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

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Rahul,

This is not a luddite argument. As far as I know, the internet,  
electricity and fire have not spawned a form of politics that led to  
two world wars in the twentieth century and numerous other forms of  
armed conflicts, and the obscenity of standing armies. Nations and  
nationalism have. And that is why I have a position against  
nationalism that cannot be automatically extended to the internet or  
to electricity. The two kinds of things have nothing in common other  
than the fact that they are made by human beings.

We are often told that nation states are indispensable. We know that  
they are historically contingent, and as with all historically  
contingent matters, we can take a call as to whether or not they are  
worth having around. In other words, we can see for ourselves that  
they are not necessary for human beings to be what they are. Of  
course, we can just as well take a call about other human made  
things, like the ways in which we use electricity and the internet.  
And I am sure that there are people who wish that the internet was  
not around. But I am not one of them, and just because I have a  
stance against nationalism does not mean that I have a stance against  
all things that have arisen as a result of human effort.

Nationalism is as much of a choice as is the internet and all other  
things shaped by human beings. But,  there is nothing that dictates  
that choosing one must necessarily involve choosing the other.

I hope I have made myself clear.

best

Shdudha
On 22-Jun-09, at 12:55 AM, Rahul Asthana wrote:

>
> Dear Shuddha,
> 1. "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. "
>
> This is essentially a Luddite argument-neither here nor there. You  
> can make the same argument about electricity , internet, fire etc.
>
> 2."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."
> "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."
> `
> According to you, the benefit of having an opportunity to forge a   
> pan national solidarity against the exploiters the exploited  
> offsets the benefits accruing from a nation like a constitution  
> providing fundamental rights, a government that works to enforce  
> the rule of law, security against imperialist attacks,public  
> spending etc.A similar situation existed in the middle ages in some  
> parts of the world when ragtag militias controlled small portions  
> of land and kept fighting with each other for larger shares of  
> land, produce, riches etc.How will your proposed nation less model  
> of the world address the problems of law and order?
>
> 3.>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.
> A problem like global ecological devastation certainly needs more  
> cooperation between nations. As for local problems  
> decentralization  is not antithetical to the definition of a  
> nation.Can you explain how your alternative model will be more  
> conducive to solving problems like ecological devastation?
>
> 4.>Having said that,  If you could have  nations without standing  
> armies, I >would be more favorably  inclined towards them,
>
> Armies have not been introduced by nations.They have existed long  
> before them.The idea of an army less world will not fly too far in  
> a real world scenario.Its only good for "What if" kind of articles.
>
> 5. "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."
> The idea of a nation is dynamic. Its not married to its origin or  
> definition.It always undergoes  constant change, discontinuities,  
> incorporations, and the `turf` never remains the same.The solution  
> is not to undo the idea of the nation completely , but activism  
> against your pet cause.Please remember, as long as greed and  
> inequity of power exists in this world there would always be  
> violations.
> In any case,it would be easier to make this comparison if you  
> present some concrete ideas about your nation less model of the world.
>
> 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>
>> Date: Sunday, June 21, 2009, 4:19 AM
>>
>> 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 ForceTo:
>> "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
>> nationis
>> linked with your argument of discarding
>> "artificial,ephemeral,
>> man-made borders".Are
>> you saying that "artificial, ephemeral,
>> man-madeborders"
>> should be discarded because they are arbitrary?
>> 2.
>> I did not imply by my earlier email that every
>> principleof
>> immigration can be implied to every immigration
>> relationbetween
>> two nations.So you do not need to disprove that bygiving
>> counterexamples.
>> 3.
>> "Lets face it. The reason why people do not like
>> havingto
>> 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
>> havenothing
>> more to add on this particular point.
>> 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 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 theprinciples
>> of exclusion are and have been historically.
>> There
>> is nothing 'necessary' about the decisionstaken
>> at the Polish border. If these decisions can bereversed
>> 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'. itseems
>> to fly in the face of the actual objective
>> structural
>> realities
>> of the contemporary world. As
>> for your conditions, each one of them can beunpicked. There
>> are greater if not more 'securitythreats'
>> from the citizens of a given nation state toitself,
>> 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 bedrawn? Reciprocity
>> is not necessarily the basis forinternational
>> 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 todo
>> with the situation at border controls. India has
>> full
>> fledged
>> diplomatic relationships with Pakistan andBangladesh,
>> and yet, this does not influence thehumiliations
>> that Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis
>> have
>> to
>> face in the hands of each other's borderauthorities. India
>> has border disputes with China, Pakistanand
>> with Bangladesh, and yet, refugees from Chinesecontrolled
>> 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 likehaving
>> to deal with Bangladeshis has much more to do
>> with
>> prejudice
>> than it has to do withrealpolitik. regardsShuddha
>>
>>  As far as the principles outlined by you are concerned -
>> On
>> 21-Jun-09, at 3:09 AM, Rahul Asthanawrote:
