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

[Rahul Asthana]

Dear Shuddha,
I responded to your own argument.I quoted you as well. I am quoting you again.
"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 was the part of your argument which I called Luddite.I also said that such an argument CAN NOT STAND ON ITS OWN.Hope this helps.

Thanks
Rahul

--- On Mon, 6/22/09, 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: Monday, June 22, 2009, 4:09 AM
> 
> 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
> ShdudhaOn 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, peoplediscriminated
> against for whatever reason to do with theirbirth
> or their choices have reason to construct
> solidaritiesagainst
> those who act against them and with those who
> sharetheir
> circumstances." "The
> claims of patriotism and nationalism (which
> seek
> to put the exploited and the exploiters in the
> samecamp)
> in such instances act against the actuality of thesolidarity
> 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
> addressthe
> problems facing human beings today. Too small to
> addressglobal
> ecological devastation, too large to address themunicipal
> issues of sanitation and transport or theallocation
> of resources like water for agriculture at alocal
> 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.
> 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>Date:
> Sunday, June 21, 2009, 4:19 AM
> Dear
> Rahul, You
> have nothing against Bangladeshis, (and Inever
> said you did, I was responding to someone else,
> whowas
> making a point about the 'competing'
> povertiesof
> Bangladeshis and Indians as a reason to erect
> wallsbetween
> them). I have nothing againstarbitrariness. I
> merely talked about the arbitrariness ofnational
> borders to demonstrate that they were not'natural'
> and 'inherent' constructs, and toshow
> that just as human beings have done without them
> forhundreds
> of thousands of years in the past, so too, they
> maywell
> do without them in the future. I
> am against nations and boundaries, not becausethey
> are arbitrary, but because they are, in my view,
> asthey
> stand, inimical to necessary solidarities, at thebasic,
> human level. I think people without entitlements
> andrights,
> people whose labour is alienated from them, peoplediscriminated
> against for whatever reason to do with theirbirth
> or their choices have reason to construct
> solidaritiesagainst
> those who act against them and with those who
> sharetheir
> circumstances. Typically,
> these solidarities cut across theborders
> that divide nations. Fishermen who straddle acoastline
> shared by two nations have much to gain by actingtogether
> against large trawling operations that mayoriginate
> in their respective countries. In this case, theinterests
> of lets say, Indian and Bangladeshi fishermenvis-a-vis
> large commercial trawling operations conducted byvested
> interests in India and Bangladesh are rangedtogether,
> and against those who are more powerful in theirown
> countries. The
> claims of patriotism and nationalism (whichseek
> to put the exploited and the exploiters in the
> samecamp)
> in such instances act against the actuality of thesolidarity
> of the oppressed. This is the reason why I amagainst
> nations, and additionally, because I think that
> thenation
> is either too large, or too small a unit to
> addressthe
> problems facing human beings today. Too small to
> addressglobal
> ecological devastation, too large to address themunicipal
> issues of sanitation and transport or theallocation
> of resources like water for agriculture at alocal
> level. My reasons for opposing nations have verylittle
> to do with any 'rosy hued' ideals ofuniversal
> brotherhood, and much more to do with thepractical
> and day to day problems of existence in thetwentieth
> century, which are constantly deferred by theendless
> wasted symbolic baggage of nations, nationalborders,
> large bloated militaries and pointless wars. Theseare
> the illusions I wish we could be ridof. Having
> said that,  If you could havenations
> without standing armies, I would be more favorablyinclined
> towards them, as I am to many forms of associationthat
> range from football clubs to esperanto societies,
> evenif
> I have no active interest in them. Then the rituals
> ofnationalism
> would for me be as dull and uninteresting (andjust
> as harmless) as the protocols of the Rotary Club.
> Iwould
> have nothing against it, I would not be
> enthusiasticfor
> it, but at least it would not burden my life and
> thelife
> of our communities with the things I think that we
> canall
> no longer afford. Finally,
> to answer your other question, frankly,I
> do not know how a nation can be 'defined'.
