How Dhaka sees the Modi juggernaut

[Bangalorean]

@Bangalorean

What is your criteria for giving asylum ? Just them being non-Muslims ?

In case of BD easier for India to intervene and force their govt to act.

Just at the moment, let us set aside operational issues and come to an agreement on the policy, to begin with.

The policy at a theoretical level, in my view, is simple. We owe neither asylum nor migration rights to Muslims from Bangladesh/Pakistan. The reason for this, as stated earlier, is partition.

As a humanitarian gesture, giving asylum to the needy is a noble ideal to aspire for. However, irrespective of the general nobility of asylum as a concept, we certainly are under no obligation to any of the subcontinent's Muslims, except Indian Muslims.

If we agree on this policy, we can discuss operational issues.

 

[Energon]

As long as you recognize the historical context of partition and understand where I'm coming from when I say that we can welcome people of dharmic faith, but not a single Muslim from BD/Pak, we're on the same page.

As Singh pointed out we are talking about two completely different things. My argument refers to migratory patterns resulting from desperate people without opportunities sneaking into countries with higher economic activity in order to better their lives. Prior to globalization there was a highly defined geographic demarcation between countries that offered economic opportunities (primarily the West) vs those that didn't (pretty much the rest). This is no longer the case, now there are interspersed pockets of high economic activity surrounded by crushing poverty which creates an acute migratory phenomenon. If steps aren't taken to manage this phenomenon it has a negative impact upon economic growth.
While I understand the historical context you are referring to my arguments have more to do with relevance. The subject matter of your posts has very little relevance in today's world. India is presently faced with a tall order of challenges which will determine the future of the country for decades to come. Fishing for people of dharmic faiths is not one of those problems. Most persecuted people seeking asylum go to developed nations that offer economic opportunities. India first needs to make the country livable for its own citizens before going on a rescue mission.

 

[Energon]

As a humanitarian gesture, giving asylum to the needy is a noble ideal to aspire for. However, irrespective of the general nobility of asylum as a concept, we certainly are under no obligation to any of the subcontinent's Muslims, except Indian Muslims.

I've heard this selective humanitarian aid you're referring to come up in the BJP campaign from time to time"¦ and I find this truly puzzling. For the sake of the Indian people I really hope this is an election gimmick and nothing more.

I don't know how much you know about asylum and refugees. But in order to have a successful asylum program a country needs to have a robust supportive infrastructure which provides refugees with free housing, healthcare, education etc. in order to integrate them into the society as productive members. Considering a majority of Indians themselves do not have access to such basic amenities, the very thought of instituting an asylum program is a joke.

 

[Singh]

@abhi_the _gr8_maratha

I completely agree with your post.

 

[pratul_09]

That's actually BS. You will have to explain to me how someone who is illegal can vote for starters.

I was referring to SP, the so called secular party or Muslim saviour as they project themselves. Time has come to throw away such BS parties. Another one is BSP of Mayawati. The list is endless.

Sent from my A99 using Tapatalk

 

[TrueSpirit1]

please remember that countless Indians illegally force their way into more developed nations seeking greater opportunities in order to provide a better life for their families as well. Point being this is a human phenomenon, not a specific cultural or national one.)

This is simple inane & needlessly alarmist. You are having a tough time distinguishing Indians from Pakis, Bangaldeshis & Sri Lankans.

Remember, Indians are not Africans. There is little incentive or reason for Indians to enter illegally when most of them are highly skilled professionals, entrepreneurs & farmers (who become landowners of acres within no time).

There a sea of difference between few Punjabis & Mallus getting involved in kabutarbaazi & referring to same as "countless Indians". Even aggrandization needs to have some brakes.

 

[Ray]

You're right. I can certainly see how identifying and repatriating current illegal immigrants is a pointless venture given the negative cost: benefit ratio. However this does not change the fact that the next PM of India seriously needs to set up tacit agreements with neighboring countries (especially Nepal and BD) in regards to immigration. Illegal immigration is one of the greatest side effects of globalization. If by some miracle the next administration succeeds in putting the Indian economy on the right path, illegal immigration will become a big problem for the foreseeable future. (Before all the hypernationalists start foaming at the mouth baying for Bangladeshi blood, please remember that countless Indians illegally force their way into more developed nations seeking greater opportunities in order to provide a better life for their families as well. Point being this is a human phenomenon, not a specific cultural or national one.)
Indian governments have a stellar history of lacking foresight and subsequently nullifying any minor progress the country may have made. It would behoove the next administration to redouble their efforts on the national identification program and simultaneously tackle the issue of illegal immigration as well as urbanization resulting from internal migration from day 1.

