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

[Rahul Asthana]

1. So Shuddha, I believe that we are in agreement that Artificial, ephemeral, man-made borders are necessary.

2.Now I think your issue is with the selective immigration policies of nations.These immigration policies may be based on the following reasons 
a)reciprocation or bi-lateral cooperation
b)perceived security threat by the citizens of a particular nation
c)Diplomatic relations between two nations
d) Border disputes between two nations etc.
I do not claim this to be a comprehensive list. 
Does this answer your question? 

Thanks
Rahul

--- On Sun, 6/21/09, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:

> From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Shahidul Alam detained by Indian Border Security Force
> To: "Rahul Asthana" <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>, "anupam chakravartty" <c.anupam at gmail.com>
> Date: Sunday, June 21, 2009, 2:49 AM
> 
> Where exactly does the continuity of the nation state
> become the discontinuity of the border? Let's take the
> country currently known as Poland. In the twentieth century
> different bits of it have been in Russia, Germany, Lithuania
> and Slovakia. Today, Poland is part of the Schengen system
> and a part of the European Union. Over the last one hundred
> or so years, Poland has had its borders redefined in various
> ways. Until the early nineties of the twentieth century, it
> was impossible for some one from France to come to Poland
> without a strict visa system, but it was relatively easy for
> people from Vietnam to come to Poland as students and guest
> workers, today the situation is exactly the opposite. So,
> how exactly has the border acted in a way other than
> arbitrarily. What makes Vietnamese welcome, French
> unwelcome, and then vice versa across a matter of a few
> years? 
> I can see your point about the fact that some
> units of management of space have to exist, but why do these
> have to operate on the basis of exclusion? What purposes
> does exclusion serve? What is the way in which priniciples
> of exclusion can be made fair and just? Can they be made
> fair and just? 
> What is it that dictates, for instance, that
> Nepalis can at present live and work in India without visas,
> and that Bangladeshis cant? 
> Finally, and this is a response to Rakesh. I
> have not heard people whom we normally nominate as the poor,
> complain about the presence of Bangladeshis in our city. For
> instance, Delhi has a large population of Bangladeshi
> migrant workers who live in squatter settlements. Their
> non-Bangladeshi neighbours who live in squatter settlements
> do not normally lead the climate of opinion that sees
> Bangladeshi immigrants as a problem. Frankly, they have
> neither the property, nor the entitlements to think of their
> Bangladeshi neigbours as encroachers, primarily because they
> are seen as encroachers themselves. The only people whom I
> have heard complain about the presence of Bangladeshis in
> Delhi are those with property and entitlement, to whom the
> average Bangladeshi constitutes no rivalrous
> threat. 
> This is somewhat paradoxical, those who complain
> about the presence of Bangladeshis in Delhi are those who
> are clearly not in a position to be the competitiors for
> resources with Bangladeshis. This makes me wonder where
> exactly the antipathy stems from. My hunch is, prejudice,
> which is passed on as an altruistic defence of the poor with
> whom the carriers of the prejudices have nothing in common.
> Interesting, isnt it? 
> best
> Shuddha
> 
> On 21-Jun-09, at 12:54 AM, Rahul
> Asthana wrote:
> 
> Dear
> Shuddha,Please
> read my reply to Anupam.The analogy was not
> implied.I
> think that there can be valid reasons to enforce man made ,
> ephemeral , artificial etc. borders. That catch-all reason
> alone is not enough to strike down the restriction for free
> flow of human beings between national borders. In
> principle there is nothing wrong or right about free flow of
> capital or human beings."Artificial, ephemeral,
> man-made" geographical and administrational borders are
> necessary,among other things because of the simple reason of
> accountability and manageability, as functional units for
> economic co-operation and security.Someone representing a
> particular geographic continuum is accountable and
> responsible for the decisions taken with respect to
> it.I
> want you to come up with some good reasons why you think the
> boundaries and definition of a nation state should not be
> observed. Let me repeat, saying that it is an
> "artificial, ephemeral, man-made border" , so it
> should be stricken down is not a good reason.
> ThanksRahul
> 
> ---
> On Sat, 6/20/09, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
> wrote:
>  From:
> Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>Subject:
> Re: [Reader-list] Shahidul Alam detained by Indian Border
> Security ForceTo:
> "Rahul Asthana" <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>Cc:
> "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>,
> "anupam chakravartty" <c.anupam at gmail.com>Date:
> Saturday, June 20, 2009, 2:28 AM
>  Dear
> Rahul, I
> have always felt quite at home in the world,regardless
> of whether I was on the terrace of my OldRajendra
> Nagar house in New Delhi, which once housedrefugees
> from West Pakistan before it housed my migrantparents
> and me (where I live), or I was on hilltop inDamascus,
> or in a ruined factory in Warsaw, or on the borderbetween
> East and West Jerusalem. I do not sense a feeling
> ofbeing
> 'not at home' when I am not in my own
> country,and
> there are many places in my own country, where I do
> notfeel
> quite as home as I would have liked to, for instance
> inthe
> wide, paranoiac, expansive and empty boulevards ofLutyens
> Delhi. In Delhi, take me to Akbar Road, and I willfeel
> a foreigner (even a bit of an illegal migrant),
> leaveme
> in Karol Bagh, Chitli Qabar, Mehrauli, Khan Market
> orJungpura,
> and I will do just fine. Home, after all, is wherethe
> heart is. And my heart is not in the Lutyens
> BungalowZone
> of New Delhi. So
> I don't quite understand the analogy oflocked
> homes and fenced countries. After all, we lock ourhomes,
> primarily against the possible attacks of our ownfellow
> citizens. So, since we lock our homes against our
> ownfellow
> citizens, logically, then, following your line ofthinking,
> should we not turn the whole country into one vastprison,
> where everyone watches out for the danger that iseverybody
> else.We don't even have to look as far as thenext
> Bangladeshi.Or,
> as my friends and I had reason to say inanother
> context, 'Is the outer wall of the detentioncentre,
> the inner wall of the city?"regards, Shuddha
> On
> 19-Jun-09, at 9:39 PM, Rahul Asthanawrote:
> DearAnupam,Yourquestion
> is a straw man.I am not drawing any analogy
> betweennation
> and home.My question to Shuddha is based upon hisstatement
> about artificial borders etc.ThanksRahul
>  ShuddhabrataSenguptaThe
> Sarai Programme atCSDSRaqs
> Media Collectiveshuddha at sarai.netwww.sarai.netwww.raqsmediacollective.net
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
>  Shuddhabrata
> SenguptaThe Sarai Programme at
> CSDSRaqs Media Collectiveshuddha at sarai.netwww.sarai.netwww.raqsmediacollective.net
>  
>