>> 1.So
>> Shuddha, I believe that we are in agreement thatArtificial,
>> ephemeral, man-made borders arenecessary.2.NowI
>> think your issue is with the selective immigrationpolicies
>> of nations.These immigration policies may be
>> based
>> on
>> the following reasons a)reciprocationor
>> bi-lateral cooperationb)perceivedsecurity
>> threat by the citizens of a particularnationc)Diplomaticrelations
>> between two nationsd)Border
>> disputes between two nations etc.Ido
>> not claim this to be a comprehensive
>> list. Doesthis
>> 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 AMWhereexactly
>> does the continuity of the nation statebecomethe
>> discontinuity of the border? Let's takethecountrycurrently
>> known as Poland. In the twentiethcenturydifferentbits
>> of it have been in Russia, Germany, LithuaniaandSlovakia.
>> Today, Poland is part of the Schengensystemanda
>> part of the European Union. Over the last onehundredorso
>> years, Poland has had its borders redefined invariousways.Until
>> the early nineties of the twentieth century,itwasimpossible
>> for some one from France to come toPolandwithouta
>> strict visa system, but it was relatively easyforpeoplefrom
>> Vietnam to come to Poland as students andguestworkers,today
>> the situation is exactly the opposite. So,howexactly
>> has the border acted in a way other thanarbitrarily.
>> What
>> makes Vietnamese welcome, Frenchunwelcome,and
>> then vice versa across a matter of a
>> fewyears? Ican
>> see your point about the fact that someunitsof
>> management of space have to exist, but why dothesehaveto
>> operate on the basis of exclusion? Whatpurposesdoesexclusion
>> serve? What is the way in whichpriniciplesofexclusion
>> can be made fair and just? Can they bemadefairand
>> just? Whatis
>> it that dictates, for instance, thatNepaliscan
>> at present live and work in India withoutvisas,andthat
>> Bangladeshis cant? Finally,and
>> this is a response to Rakesh. Ihavenot
>> heard people whom we normally nominate as thepoor,complainabout
>> the presence of Bangladeshis in our city.Forinstance,Delhi
>> has a large population of Bangladeshimigrantworkers
>> who live in squatter settlements. Theirnon-Bangladeshi
>> neighbours
>> who live in squatter settlementsdonot
>> normally lead the climate of opinion that
>> seesBangladeshi
>> immigrants
>> as a problem. Frankly, they haveneitherthe
>> property, nor the entitlements to think oftheirBangladeshineigbours
>> as encroachers, primarily because theyareseen
>> as encroachers themselves. The only people whomIhaveheard
>> complain about the presence of BangladeshisinDelhiare
>> those with property and entitlement, to whomtheaverageBangladeshi
>> constitutes no rivalrousthreat. Thisis
>> somewhat paradoxical, those who complainaboutthe
>> presence of Bangladeshis in Delhi are thosewhoareclearly
>> not in a position to be the competitiorsforresourceswith
>> Bangladeshis. This makes me wonder whereexactlythe
>> antipathy stems from. My hunch is, prejudice,which
>> is
>> passed on as an altruistic defence of the poorwithwhomthe
>> carriers of the prejudices have nothing incommon.Interesting,isnt
>> it? bestShuddhaOn21-Jun-09,
>> at 12:54 AM, RahulAsthanawrote:DearShuddha,Pleasereadmy
>> reply to Anupam.The analogy was notimplied.Ithinkthat
>> there can be valid reasons to enforce man made,ephemeral,
>> artificial etc. borders. That catch-all
>> reasonaloneis
>> not enough to strike down the restriction forfreeflowof
>> 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 foreconomicco-operation
>> and security.Someone representing aparticular
>> geographic
>> continuum is accountable andresponsiblefor
>> the decisions taken with respect toit.Iwantyou
>> to come up with some good reasons why you thinktheboundariesand
>> definition of a nation state should not
>> beobserved.
>> Let
>> me repeat, saying that it is an"artificial,ephemeral,
>> man-made border" , so itshouldbe
>> stricken down is not a good reason.ThanksRahul---OnSat,
>> 6/20/09, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>wrote:  
>> From:ShuddhabrataSengupta
>> <shuddha at sarai.net>Subject:Re:[Reader-list]
>> Shahidul Alam detained by IndianBorderSecurityForceTo:"RahulAsthana"
>> <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>Cc:"sarailist"
>> <reader-list at sarai.net>,"anupamchakravartty"
>> <c.anupam at gmail.com>Date:Saturday,June
>> 20, 2009, 2:28 AM DearRahul, Ihavealways
>> felt quite at home in the world,regardlessofwhether
>> I was on the terrace of my OldRajendraNagarhouse
>> in New Delhi, which once housedrefugeesfromWest
>> Pakistan before it housed my migrantparentsandme
>> (where I live), or I was on hilltop inDamascus,orin
>> a ruined factory in Warsaw, or on theborderbetweenEastand
>> West Jerusalem. I do not sense a feelingofbeing'not
>> at
>> home' when I am not in my owncountry,andthereare
>> many places in my own country, where I
>> donotfeelquite
>> as
>> home as I would have liked to, for instanceinthewide,
>> paranoiac,
>> expansive and empty boulevardsofLutyensDelhi.In
>> Delhi, take me to Akbar Road, and I willfeelaforeigner
>> (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 LutyensBungalowZoneofNew
>> Delhi. SoIdon't
>> quite understand the analogy oflockedhomesand
>> 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 thatiseverybodyelse.Wedon'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,theinner
>> 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 uponhisstatementaboutartificial
>> borders etc.ThanksRahul ShuddhabrataSenguptaTheSarai
>> Programme
>> atCSDSRaqsMediaCollectiveshuddha at sarai.netwww.sarai.netwww.raqsmediac 
>> ollective.net
>>
>>
>>
>>  ShuddhabrataSenguptaTheSarai
>> Programme atCSDSRaqsMedia
>> Collectiveshuddha at sarai.netwww.sarai.netwww.raqsmediacollective.net
>>
>>
>>
>> ShuddhabrataSenguptaThe
>> Sarai Programme atCSDSRaqs
>> Media  
>> Collectiveshuddha at sarai.netwww.sarai.netwww.raqsmediacollective.net
>>
>>
>>
>>     _________________________________________reader-list:
>> an open discussion list on media and thecity.Critiques
>> & CollaborationsTo
>> subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.netwith
>> 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
>> SenguptaThe Sarai Programme at
>> CSDSRaqs Media  
>> Collectiveshuddha at sarai.netwww.sarai.netwww.raqsmediacollective.net
>>
>>
>
>
>

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