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

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Shuddha

I am not sure if you were referring to me when you talked about 'competing'
poverties of India and Bangladesh, but if you were, then that wasn't what I
meant. I clearly said that it's the media and the elites who have
substantial power to decide upon the functioning of the state, and in this
case that meant that the opinion of Bangladeshis entering the nation, is
clearly a function of the elites, simply because as you yourself
acknowledged, those living with them don't have that 'prejudice' simply
because they are poor, and it's the elites who have set this agenda here in
India.


Therefore, even the idea that the poverties of the two nations may be
competing, comes from the elites, not from the masses who live with
Bangladeshi migrant settlers.


Secondly, when we talk about this immigration, we must look at why it
creates prejudice. For a state like Assam, or even West Bengal, the reason
why it is considered wrong is because of votes. Many believe that by
settling the Bangladeshi migrant settlers in India, and making them voters
without any proper naturalization process, they are being made voters so
that the Congress can benefit by winning elections, without doing anything
for the people. In Bengal, it's the Left which faces this accusation.


In the rest of the nation, it has got more to do with the idea of terrorists
infiltrating from Bangladesh, which is said to be relatively easier. Nobody
wants to die in such attacks after all. And that image does lead to
prejudice which creates a problem. And such prejudices are wrong, I accept.
For the action of a few, an entire community can't and shouldn't be blamed.


Thirdly Sir. You have stated that states should not exist, so also not
boundaries or nations. The fact of the matter is that they have existed even
in our speeches, forget the Indian state. When we use the word 'des' in our
Hindi vocabulary, it does refer to nation. And there are people in villages
in MP, who do ask those coming from outside 'kounse des se aaye ho'? This
question would have been asked by anybody to any foreigner. What's wrong in
having nations, is something I don't understand. After all, can't people of
a region consider themselves to be a nation in themselves? And if that area
does believe it's a nation, it is certainly not a problem.


Fourth. Isn't solidarity among the people an elitist concept that has gained
ground now? This concept started with Marx, and is now being carried over in
various forms by different people. Everyone tries to find solidarity
depending on whichever cause he/she wishes to support. It's not that I am
against solidarity, but in any such situation which you stated, there are
three kinds of people:


1) Those who have lost their rights and freeedoms
2) Those who are the cause of the above
3) Those who are fence-sitters


It's not just the people in category 1 who have to express solidarity
against those in category 2, the people in category 3 have to express it
towards those in 1 as well to act against 2. And yet, while the common cause
may be there in certain cases, it's not there necessarily in other cases as
well. For example, in the Bhopal gas tragedy, the organizations there
working for justice, have got solidarity from people in different cities and
even the US, but justice is nowhere to be found.

Solidarity first of all does not mean verbal expression alone. That I can
also make without working for them. Solidarity means that we actually do
something about the problem. And therefore, the entire concept of solidarity
as it stands out to me is bogus. We say that we as Indians express
solidarity with Tamils in Sri Lanka for their devolution, but do we
pressurize our own state to ensure that India doesn't act against the
interests of the Tamils in Sri Lanka by letting it go off the hook in the
UN? And we know our polity fully well to realize that net protests and
signature campaigns don't yield anything. But we sit at our homes, in the
comfort there, posting on net in Sarai or some other forum. And the accused
here includes me first of all, then others. Even if using the net means we
can educate others and pressurize states or actors to stop oppressing, it
would be of great help. But what do we do? (And here I am talking about most
of us, if not all of us)


And if you feel solidarity is about just verbal assurances, then Sir I feel
we don't need solidarity for it. That can be done even by understanding the
situation, to realize what is right and what is wrong, and make a statement
against the wrong. Solidarity means we work towards that. And that is why I
am beginning to feel that simply such solid assurances without work means
'our words are hollow', something I associate with elites.


Fifth. You talked about patriotism Sir. Patriotism is love for the land one
belongs to, because one can connect to it through culture. It is very sad
that you mention patriotism and nationalism together, because both are not
even comparable. Patriotism stems from inside, and is a personal feeling.
One doesn't have to show that he/she is a patriot, nor is one expected to.
It's an inner feeling and can help the elites certainly in improving the
conditions of those who are oppressed, provided they also feel connected to
these oppressed as their own. Patriotism should never be imposed upon
people, is the only point I will make here.


When that is the case, how come it is against solidarity? After all,
patriotism means loving your land, not hating somebody else's. Therefore, I
don't feel it is against solidarity. Infact, it is simply a love for one's
own land. And people have a right to love the land to which they feel
connected, and I or you can't take it away from them.


Of course, blind love in any case will never help. But patriotism, if
properly understood, will certainly be rational or reason-based. And such
love or affection would not create problems.


Sixth. As I mentioned earlier, so I would now. Working towards an agenda you
have set is good. But I don't feel we can get to it that easily. As I see,
there is no public movement working to dismantle the Indian state structure,
which has gained the imagination of the people. Also, while there may not
have been states earlier or nations earlier, there would have been
panchayats at the village level. And these would be the local state-like
authorities, after all. For there has to be some center of authority at some
level which can administer the region or decide the priorities.


Impractical solutions or solutions imposed too quickly on people could
themselves lead to disaster. I agree that we have problems and threats which
are internal, but does that mean we should also invite more threats from
external and thereby make the situation more problematic? We are living in a
situation where there are walls of mistrust, and it is inevitable that we
have to move slowly. Europe itself has taken 2 World Wars and numerous years
of suffering and pain to come up to the EU stage. How come you are expecting
India and Pakistan to just open the borders as it is, accept that there is
no such thing as state hood, and give powers to panchayats and pack their
central authorities? Is that rational? Nor is there a public movement in
either countries to completely give up state hood for once and for all
against the central establishments.


I don't say we should also fight wars to come up to friendship, but it means
we have to slowly dissolve away the levels of mistrust and work towards that
agenda. I know some may say that we have lost generations in mistrust, but
we have to sideline those who are oppressing, and that takes time. After
all, a relation of 57-60 years of mistrust doesn't vanish away in one single
moment.


And Sir, agendas can be set, but to achieve the agendas, a rigorous struggle
is required. And any struggle will achieve only small steps in the
beginning. Trying to achieve the 'lakshya' in one single step, is talking
like the BJP or the Left, who make one-line prescriptions to solve problems
of the nation. Those are not going to work. Also, ultimately it's the people
who should decide what should be the structure of their nation or village
(or entity they use to describe their place of living along with its
neighborhood), not you or me.


Regards

Rakesh