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

[anupam chakravartty]

Dear Rahul,



I can understand that you question for Shuddha about his take on preventive
detention that I had not read. So I apologise. However, I think somewhere
during the discussion preventive detention has been confused with crossing
international borders.  However, Shuddha made some valid points. On the
other hand, the points raised by you Rahul are crisp and direct. It clearly
reflects your in-depth understanding of specific issues (if I am also
allowed to use commonalities) with respect to borders and immigration. I do
understand that the borders, which are intangible, become material basis for
our existence. Somehow, the idea of having borders is innate to human beings
– be it for better administration or self-preservation.



My issue lies with perceiving borders as means to express one’s might over
the fence. Sometimes this primordial instinct of limiting our existence can
be compared to the way dogs mark their territory. To digress, I have also
noticed that cows, and other herbivores do not have a problem in trespassing
to one’s territory or eating a branch from a tree, and one would not notice
the herbivore on the other side of the fence having a problem with the
animal which is trespassing. I also consider the case of bullfights but it
has nothing to do with territory but to have supremacy over the herd.



-Thanks



Anupam


On 6/21/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> _________________________________________
> 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/>