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

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Rahul,

You have nothing against Bangladeshis, (and I never said you did, I  
was responding to someone else, who was making a point about the  
'competing' poverties of Bangladeshis and Indians as a reason to  
erect walls between them). I have nothing against arbitrariness.

I merely talked about the arbitrariness of national borders to  
demonstrate that they were not 'natural' and 'inherent' constructs,  
and to show that just as human beings have done without them for  
hundreds of thousands of years in the past, so too, they may well do  
without them in the future.

I am against nations and boundaries, not because they are arbitrary,  
but because they are, in my view, as they stand, inimical to  
necessary solidarities, at the basic, human level. I think people  
without entitlements and rights, people whose labour is alienated  
from them, people discriminated against for whatever reason to do  
with their birth or their choices have reason to construct  
solidarities against those who act against them and with those who  
share their circumstances.

Typically, these solidarities cut across the borders that divide  
nations. Fishermen who straddle a coastline shared by two nations  
have much to gain by acting together against large trawling  
operations that may originate in their respective countries. In this  
case, the interests of lets say, Indian and Bangladeshi fishermen vis- 
a-vis large commercial trawling operations conducted by vested  
interests in India and Bangladesh are ranged together, and against  
those who are more powerful in their own countries.

The claims of patriotism and nationalism (which seek to put the  
exploited and the exploiters in the same camp) in such instances act  
against the actuality of the solidarity of the oppressed. This is the  
reason why I am against nations, and additionally, because I think  
that the nation is either too large, or too small a unit to address  
the problems facing human beings today. Too small to address global  
ecological devastation, too large to address the municipal issues of  
sanitation and transport or the allocation of resources like water  
for agriculture at a local level. My reasons for opposing nations  
have very little to do with any 'rosy hued' ideals of universal  
brotherhood, and much more to do with the practical and day to day  
problems of existence in the twentieth century, which are constantly  
deferred by the endless wasted symbolic baggage of nations, national  
borders, large bloated militaries and pointless wars. These are the  
illusions I wish we could be rid of.

Having said that,  If you could have nations without standing armies,  
I would be more favorably inclined towards them, as I am to many  
forms of association that range from football clubs to esperanto  
societies, even if I have no active interest in them. Then the  
rituals of nationalism would for me be as dull and uninteresting (and  
just as harmless) as the protocols of the Rotary Club. I would have  
nothing against it, I would not be enthusiastic for it, but at least  
it would not burden my life and the life of our communities with the  
things I think that we can all no longer afford.

Finally, to answer your other question, frankly, I do not know how a  
nation can be 'defined'. For every principle, no matter how it is  
expressed, be it in singular or plural registers,  be they inguistic,  
cultural, ethnic, religious - there seem to be exceptions. So, no one  
definition of nations will do. Since no one definition of nation is  
operative, we have to accept that nations cannot be constructed in a  
manner that can be ever universally acceptable. As of now, it seems  
to me that enforcing the idea of a nation will always mean that  
somebody's nation will always be somebody else's violation.

regards

Shuddha



On 21-Jun-09, at 3:55 AM, Rahul Asthana wrote:

>
> 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/>
>
>
>

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