One does not throw out illegals with a parade and fanfare.

It is more subtle than that.

 

[Energon]

This is simple inane & needlessly alarmist. You are having a tough time distinguishing Indians from Pakis, Bangaldeshis & Sri Lankans.

Remember, Indians are not Africans. There is little incentive or reason for Indians to enter illegally when most of them are highly skilled professionals, entrepreneurs & farmers (who become landowners of acres within no time).

There a sea of difference between few Punjabis & Mallus getting involved in kabutarbaazi & referring to same as "countless Indians". Even aggrandization needs to have some brakes.

I don't know what your definitions of "inane" and "alarmist" are because my post effuses neither. I'm making references to a global migratory pattern. Migratory patterns are overwhelmingly dictated by availability to resources. My point is that most Bangladeshis and Nepalis who sneak into India are motivated by the same reason as Indians who sneak into the West; or Eastern Europeans who sneak into Western Europe; or South Americans who sneak into North America. India may have a high number of highly skilled professionals but rest assured they also have boatloads of illegal immigrants who are willing to do anything to remain and/or enter countries which offer greater economic opportunities. How do I know? It just so happens that one of my parent is an immigration attorney who deals with illegal immigrants, refugees and corporate visa applicants for a living. So yea, everyone does it and as much as you want to set yourself apart I'm sorry to say Indians are no different. I make it a point to bring this up because I have noticed that condescension tends to play a heavy role in immigration debates all over the world. It is very easy to fall into this trap and many find this very comforting because it presents the opportunity to belittle and insult people from poorer countries. But in the end all of this detracts from the main topic at hand.

One does not throw out illegals with a parade and fanfare.

It is more subtle than that.

Ideally yes, and that is precisely what I'm proposing because currently this does not happen to be true. Granted everything to do with Indian politics is fanfare, there is very little substance which is precisely why India is in the state that it is. India lacks even the most basic infrastructure and technologies to track and/or identify illegal immigrants. However Indian politicians have been consistently blowing their trumpets on this issue since the mid 90s without actually having done anything about it. The core of my message is that Indian politicians need to stop using this topic to get a rise of the crowds and actually do something about it tacitly because as time goes on the risks of mismanaged immigration will get exponentially higher.
However having said that, when it comes specifically to illegal immigration, even developed nations aren't any better. Just look at the glut of immigration related headlines in the United States, Western Europe, Australia etc. it's anything but 'subtle'. The problem is that immigration presents bellicose politicians with the opportunity to solidify the "us vs them" paradigm and extract copious amounts of political capital in the process. Unfortunately the comprehensive topic of immigration is a lot more nuanced and requires politicians with a high level of insight, intelligence and practicality to address this issue effectively. Sadly this does not happen because all the racism and jingoism gets in the way.

 

[Bangalorean]

I've heard this selective humanitarian aid you're referring to come up in the BJP campaign from time to time"¦ and I find this truly puzzling. For the sake of the Indian people I really hope this is an election gimmick and nothing more.

I don't know how much you know about asylum and refugees. But in order to have a successful asylum program a country needs to have a robust supportive infrastructure which provides refugees with free housing, healthcare, education etc. in order to integrate them into the society as productive members. Considering a majority of Indians themselves do not have access to such basic amenities, the very thought of instituting an asylum program is a joke.

Of course, India has problems of its own, and ought not to aspire to cater to additional people, in simple terms. There is no disagreement on this.

What I have been trying to do all this while, is to get a broad agreement on some hard facts based on a historical context (partition, etc.). In purely academic terms, if you agree with the assertion that India owes nothing to Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh, no matter what the circumstances, we are on the same page.

In a hypothetical scenario, if India were to become as developed as Sweden or Japan, we can (and should) take in Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Parsee/Jain asylum seekers and victims of prejudice/discrimination from Bangladesh and Pakistan, but should NOT take in Muslim immigrants from the above-mentioned nations.

I am saying this to make a point. When one makes this point, he is immediately labeled a communal demon.

This is a very important point and needs to be understood well. I am not even going into the operational details of how to deport immigrants or how to prevent further influx, etc. It is a point I am making, which needs to be understood, and a broad consensus needs to be built w.r.t. this point.

 

[Energon]

What I have been trying to do all this while, is to get a broad agreement on some hard facts based on a historical context (partition, etc.). In purely academic terms, if you agree with the assertion that India owes nothing to Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh, no matter what the circumstances, we are on the same page.

