The Sweltering Sky

Re: # 50
re: mohar11:

///Yes - the English has the right to say NO to all immigration from India or from anywhere else. Indians have NO right to immigrate to anywhere ....... ////

I completely agree with you and have NEVER said that Bangladeshis have a right to immigration in India or that they have the rights of a citizen when here. If you said that there should be no immigration from Bangladesh because of a lack of resources and surfeit of unskilled unemployed in India, I would agree. I take issue if the rationale is that ``once they asked for partition, they or their descendants should forever be denied citizenship in India``. - which is why I said that that would be as highly irrational as if the English said that once Indians got Independence, all Indians and all their descendants should be barred from immigrating.

Re: # 48

Well, it appears that I am ``all over the place`` because for this article, I got sick of sitting on my bum watching the hostility that is common on Chowk and decided to do something about it - and counter yours, harimau`s and cayenne`s assertions (and to a lesser degree, others`)

Re: # 49

Well, now that you`ve said it out in the open, fine. You want a Hindu Rashtra in India. And I would almost certainly protest such a development. If such a state were to come about, I would probably not remain here. And of course, it would not be India as I know it since the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament to make India a non-secular state.

So let`s agree then, to disagree.
cheers.

Re: # 36 snark
//....1. Can persecution only be on the basis of religion?
2. What if the country is run by robber barons who do not provide any form of food ration system? Is that persecution?
3. What if a country stamps on those rights granted to me by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is that persecution? ..//

Yes - they are all persecution. Like I said, there is lot of things that are wrong in the world. India can`t mitigate all of them, not yet. We have to selective and I propose we take up religious persecution of minorities in Bdesh first.

+++++

//...4. Do you call yourself secular? And what exactly does your definition of that term? Does it have any consonance with the Supreme Court`s definition? ...//

Yes. Definition of Secularism is very simple - Separation of Church and State. Which means no laws are based on any religious text. This has been achieved in india to a large extent even though there is room for improvement.

Immigration of Bdeshis has nothing to do with secularism. So once again you are muddling two different issues. Immigration is based, more or less, on the need of host country. And India doesn`t need immigration. If minorities are NOT persecuted in Bdesh, we wouldn`t make the concession for them either.

ferzana, why do you think this article should be read as a human interest story? its clearly a political article.

i think in india should have a national dialogue on migration, including migration from bangladesh, nepal, pakistan, tibet, srilanka etc (brihan-bharat if you will). migrations bneen dominant historical events and will continues to be so. bengali migration is only a part of the larger migrations like andhra and rajastani construction workers to maharashtra, biharis to panjab, bhaiyas everywhere and now panjabis to bangalore and pune.

a charter of rights and duties of migrants and their parasites (NGOs, political parties, muhalla dadas, rabble-rousers, jouirnalists) need to be discussed.

Re: # 51 //.. we are talking of being selective in providing ``sharan`` to the poor sharnaarthees on the basis of their faith...//

Yes - because these people are being persecuted based on their faith. ``Sharan`` is what they urgently need. As far as ``have nots`` are concerened, well we already too many of them. First we have to cater to them before we can get to the havenots of other countries.

Muslim Bdeshis would have to wait until then. But minorities Bdeshis should get a immediate head-start based on the fact that they are being persecuted. Their case is most urgent.

Farzana needs to be complimented for bringing the focus onto the unfortunate fellow humans who have no voice either in their country of birth or the country where they have taken shelter.

People trying to find religeous issues even in the misery of these havenots,should be ashamed of their deeds and the philosophy they follow.On one hand we talk of the highest moral standards,ethics,values,``sanskaars`` and what not and on the other hand we are talking of being selective in providing ``sharan`` to the poor sharnaarthees on the basis of their faith.What kind of hypocrisy is this?Are we heirs of the same culture where even a beggar was requested pardon with folded hands if there was nothing to be offered to him.

How many Indians are there as illegal immigrants in UK,USA,Canada,Germany etc?I am sure they will understand the plight of Jaffars and Rahmans.It is not easy for anyone to leave the place of birth;the place where one`s forefathers are burried.Those who can not empathize with Jaffars and Rahmans,please do not at least make fun of their misery by calling them spies etc.

I strongly feel chowk is not right forum to talk about humanitarian issues.Most interactors here can turn any subject into substrate for intellectual masturbation.

Re: # 36 snark
//..if you were white and born in England, you would say no to all immigration from India - because we had gone and made ourselves independent...//

Yes - the English has the right to say NO to all immigration from India or from anywhere else. Indians have NO right to immigrate to anywhere ....... Western/Rich countries allow immigration from all over the globe because they NEED immigration for their economy to grow - not because people elsewhere have some inherent rights to immigrate. Like I said, you are drawing incorrect analogies here and muddling the whole issue.

