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

[Rahul Asthana]

1. Please clarify how the process of definition of a nation is linked with your argument of discarding "artificial, ephemeral, man-made borders".
Are you saying that "artificial, ephemeral, man-made borders" should be discarded because they are arbitrary?

2. I did not imply by my earlier email that every principle of immigration can be implied to every immigration relation between two nations.So you do not need to disprove that by giving counterexamples.

3. "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." 
I personally have no problem with Bangladeshis.I have nothing more to add on this particular point.

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, 3:22 AM
> 
> 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 cooperationb)perceived
> security threat by the citizens of a particular
> nationc)Diplomatic
> relations between two nationsd)
> Border disputes between two nations etc.I
> do not claim this to be a comprehensive list. Does
> this answer your question? 
> ThanksRahul
> ---
> 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 ForceTo:
> "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 statebecome
> the discontinuity of the border? Let's take
> thecountry
> currently known as Poland. In the twentieth
> centurydifferent
> bits of it have been in Russia, Germany, Lithuaniaand
> Slovakia. Today, Poland is part of the Schengen
> systemand
> a part of the European Union. Over the last one
> hundredor
> so years, Poland has had its borders redefined in
> variousways.
> Until the early nineties of the twentieth century,
> itwas
> impossible for some one from France to come to
> Polandwithout
> a strict visa system, but it was relatively easy
> forpeople
> from Vietnam to come to Poland as students and
> guestworkers,
> today the situation is exactly the opposite. So,how
> exactly has the border acted in a way other thanarbitrarily.
> What makes Vietnamese welcome, Frenchunwelcome,
> and then vice versa across a matter of a fewyears? I
> can see your point about the fact that someunits
> of management of space have to exist, but why do
> thesehave
> to operate on the basis of exclusion? What
> purposesdoes
> exclusion serve? What is the way in which
> priniciplesof
> exclusion can be made fair and just? Can they be
> madefair
> and just? What
> is it that dictates, for instance, thatNepalis
> can at present live and work in India without
> visas,and
> that Bangladeshis cant? Finally,
> and this is a response to Rakesh. Ihave
> not heard people whom we normally nominate as the
> poor,complain
> about the presence of Bangladeshis in our city.
> Forinstance,
> Delhi has a large population of Bangladeshimigrant
> workers who live in squatter settlements. Theirnon-Bangladeshi
> neighbours who live in squatter settlementsdo
> not normally lead the climate of opinion that seesBangladeshi
> immigrants as a problem. Frankly, they haveneither
> the property, nor the entitlements to think of
> theirBangladeshi
> neigbours as encroachers, primarily because theyare
> seen as encroachers themselves. The only people whom
> Ihave
> heard complain about the presence of Bangladeshis
> inDelhi
> are those with property and entitlement, to whom
> theaverage
> Bangladeshi constitutes no rivalrousthreat. This
> is somewhat paradoxical, those who complainabout
> the presence of Bangladeshis in Delhi are those
> whoare
> clearly not in a position to be the competitiors
> forresources
> with Bangladeshis. This makes me wonder whereexactly
> the antipathy stems from. My hunch is, prejudice,which
> is passed on as an altruistic defence of the poor
> withwhom
> the carriers of the prejudices have nothing in
> common.Interesting,
> isnt it? bestShuddha
> On
> 21-Jun-09, at 12:54 AM, RahulAsthana
> wrote:
> DearShuddha,Pleaseread
> my reply to Anupam.The analogy was notimplied.Ithink
> that there can be valid reasons to enforce man made
> ,ephemeral
> , artificial etc. borders. That catch-all reasonalone
> is not enough to strike down the restriction for
> freeflow
> of human beings between national borders. Inprinciple
> there is nothing wrong or right about free flow ofcapital
> or human beings."Artificial, ephemeral,man-made"
> geographical and administrational borders arenecessary,among
> other things because of the simple reason ofaccountability
> and manageability, as functional units foreconomic
> co-operation and security.Someone representing aparticular
> geographic continuum is accountable andresponsible
> for the decisions taken with respect toit.Iwant
> you to come up with some good reasons why you think
> theboundaries
> and definition of a nation state should not beobserved.
> Let me repeat, saying that it is an"artificial,
> ephemeral, man-made border" , so itshould
> 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
> BorderSecurity
> 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 DearRahul, Ihave
> always felt quite at home in the world,regardlessof
> whether I was on the terrace of my OldRajendraNagar
> house in New Delhi, which once housedrefugeesfrom
> West Pakistan before it housed my migrantparentsand
> me (where I live), or I was on hilltop inDamascus,or
> in a ruined factory in Warsaw, or on the
> borderbetweenEast
> and West Jerusalem. I do not sense a feelingofbeing'not
> at home' when I am not in my owncountry,andthere
> are many places in my own country, where I donotfeelquite
> as home as I would have liked to, for instanceinthewide,
> paranoiac, expansive and empty boulevards
> ofLutyensDelhi.
> In Delhi, take me to Akbar Road, and I willfeela
> foreigner (even a bit of an illegal migrant),leavemein
> Karol Bagh, Chitli Qabar, Mehrauli, Khan MarketorJungpura,and
> I will do just fine. Home, after all, is wheretheheart
> is. And my heart is not in the LutyensBungalowZoneof
> New Delhi. SoI
> don't quite understand the analogy oflockedhomes
> and fenced countries. After all, we lock ourhomes,primarily
> against the possible attacks of our ownfellowcitizens.
> So, since we lock our homes against ourownfellowcitizens,
> logically, then, following your line ofthinking,should
> we not turn the whole country into one vastprison,where
> everyone watches out for the danger that
> iseverybodyelse.We
> don't even have to look as far as thenextBangladeshi.Or,as
> my friends and I had reason to say inanothercontext,
> 'Is the outer wall of the detentioncentre,the
> inner wall of the city?"regards, ShuddhaOn19-Jun-09,
> at 9:39 PM, Rahul Asthanawrote:DearAnupam,Yourquestionis
> a straw man.I am not drawing any analogybetweennationand
> home.My question to Shuddha is based upon
> hisstatementabout
> artificial borders etc.ThanksRahul ShuddhabrataSenguptaTheSarai
> Programme atCSDSRaqsMedia
> Collectiveshuddha at sarai.netwww.sarai.netwww.raqsmediacollective.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  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
>  
>