whole thread to be borders and a
photographer, as many of the readers pointed out about the incident being an
incursion and other such things. however, we were talking about shahidul
alam. so if its a straw man, which is an informal fallacy about
misrepresentation of opponent's argument then your are committing the
fallacy of complex question when you posed the above question. i mean anyone
would say a "no" to "Do you think that people should be allowed unrestricted
entry to other peoples homes at all times?". But if this same question is
used to pose, what some may call the larger debate, "Do you think foreigners
should be allowed unrestricted entry to other nation states?" you may get a
very different opinion. i personally have a problem with such questions.

thanks anupam


On 6/20/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Shuddha
>
> First things first. Reading about encroachments on a daily basis by people
> for living or for occupational purposes, I am not naive or romantic to
> think
> that people follow laws. In fact, my belief is that in each nation-state,
> or
> state-nation, people always want to break the law, and it's the fear that
> the law may catch them, which makes them follow the law.
>
> Second. Opening the borders for free movement of goods and people is indeed
> a great idea. But what about the intentions of the Pakistani and the Indian
> elite? We have a Pakistani elite (headed by the Army there), whose basic
> intention is 'to bleed India with a thousand cuts', and therefore some way
> or the other, terror attacks are taking place across the nation. One may
> say
> that there is no proof of the fact that Pakistan is behind attacks (even
> say
> 26/11), but my argument is simply this: how come when diplomatic pressure
> was applied after 26/11, no terror attack has taken place in India?
>
> Before that, terror attacks were common every 2-3 months in one or the
> other
> part of the country. And in 2004-05 there were hardly any terror attacks.
> It's October 2005 blasts in Delhi which started this trend, and ironically
> this is the time when the peace process between India and Pakistan seemed
> to
> have got stuck. How come relations with Pakistan and timing of terror
> attacks are coincidental.
>
> Equally, I would not be surprised if the Indian elite indulges in the same
> game (through RAW and other agencies), in the NWFP and other areas of
> Pakistan. After all, the idea may be that internal troubles in Pakistan
> force it to think about its' own existence rather than concentrating on
> its'
> eastern neighbour. And who can forget that under Indira Gandhi we did send
> spies to Pakistan. The only thing may be that RAW may have declared it
> doesn't send spies, when it may actually do so.
>
> With this kind of a situation, opening the borders without checks and
> balances is going to lead to disaster. And plus, you need the people on
> both
> sides of the border backing it. Now the BPL population in India is more
> concerned with its livelihood demands, so also the BPL population in
> Pakistan. So are most of the people there, except the elites. And the
> elites
> turn the way media and propaganda runs. So that's the end of that move.
>
> Directly asking for radical moves is not going to give us anything. This is
> something the British learnt in getting through trade concessions in India
> and China before establishing their supremacy in both countries for getting
> what they wanted. This is something the experiences of Gandhi tell us. And
> this is equally something Obama is trying, in my perception. And that's
> why,
> Shuddha jee, I feel you are being romantic.
>
> We don't want guns from either side to go across to the other, we want
> butter. Therefore, to begin with, what we need to do is to learn from
> Indo-China relationship. This means that we first allow movement of goods
> (unfortunately, these have to be checked), to an extent where trade is so
> much that interdependence forces both the elites to shelve their current
> nefarious plans for once and for all. Secondly, we do require the movement
> of people, so let us have bus services and train services between the two
> countries.
>
> And may be it's now time that at least in Punjab (if not in Kashmir), let
> us
> go for an border (with checks again) and allowing people to visit each
> other. Equally let the two sides of Kashmiris visit each other through bus
> services. What's the harm in that?
>
> For the other borders like Indo-Bangla (Bangladesh) border too, we need to
> go on a state to state case, and to reach the final step of open border, we
> must take steps or a leap depending on the situation. For example, with
> Bhutan itself, why not start this at least?
>
> Different borders require different levels to begin with, but the final
> goal
> is same. The only thing is that the steps have to be tweaked to reach that
> goal. Otherwise, we may never begin at all. And we need to do this. And
> that
> is why I feel we need to pressurize the Indian state (being Indian
> citizens), to do this. I do believe that to go to places you have mentioned
> in your other mail, you would have secured a passport and a visa, and that
> you would have done as an Indian citizen. So also, many facilities you
> would
> be accruing as an Indian citizen in the nation.
>
> Therefore, whether we like it or not, we are Indian citizens (unfortunately
> or fortunately is one's own way of thinking about this). What we do need to
> do, is to think beyond our own state and look at human beings as one
> entity,
> not as Indians, Americans or Brazilians and thus separate entities. (These
> are just identities on which people must not be divided). And thus, we need
> to look at the final goal as this, but start from rudimentary steps.
> Remember, we have to take all with us, for that is what we refer to as
> 'inclusive development'. Otherwise, we can also shout and those opposing us
> can also shout, and we will never move forward.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>