In a hypothetical scenario, if India were to become as developed as Sweden or Japan, we can (and should) take in Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Parsee/Jain asylum seekers and victims of prejudice/discrimination from Bangladesh and Pakistan, but should NOT take in Muslim immigrants from the above-mentioned nations.

I am unable to get on board with the consensus you seek not because I agree or disagree, but rather because it is entirely irrelevant. This would be the same response I would have for an argument in regards to what the Catholic Church owes the Knights Templar; how much the Presbyterians should really hate the Episcopalians, and what the Mahdi's obligations will be upon his supposedly imminent return.
You hate Muslims because you hold them responsible for breaking up your idealized version of India. I get it. Unfortunately this has zero bearing upon the challenges India faces today. This is just my opinion, but India will never truly succeed as a nation as long as the majority of its educated populace remains entrenched in irrelevant historical battles. Subsequently this invalidates your hypothetical scenario of "if India becomes as developed as Sweden or Japan". It never will, because unlike India the latter were able to instantly bounce back from the most annihilative conflict known to man and get on with life by discerning relevant from irrelevant issues.

 

[Bangalorean]

You hate Muslims because you hold them responsible for breaking up your idealized version of India. I get it. Unfortunately this has zero bearing upon the challenges India faces today. This is just my opinion, but India will never truly succeed as a nation as long as the majority of its educated populace remains entrenched in irrelevant historical battles. Subsequently this invalidates your hypothetical scenario of "if India becomes as developed as Sweden or Japan". It never will, because unlike India the latter were able to instantly bounce back from the most annihilative conflict known to man and get on with life by discerning relevant from irrelevant issues.

This response shows that you either didn't read a word of what I said, or lack the skills to comprehend simple English. "Hate Muslims because you hold them responsible for breaking up your idealized version of India". Where did you pick this horse manure from?

The problem is entirely people like you, who have bastardized the discourse on "secularism and liberalism" with such cliched nonsense.

The problem with you guys is, in your mind you have already decided that anyone who speaks of partition and Muslims and religion is a fanatic and a hater. People like you don't even realize how biased you are.

For the last time - and make an effort to read and understand this time - if you can't understand, ask for clarifications, but spare us the condescending judgement - the point is this:

India made a promise to its Muslims to give them a secular dispensation with equal rights. We will never renege on this promise, and I stand by it. We do not however, owe anything to BD/Pak Muslims, due to the historical context of partition. This is a simple statement. If one extrapolates this to "ooooh, you hate Muslims because they broke up your idealized version of India", it reflects on the reasoning skills of the person making the extrapolation. For the record, I am delighted that they broke away. India would never have survived had the population of those nations been with us. We would have been a civil-war wracked nation with no hope for the future. So I am delighted that they left.

You speak a lot about "Indian inability" to discern between relevant and irrelevant issues". It may be news to you, but when we discuss things like illegal immigration and Muslim influx, issues such as those I am speaking of, are the core of the discussion. I am a person who has maintained that India needs to focus only on economic development, and nothing else is important - economic growth is the top priority for the nation. But when we discuss an issue such as Bangladeshi immigration, what the devil do you expect in terms of arguments? Do you realize that you are being illogical and silly here?

This whole "opinion" I hear from several people who don't know the first thing about India, providing exotic reasons for India's backwardness, including cultural, religious, etc. is another pile of fetid hyena dung. India is backward because of improper economic ideology. Period. India reformed in 1991, China did in 1978. Hence China is around 15 years ahead. At the end of the day, all that matters is economic development and governance.

The essence of your post is, "Oh, see these educated Indians are talking about Hindus and Muslims when the discussion is about Muslim immigration!! Oooh, no wonder they are backward. This is the reason, see how they are involved in irrelevant historical battles".

This is what one would politely call, pseudo-intellectual poppycock.

 

[Energon]

LOL your rant is filled with so many ironies I don't know where to begin.

Considering all your posts single out Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims in the context of partition, it clearly lays out the paradigm of your arguments. Which again... pointless/ useless/ irrelevant/ all of the above. Moreover if we're going to discuss comprehension and inferences... what you keep referring to as "historical context" should aptly be rechristened as historical baggage. Also I don't know why you keep harping about secularism and liberalism considering they do not apply to my posts.
Also, out of curiosity"¦ who is this "we" you keep referring to?
Lastly"¦

India is backward because of improper economic ideology. Period. India reformed in 1991, China did in 1978. Hence China is around 15 years ahead.

Seriously? Is this a display of your great powers of deduction? Yea, you really need to reconsider questioning the reasoning and comprehension skills of others, and while you're at it also look up the definition of "pseudo-intellectual poppycock"

Ok I would go on but this is pure digression and I don't want to be mean.