> Forevery
> principle, no matter how it is expressed, be it insingular
> or plural registers,  be they inguistic,cultural,
> ethnic, religious - there seem to be exceptions.So,
> no one definition of nations will do. Since no onedefinition
> of nation is operative, we have to accept thatnations
> cannot be constructed in a manner that can be everuniversally
> acceptable. As of now, it seems to me thatenforcing
> the idea of a nation will always mean thatsomebody's
> nation will always be somebody else'sviolation. regardsShuddha
> 
> On
> 21-Jun-09, at 3:55 AM, Rahul Asthanawrote:
> P.S.Would
> it be logical to assume that you would not have aproblem
> with immigration restrictions if they were based
> onrealpolitik?---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
> BorderSecurity
> ForceTo:"Shuddhabrata
> Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>Cc:"sarai
> list" <reader-list at sarai.net>Date:Sunday,
> June 21, 2009, 3:51 AM1.Please
> clarify how the process of definition of anationislinked
> with your argument of discarding"artificial,ephemeral,man-made
> borders".Areyou
> saying that "artificial, ephemeral,man-madeborders"should
> be discarded because they are arbitrary?2.I
> did not imply by my earlier email that everyprincipleofimmigration
> can be implied to every immigrationrelationbetweentwo
> nations.So you do not need to disprove that
> bygivingcounterexamples.3."Lets
> face it. The reason why people do not likehavingtodeal
> with Bangladeshis has much more to dowith prejudicethan
> it has to do with realpolitik." Ipersonally
> have no problem with Bangladeshis.Ihavenothingmore
> 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 byIndianBorder
> Security Force To:"Rahul
> Asthana" <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>Cc:"sarai
> list" <reader-list at sarai.net>,"anupamchakravartty"
> <c.anupam at gmail.com>Date:Sunday,
> June 21, 2009, 3:22 AMNo,I
> do not think we are in agreement at all. TheexampleofPoland
> which I gave demonstrates how arbitrary
> theprinciplesof
> exclusion are and have been historically.Thereis
> nothing 'necessary' about the
> decisionstakenat
> the Polish border. If these decisions can
> bereversedone
> way or another, so easily, it proves thatthereisnothing
> inherently necessary to them at all. Theyarecontingent.The
> whole idea of the nation state iscontingentonthe
> historical circumstances that have developedsincethetreaty
> of Westphalia outlined the beginnings ofthemodernstate
> system. Being contingent, they aresubjectto
> fundamentalchange.
> Today, at a time when nothing fromthefluctuationsof
> the financial system to the questionofclimatechange
> can be addressed at national levels, Ifinditodd
> that some of us can still cling on to thefetishof
> bordersand
> nation states as if they
> were'necessary'. Ifind
> that clinging 'idealistic'. itseemsto
> fly in the face of the actual objectivestructuralrealitiesof
> the contemporary world. Asfor
> your conditions, each one of them can
> beunpicked. Thereare
> greater if not more 'securitythreats'from
> the citizens of a given nation state toitself,than
> there are from the citizens of otherstates.If
> thatis
> so, how far inwards should the protocols ofthe'border'and
> its exclusionary principles
> bedrawn? Reciprocityis
> not necessarily the basis forinternationalrelations,
> as demonstrated by the simplecaseofthe
> utterly un-reciprocal relationships that obtainattheUS
> Mexico border. Diplomaticrelationships
> have barely anything todowith
> the situation at border controls. India hasfullfledgeddiplomatic
> relationships with Pakistan andBangladesh,and
> yet, this does not influence thehumiliationsthat
> Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshishavetoface
> in the hands of each other's
> borderauthorities. Indiahas
> border disputes with China, Pakistanandwith
> Bangladesh, and yet, refugees from
> ChinesecontrolledTIbet
> have had an easier time getting intoandstayingin
> India than have people from say, Bangladesh.So
> clearly,border
> disputes are not the crucial determiningfactor. Letsface
> it. The reason why people do not likehavingto
> deal with Bangladeshis has much more to dowithprejudicethan
> it has to do withrealpolitik. regardsShuddha
>  As far as the principles outlined by you are concerned - On21-Jun-09,
> at 3:09 AM, Rahul Asthanawrote:1.SoShuddha,
> I believe that we are in agreement thatArtificial,ephemeral,
> man-made borders arenecessary.2.NowIthink
> your issue is with the selective
> immigrationpoliciesof
> nations.These immigration policies may bebasedonthe
> following reasons a)reciprocationorbi-lateral
> cooperationb)perceivedsecuritythreat
> by the citizens of a
> particularnationc)Diplomaticrelationsbetween
> two nationsd)Borderdisputes
> between two nations etc.Idonot
> claim this to be a comprehensivelist. Doesthisanswer
> your question? ThanksRahul---OnSun,
> 6/21/09, 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:Sunday,June
> 21, 2009, 2:49 AMWhereexactlydoes
> the continuity of the nation statebecomethediscontinuity
> of the border? Let's takethecountrycurrentlyknown
> as Poland. In the twentiethcenturydifferentbitsof
> it have been in Russia, Germany,
> LithuaniaandSlovakia.Today,
> Poland is part of the Schengensystemandapart
> of the European Union. Over the last
> onehundredorsoyears,
> Poland has had its borders redefined
> invariousways.Untilthe
> early nineties of the twentieth
> century,itwasimpossiblefor
> some one from France to come toPolandwithoutastrict
> visa system, but it was relatively
> easyforpeoplefromVietnam
> to come to Poland as students
> andguestworkers,todaythe
> situation is exactly the opposite. So,howexactlyhas
> the border acted in a way other thanarbitrarily.Whatmakes
> Vietnamese welcome, Frenchunwelcome,andthen
> vice versa across a matter of afewyears? Icansee
> your point about the fact that someunitsofmanagement
> of space have to exist, but why dothesehavetooperate
> on the basis of exclusion?
> Whatpurposesdoesexclusionserve?
