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

[S. Jabbar]

My two cent bit to this discussion: wars and armies
(standing/notwithstanding) have existed even before the existence of nations
and nation-states.  What does that tell us about human beings?  Remove
nations and wars will disappear?  You underestimate our inventiveness!


> From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:09:44 +0530
> To: Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
> Cc: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Shahidul Alam detained by Indian Border Security
> Force
> 
> 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


_____
> ____________________________________
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/>