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

[Rahul Asthana]

P.S. Would it be logical to assume that you would not have a problem with immigration restrictions if they were based on realpolitik?

--- On Sun, 6/21/09, Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Shahidul Alam detained by Indian Border Security Force
> To: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>
> Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Sunday, June 21, 2009, 3:51 AM
> 
> 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
> >  
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> _________________________________________
> 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/>