> What is the way in whichpriniciplesofexclusioncan
> be made fair and just? Can they bemadefairandjust? Whatisit
> that dictates, for instance, thatNepaliscanat
> present live and work in India
> withoutvisas,andthatBangladeshis
> cant? Finally,andthis
> is a response to Rakesh. Ihavenotheard
> people whom we normally nominate as
> thepoor,complainaboutthe
> presence of Bangladeshis in our
> city.Forinstance,Delhihas
> a large population of Bangladeshimigrantworkerswho
> live in squatter settlements. Theirnon-Bangladeshineighbourswho
> live in squatter settlementsdonotnormally
> lead the climate of opinion thatseesBangladeshiimmigrantsas
> a problem. Frankly, they haveneithertheproperty,
> nor the entitlements to think
> oftheirBangladeshineigboursas
> encroachers, primarily because theyareseenas
> encroachers themselves. The only people
> whomIhaveheardcomplain
> about the presence of BangladeshisinDelhiarethose
> with property and entitlement, to
> whomtheaverageBangladeshiconstitutes
> no rivalrousthreat. Thisissomewhat
> paradoxical, those who complainaboutthepresence
> of Bangladeshis in Delhi are thosewhoareclearlynot
> in a position to be the
> competitiorsforresourceswithBangladeshis.
> This makes me wonder whereexactlytheantipathy
> stems from. My hunch is, prejudice,whichispassed
> on as an altruistic defence of the poorwithwhomthecarriers
> of the prejudices have nothing
> incommon.Interesting,isntit? bestShuddhaOn21-Jun-09,at
> 12:54 AM,
> RahulAsthanawrote:DearShuddha,Pleasereadmyreply
> to Anupam.The analogy was notimplied.Ithinkthatthere
> can be valid reasons to enforce man
> made,ephemeral,artificial
> etc. borders. That catch-allreasonaloneisnot
> enough to strike down the restriction
> forfreeflowofhuman
> beings between national borders. Inprinciplethereis
> nothing wrong or right about free flowofcapitalorhuman
> beings."Artificial,ephemeral,man-made"geographicaland
> administrational borders arenecessary,amongotherthings
> because of the simple reason ofaccountabilityandmanageability,
> as functional units foreconomicco-operationand
> security.Someone representing aparticulargeographiccontinuum
> is accountable andresponsibleforthe
> decisions taken with respect toit.Iwantyouto
> come up with some good reasons why you
> thinktheboundariesanddefinition
> of a nation state should notbeobserved.Letme
> repeat, saying that it is
> an"artificial,ephemeral,man-made
> border" , so itshouldbestricken
> 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,June20,
> 2009, 2:28 AM DearRahul, Ihavealwaysfelt
> quite at home in the world,regardlessofwhetherI
> was on the terrace of my OldRajendraNagarhousein
> New Delhi, which once housedrefugeesfromWestPakistan
> before it housed my migrantparentsandme(where
> I live), or I was on hilltop inDamascus,orina
> ruined factory in Warsaw, or on
> theborderbetweenEastandWest
> Jerusalem. I do not sense a feelingofbeing'notathome'
> when I am not in my owncountry,andtherearemany
> places in my own country, where Idonotfeelquiteashome
> as I would have liked to, for instanceinthewide,paranoiac,expansive
> and empty boulevardsofLutyensDelhi.InDelhi,
> take me to Akbar Road, and I willfeelaforeigner(even
> a bit of an illegal migrant),leavemeinKarolBagh,
> Chitli Qabar, Mehrauli, Khan MarketorJungpura,andIwill
> do just fine. Home, after all, iswheretheheartis.And
> my heart is not in the LutyensBungalowZoneofNewDelhi. SoIdon'tquite
> understand the analogy oflockedhomesandfenced
> countries. After all, we lock ourhomes,primarilyagainstthe
> possible attacks of our ownfellowcitizens.So,since
> we lock our homes against ourownfellowcitizens,logically,then,
> following your line ofthinking,shouldwenot
> turn the whole country into one vastprison,whereeveryonewatches
> out for the danger thatiseverybodyelse.Wedon'teven
> have to look as far as thenextBangladeshi.Or,asmyfriends
> and I had reason to say inanothercontext,'Isthe
> outer wall of the detentioncentre,theinnerwall
> of thecity?"regards, ShuddhaOn19-Jun-09,at9:39
> PM, Rahul Asthanawrote:DearAnupam,Yourquestionisastraw
> man.I am not drawing any analogybetweennationandhome.Myquestion
> to Shuddha is based
> uponhisstatementaboutartificialborders
> etc.ThanksRahul ShuddhabrataSenguptaTheSaraiProgrammeatCSDSRaqsMediaCollectiveshuddha at sarai.netwww.sarai.netwww.raqsmediacollective.net
> 
> 
>  ShuddhabrataSenguptaTheSaraiProgramme
> atCSDSRaqsMediaCollectiveshuddha at sarai.netwww.sarai.netwww.raqsmediacollective.net  
>    ShuddhabrataSenguptaTheSarai
> Programme atCSDSRaqsMedia
> Collectiveshuddha at sarai.netwww.sarai.netwww.raqsmediacollective.net  
> 
>   
>   _________________________________________reader-list:an
> open discussion list on media and
> thecity.Critiques&
> CollaborationsTosubscribe:
> send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.netwithsubscribe
> in the subject header.Tounsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list Listarchive:
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> 
> 
> 
>  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
>  
>