From: rbhatnag@uceng.UC.EDU (raj bhatnagar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Politics of Infiltration_ A Rebuttal
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:04:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: uceng.1992Apr13.150404.23208
Distribution: usa
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati


In article <1992Apr11.030103.8262@ctr.columbia.edu> ali@elara.ctr.columbia.edu (M. Ali Hanafi) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.214507.9306@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, Raj Bhatnagar (bhatnagr@
>ucunix.san.uc.edu) states that:
>
>> This infiltration MUST be STOPPED. If it is unacceptable for
>> Rohingyas to move into Bangladesh, why is any thing wrong in preventing
>> a 10-times bigger influx into India - and that too in a situation
>> where the influx is bound to create a socio-economic-political
>> tension in not too distant future.
>> ---raj

>
>	So would you rather have the Rohingyas remain in Burma, and face the
>all too real prospect of persecution, and, quite possibly, that of death?


First, my saying that Rohingya's moving into BDesh is an unacceptable
thing does not at all imply that I want them to stay back in Burma and face
persecution - it could also mean that the persecution must stop; and
secondly, it is Bangladesh, and bangladeshis who themselves are saying
that the Rohingyas must go back to Burma - implying that their forced
emigration is unacceptable. Why do you infer only the improbable hypothesis
for attributing to me?

>Your
>callousness is remarkable.  

You thoroughly biased mind is reading between-the-lines all those things
that are not there.

>However, ignoring any issues of compassion, I
>think that your belief that <the influx is bound to create a socio-economic-
>political tension> is a bit fresh!  Is the India of today free of
>internecine warfare?  

Existence of multiple internecine wars in India is not a justification
for creating a few more such problems by permitting no-holds-barred
illegal immigration into the country.


>And anyway, Bangladeshis aren't  foreigners in the
>'real' sense of the word; their status only reflects a political distinction,
>viz. that of Partition in 1947.  

Sure. But what does that mean? BDesh is still a *different* country.
I was the one to propose a free-travel-free-trade arrangement for
all of South Asia - at least twice on the net in last 2-3 years and
there was tremendous opposition from most S Asians. I would
again propose that - do you think BDesh should enter into such a treaty with 
India? If not, aren't you being highly unfair by trying to justify
the encroachment of economic etc opportunities created in India by
a continuous stream of outsiders?


>You still believe in this ill-formed idea of
>India having an uniform and homogeneous culture.  

Did I ever imply that? You are dreaming Sir!

>In a country like India, and
>Pakistan for that matter, there will always be regional tensions

And activities that are bound to become basis for future
tensions and conflicts should be avoided - you would agree!

>It is unfair to use these refugees as scapegoats for internal
>problems_ 

Are you implying that these refugees do not contribute at all 
to any escalation of tensions in the host communities/states?
Look at Assam and its history since 1947.


>The best way to lessen 
>tensions is to devolve power to the regions, not to blame it on "aliens" or 
>foreigners.  

And you mean to say that the resulting smaller regions will permit
a free movement of people without any barriers! You must again be
freaming, Sir!


>
>Ali Hanafi.
>       


---raj