Immigration is not philanthropy. It`s based on the needs of the host country. Japan , despite being rich country, is very restrictive on immigration because japanese don`t favor it. Koreans complaining all the time about that.

[I will post some more responses later.]

Aha_Snark # 43:

````And so what if Bengali Muslims demanded a separate homeland 55 years ago? That was what _some people among the ruling elite_ wanted _at that time_ . Due to this, should all Bangladeshis for all time be banned from legal migration to India? ````

All Muslim Bangladeshis should be banned from legal/illegal immigration to India. All prosecuted Hindus should be allowed freely. It`s about tiime we make India a Hindu country..

btw, dont mind all the personal insults coming from certain people. A civil discussion is something they never did and will never learn..

Thanks,
Avkrishna

Re: # 36 Snark

You have asked *some* valid questions .... but seems like you are all over the place in your thoughts and arguments. You are stretching this issue too wide and drawing analogies which are may not be valid. In the process, you are muddling many separarate issues together.

I will try to answer some of your questions. But you got to have patience.

#2 by vagabond78

Chowk Staff,

Hungry kya? You ate up most of what I had written in my post :)

Farzana bibi, my point is if you look closely there are many refugees who made India their home and are quite happy here. Hippies in Himachal, Tibetians in HP/UP, and the most famous refugee of all Dalai Lama; srilankan tamils as pointed out by some; Parsis and Jews if you have an eye for history. If this article is about ``humanitarian aspect`` then it`s not too bad when looked at totality.

I s`pose this article is about the suffering of Bangladeshi muslims in Nizamuddin area. How they are being denied their basic human right of turning our cities into trash. How BJP and Shiv Sena are harrassing them because of their religious identity. How these ``fascist forces`` dont even have ``decency`` to build concentration camps and are burning people right there on the streets.

And now, that the Congress is back muslims can breathe easy. Fcuk the fact Manmohan (and all parties) came out in support of Modi during the visa issue. The fact that UPA was to be SPA (S for secular) but got cold feet at the last moment. Why, if they are so sure about their secular beliefs? But I`m digressing..

Let me say that I feel for Jaffer, Hakim and Zuleika. But the point is, in the Indian Constitution, Aha_Snark, refugees only have right to life. Nothing more. Sri Lankan refugees werent even allowed outside their camps while Tibetians are freely roaming round the country. These distinctions ARE made and refugees cant ask for fair treatment; right to equality.

Cheers

Re: # 45

thanks for making my day. not often that I take the time to demonstrate that _*the assertions*_ of many on Chowk and you in particular are, apart from being violent, arrogant, hubristic and communal, also COMPLETELY unsupported. It was pitifully easy with you :) Not one news source or authority, even the most partisan was used to support your contentions.

To my questions you gave the following answers:
1. What accessible support do you have for your claim that Bangladeshi illegal immigrants have, AS A COMMUNITY, been subversive of the Indian State and ungrateful for their opportunities in India

Complete abdication of your claim:

///Who knows if the bangladeshis are spies or immigrants?.Why come to india, if they hate us so much?.I will not waste my time on this too, as the powers that be in the NCR don`t seem to be concerned.///

2. Can you please point me to a source of authority that states that ``There has been an insidious plan to penetrate Canada`s lower levels of government and judiciary by insidious south asians and middle easterners, funded by Wahabi money``

Complete incoherence and acceptance of ``personal supposition``:
//If not for Wahabi money, the UK will be in receivership, half of canada`s forex will not exist and the price these countries pay for this influx of hard cashis to allow for a certain level of immigration from islamic countries.This is my supposition.I will not , again, waste any more time on this matter.W

3. How can you say that the Government of India has asked for the Canadian Government to ``restart`` the Air India Trial? Can you please show me a website where this is reported?

Complete evasion:
///.....If not for pressure brought to bear, the pansy canadians would never have reopened the hearing, especially since they caved in to the insidious groups of sikhs and pakistanis who are influencing canadian policy at this time.///

4. How can you say Bangladesh is a theocracy?

Brazen restatement and a complete disregard for what ``theocracy`` means.
//Bangladesh is a theocracy. That woman PM is a puppet of a couple or more islamic parties that are calling the shots there.//

Oh, and if that is the case, then if there was a Prime Minister in India that was influenced by religious parties, then India is a theocracy? What about ABV and the holy Sangh Parivar?

5. What relevance do insults to stuka have in this discussion?

Complete refusal to accept that gratuituous insults were made.
Or do you have an answer to question 5?

cheers.
aha_snark
harimau, mohar11, I still await answers to the questions I`ve posed you...

#44 by Aha_Snark on April 19, 2005 2:42am PT

.....If not for pressure brought to bear, the pansy canadians would never have reopened the hearing, especially since they caved in to the insidious groups of sikhs and pakistanis who are influencing canadian policy at this time.Who said judges can`t be bought?.The canadian government at the highest level is in the midst of a corruption scandal as i type.Who`s taking the high moral ground?.I will not waste any more of my time on insidious peoples and pansy nations that protect them.