 

[Mad Indian]

You hate Muslims because you hold them responsible for breaking up your idealized version of India. I get it. Unfortunately this has zero bearing upon the challenges India faces today. This is just my opinion, but India will never truly succeed as a nation as long as the majority of its educated populace remains entrenched in irrelevant historical battles. Subsequently this invalidates your hypothetical scenario of "if India becomes as developed as Sweden or Japan". It never will, because unlike India the latter were able to instantly bounce back from the most annihilative conflict known to man and get on with life by discerning relevant from irrelevant issues.

Islamisation of India is not an imaginary threat nor is its adverse effects on Indian society and Indian nation which the liberal-pseudo intellectuals, who seem to understand and know what is good for the nation without actually knowing any ground reality, will never acknowledge. Seriously, a splintered nation is worse than a poorer nation.

Lucky for you to be living in US. Islamisation of US is not a serious threat for atleast a century. You guys have the church locked in a attrition war with Islam with tacit backing of the left and the explicit backing of the rightwing govt there:thumb:

 

[Mad Indian]

This response shows that you either didn't read a word of what I said, or lack the skills to comprehend simple English. "Hate Muslims because you hold them responsible for breaking up your idealized version of India". Where did you pick this horse manure from?

The problem is entirely people like you, who have bastardized the discourse on "secularism and liberalism" with such cliched nonsense.

The problem with you guys is, in your mind you have already decided that anyone who speaks of partition and Muslims and religion is a fanatic and a hater. People like you don't even realize how biased you are.

For the last time - and make an effort to read and understand this time - if you can't understand, ask for clarifications, but spare us the condescending judgement - the point is this:

India made a promise to its Muslims to give them a secular dispensation with equal rights. We will never renege on this promise, and I stand by it. We do not however, owe anything to BD/Pak Muslims, due to the historical context of partition. This is a simple statement. If one extrapolates this to "ooooh, you hate Muslims because they broke up your idealized version of India", it reflects on the reasoning skills of the person making the extrapolation. For the record, I am delighted that they broke away. India would never have survived had the population of those nations been with us. We would have been a civil-war wracked nation with no hope for the future. So I am delighted that they left.

You speak a lot about "Indian inability" to discern between relevant and irrelevant issues". It may be news to you, but when we discuss things like illegal immigration and Muslim influx, issues such as those I am speaking of, are the core of the discussion. I am a person who has maintained that India needs to focus only on economic development, and nothing else is important - economic growth is the top priority for the nation. But when we discuss an issue such as Bangladeshi immigration, what the devil do you expect in terms of arguments? Do you realize that you are being illogical and silly here?

This whole "opinion" I hear from several people who don't know the first thing about India, providing exotic reasons for India's backwardness, including cultural, religious, etc. is another pile of fetid hyena dung. India is backward because of improper economic ideology. Period. India reformed in 1991, China did in 1978. Hence China is around 15 years ahead. At the end of the day, all that matters is economic development and governance.

The essence of your post is, "Oh, see these educated Indians are talking about Hindus and Muslims when the discussion is about Muslim immigration!! Oooh, no wonder they are backward. This is the reason, see how they are involved in irrelevant historical battles".

This is what one would politely call, pseudo-intellectual poppycock.

Perhaps you should add the danger of allowing those illegals to settle in Assam and WB- splintering of these states from Indian Union along with your post. May be that will help the non-indian intellectual brigade, who obviously know what is good for us, without having a fuking clue on ground realities , understand better the problem of illegal bangla muslim immigration

 

[Mad Indian]

LOL your rant is filled with so many ironies I don't know where to begin.

Considering all your posts single out Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims in the context of partition, it clearly lays out the paradigm of your arguments. Which again... pointless/ useless/ irrelevant/ all of the above. Moreover if we're going to discuss comprehension and inferences... what you keep referring to as "historical context" should aptly be rechristened as historical baggage. Also I don't know why you keep harping about secularism and liberalism considering they do not apply to my posts.
Also, out of curiosity"¦ who is this "we" you keep referring to?
Lastly"¦

Seriously? Is this a display of your great powers of deduction? Yea, you really need to reconsider questioning the reasoning and comprehension skills of others, and while you're at it also look up the definition of "pseudo-intellectual poppycock"

Ok I would go on but this is pure digression and I don't want to be mean.

