[Reader-list] the world without borders

[taraprakash]

Dear all.

I too will like the world to be without any imaginary borders. The entire
globe should belong to all human beings. I want to buy a house in Kashmir
andd settle there, I wonder if those speaking in favor of the world without
borders would like to oppose special provision for Kashmir provided in
article 370.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "anupam chakravartty" <c.anupam at gmail.com>
To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Shahidul Alam detained by Indian Border
SecurityForce


> 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/>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>