Who knows if the bangladeshis are spies or immigrants?.Why come to india, if they hate us so much?.I will not waste my time on this too, as the powers that be in the NCR don`t seem to be concerned.Tomorrow , like the parliament, if another place is attacked, hopefully they will come to their senses and filter out the insidious people (neighbours), who look like us and mean us harm and ill will.

If not for Wahabi money, the UK will be in receivership, half of canada`s forex will not exist and the price these countries pay for this influx of hard cashis to allow for a certain level of immigration from islamic countries.This is my supposition.I will not , again, waste any more time on this matter.Who cares?.Good for India.The earlier these societies are destroyed by these islamic interlocutors the better it is for China and India to conquer the world.Actually, i as an indian , muct be grateful for this large scale migration from the islamic world to north america.The earlier it will be that north america will cease to be developed and descend into the world of the underdeveloped.yeehAW.I TAKE BACK MY EARLIER CRITICSMS OF ISLAMIC MIGRATION TO CANADA.PLEASE DO.THANK YOU FROM ALL INDIANS.

Bangladesh is a theocracy.That woman PM is a puppet of a couple or more islamic parties that are calling the shots there.Shows you are a fraud and an ignoramus.To dare ask about something that is common knowledge.I am not going to mention all this any more other than to thank once again, the paks and banglas who are emigrating to canada en masse.Thank you for destroying north america and making it easier for us and the chinese to conquer the world.

Re: # 41
re : cayenne:

Indian press has reported on an alleged incident of gross violation of International Law and custom. It is truly reprehensible. You`ve gone ahead and called the entire country and the millions of people who live there ``creepy``.

If we were to apply the same logic, the 1390 people killed in judicial and police custody in 2002-2003 [1] would be more than enough grounds to call the entire country the billion who live in it ``creepy``. Wall, anyone?

Oh, and cayenne, any word on when you are going to answer the questions I have put to you? At last count:

1. What accessible support do you have for your claim that Bangladeshi illegal immigrants have, AS A COMMUNITY, been subversive of the Indian State and ungrateful for their opportunities in India
2. Can you please point me to a source of authority that states that ``There has been an insidious plan to penetrate Canada`s lower levels of government and judiciary by insidious south asians and middle easterners, funded by Wahabi money``
3. How can you say that the Government of India has asked for the Canadian Government to ``restart`` the Air India Trial? Can you please show me a website where this is reported?
4. How can you say Bangladesh is a theocracy?
5. What relevance do insults to stuka have in this discussion?

[1] http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=108 . It`s strange, I think, that the ministry of Home Affairs does not mention the number of custodial deaths that take place.

Re: # 31
re: netizen:
so if there are some criminals amongst nepali cooks, you take the entirely reasonable stance that you cannot blame the entire country/community.


[Also Delhi police has remarked that illegal bengalis are criminals.]
By definition, illegal immigrants are criminals. That`s a restatement of the obvious. Has the Delhi Police said that all illegal immigrants from Bangladesh are criminals for other reasons? Are you willing to do a few websearches and get back to us on this matter?

And so what if Bengali Muslims demanded a separate homeland 55 years ago? That was what _some people among the ruling elite_ wanted _at that time_ . Due to this, should all Bangladeshis for all time be banned from legal migration to India? Why should you not deal with human beings with humanity and compassion in the freakin twenty first century?

Re: # 37
re: harish_hyd:

I said:
[First of all, the Constitution applies to all citizens, even the most heinous law breakers, by virtue of their citizenship.]
And you replied:
///So please tell us to what category do the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants belong?///
I was countering mohar11`s contention that {Constitution of india applies ONLY to Indian citizens who abide by its law.}

I have gone on to say that in my opinion, the government of India cannot act in an unconstitutional fashion even against non-citizens.


Secondly,
I said:
[So, for the same reason, if you were white and born in England, you would say no to all immigration from India - because we had gone and made ourselves independent.]
and you replied:
///Every country has a right to say NO to illegal immigration, even if it is England saying no to an illegal Indian immigrant. There is nothing wrong in saying no here.///

please read my post in context. mohar11 was against even legal immigration from Bangladesh, saying that
{My objection towards muslims from Bdesh is because I believe that partition is final - it was for a reason the separation was done. People should live with their choices. }

To that I replied `` if you were white and born in England, you would say no to all immigration from India - because we had gone and made ourselves independent.``

Within the framework of the nation state paradigm, every state has the sovereign right to deny citizenship or even entry to nationals from any other state. Let me repeat, I am AGAINST illegal immigration.