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

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

No, I do not think we are in agreement at all. The example of Poland  
which I gave demonstrates how arbitrary the principles of exclusion  
are and have been historically. There is nothing 'necessary' about  
the decisions taken at the Polish border. If these decisions can be  
reversed one way or another, so easily, it proves that there is  
nothing inherently necessary to them at all. They are contingent. The  
whole idea of the nation state is contingent on the historical  
circumstances that have developed since the treaty of Westphalia  
outlined the beginnings of the modern state system. Being contingent,  
they are subject to fundamental change. Today, at a time when nothing  
from the fluctuations of the financial system to the question of  
climate change can be addressed at national levels, I find it odd  
that some of us can still cling on to the fetish of borders and  
nation states as if they were 'necessary'.

I find that clinging 'idealistic'. it seems to fly in the face of the  
actual objective structural realities of the contemporary world.

As for your conditions, each one of them can be unpicked.

There are greater if not more 'security threats' from the citizens of  
a given nation state to itself, than there are from the citizens of  
other states. If that is so, how far inwards should the protocols of  
the 'border' and its exclusionary principles be drawn?

Reciprocity is not necessarily the basis for international relations,  
as demonstrated by the simple case of the utterly un-reciprocal  
relationships that obtain at the US Mexico border.

Diplomatic relationships have barely anything to do with the  
situation at border controls. India has full fledged diplomatic  
relationships with Pakistan and Bangladesh, and yet, this does not  
influence the humiliations that Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis  
have to face in the hands of each other's border authorities.

India has border disputes with China, Pakistan and with Bangladesh,  
and yet, refugees from Chinese controlled TIbet have had an easier  
time getting into and staying in India than have people from say,  
Bangladesh. So clearly, border disputes are not the crucial  
determining factor.

Lets face it. The reason why people do not like having to deal with  
Bangladeshis has much more to do with prejudice than it has to do  
with realpolitik.

regards

Shuddha


As far as the principles outlined by you are concerned -
On 21-Jun-09, at 3:09 AM, Rahul Asthana wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>

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