Did you hear? When Roghinya muslims of Burma were killed in riots they started in Thailand, Indian Muslims here attacked the public properties. When Violence broke out between Bodo Hindus(Indians) and Illegal Bangladeshis(Muslims), All the Indian muslims supported illegal banglas who were illegally occupying Tribal protected areas under Indian constition(where even other legal indians cant settle) over the Hindu/tribal Bodos.

infact, violence broke out in several areas , and Muslims single handedly forced the North easterners living(working) here for wages to move back to Assam to protect themselves and their families.


But you are right, I am pretty sure that all those un-fortunate stuff are consequences of Globalistion better life shit and does not have a Hindu Muslim tone to it like there was at the time of partition.

 

[Ray]

Ideally yes, and that is precisely what I'm proposing because currently this does not happen to be true. Granted everything to do with Indian politics is fanfare, there is very little substance which is precisely why India is in the state that it is. India lacks even the most basic infrastructure and technologies to track and/or identify illegal immigrants. However Indian politicians have been consistently blowing their trumpets on this issue since the mid 90s without actually having done anything about it. The core of my message is that Indian politicians need to stop using this topic to get a rise of the crowds and actually do something about it tacitly because as time goes on the risks of mismanaged immigration will get exponentially higher.
However having said that, when it comes specifically to illegal immigration, even developed nations aren't any better. Just look at the glut of immigration related headlines in the United States, Western Europe, Australia etc. it's anything but 'subtle'. The problem is that immigration presents bellicose politicians with the opportunity to solidify the "us vs them" paradigm and extract copious amounts of political capital in the process. Unfortunately the comprehensive topic of immigration is a lot more nuanced and requires politicians with a high level of insight, intelligence and practicality to address this issue effectively. Sadly this does not happen because all the racism and jingoism gets in the way.

Western countries don't have to be subtle.

They rule the world and the media.

And they don't have to contend with competitive religion, as India does and nor are the Western countries roundly criticised fairly or unfairly for it religious/ racist misdemeanours year after year till the cows come home, as it is done for India and other non western countries.

Therefore, they can go hammer and tongs.

Identity and means of a acceptable livelihood are two important aspects that makes one want to stay or leave.

There are means to subtly ensure a block to either. I rather prefer to refrain from enunciating some.

 

[ITBP]

If Tista water pact is not signed, then BD people will see Modi badly. Plus BD people are also against strict BSF patrolling in border.

 

[TrueSpirit1]

I don't know what your definitions of "inane" and "alarmist" are because my post effuses neither. I'm making references to a global migratory pattern. Migratory patterns are overwhelmingly dictated by availability to resources. My point is that most Bangladeshis and Nepalis who sneak into India are motivated by the same reason as Indians who sneak into the West; or Eastern Europeans who sneak into Western Europe; or South Americans who sneak into North America. India may have a high number of highly skilled professionals but rest assured they also have boatloads of illegal immigrants who are willing to do anything to remain and/or enter countries which offer greater economic opportunities. How do I know? It just so happens that one of my parent is an immigration attorney who deals with illegal immigrants, refugees and corporate visa applicants for a living. So yea, everyone does it and as much as you want to set yourself apart I'm sorry to say Indians are no different. I make it a point to bring this up because I have noticed that condescension tends to play a heavy role in immigration debates all over the world. It is very easy to fall into this trap and many find this very comforting because it presents the opportunity to belittle and insult people from poorer countries. But in the end all of this detracts from the main topic at hand.

The dogmas & predilections of your parent might define your "caricature" of a world-view, but let us agree that you are getting carried away in your inexorable exaggeration.

My objection is to your "countless Indians" rant. The fact that you are comparing the scale of illegal Bangladeshi intruders in India to illegal Indians immigrants to West shows the daunting limits of your screwed awareness about the world you live in. Of the 1.2 billion Indians (nearly a fifth of humanity), what is the relative % of illegal Indian immigrants vis-a-vis the legal ones ? Is it even 0.0001% ? Ask your parent.

Then, find out the where does India stands/ranks in comity of developing nations, when it comes to contributing in illegal immigrants to the West. Countless Indians There is a term called "relative-ness" that you are obviously not aware of.

Know what, your challenges are: 1) basic arithmetic, 2) statistics, 3)acute obliviousness about the migratory pattern from developing world & 4) lack of any travel outside your little town. How do I know ? I just happened to spent some significant years in continental EU where I have met a few condescending know-all's like you, only to make them realize how precariously skewed their world view was. You are not a novelty, trust me.

 

[TrueSpirit1]

That's actually BS. You will have to explain to me how someone who is illegal can vote for starters.

I bow before thee....

 

[TrueSpirit1]

I have no intention of living with Bangladeshis. Anyone who has been to Bricklane would understand this.

But, their eating joints sell "mouth-watering" fare.