Hindus in Pakistan are apparently not having a gala time. As per latest reports Hindus in Pakistan are a sad minority, often subjected to inhuman tortures and quite many times forced conversion. Though I have never been to Pakistan, but considering the state of affairs that the supposed democracy is having, it won't be surprising. With the strong Taliban presence in Swat valley and its growing influence everywhere in Pakistan any other religion except inhumanity cannot stay there, not even liberal Islam. Distressed Hindus slip to India at any given opportunity and stay here, extending their visas and hoping to get merged and eventually lost in the billion Indian population. Often people are aware that there are some sad Pakistanis staying in India... people at the immigration centre at railway station can make out from the amount of luggage they have that these people do not intend to return ... but no body forces them back to Pakistani.... its way to inhuman to do so... they don't seem to be a security threat anyways...
This is also the case with Bangladeshi citizens in India. They don't have horrid stories of terrorism, but of famine, flood and poverty. Thousands of Bangladeshi's flee to India in search of food and shelter... hoping to get what should be unquestionable right of every human... and often we are supportive... there are thousands of Bangladeshi citizens staying in Assam, Delhi or Mumbai... working as house maids, farmers, construction workers... and prostitutes. Nothing major has been done on concrete scale to force them back to Bangladesh, despite the court saying Bangladeshi's are a threat to India's security. Perhaps our considerate and soft side cannot see the plight of any suffering individual... and we tend to ignore the notice to send them back when we see them crying...
This might be inhuman to force any individual back to some place they have been forced to leave due to circumstances... to in some cases knowingly order human slaughter. But, I believe that India has enough population and problems of its own to solve Pakistan or Bangladesh's. We are sad and moved by your condition but that doesn't imply its okay to move in your people here. Any country has a fixed amount of resources and its simple maths that as the number of people sharing that increase, per person share or per capita income reduces. We can not afford to teach kids from other countries on Indian taxpayers money or to provide other amenities or to let them compete with locals for the meagre resources that India has.
There have been upsurge in Assam urging people not to hire migrants and threatening Bangladeshis, forcing them to flee back. People claim that "The local people in Assam have lost jobs, their cultural heritage and their national identity because of these illegal immigrants." And strangely I don't find it wrong. Yes we do loose a lot when we let our already burdened economy take the weight of extra migrants, not to mention the security threats that it poses.
We need to someday realise that we have to take a tough stand, even though it seems difficult. We have to understand what we can do and what we cannot. We cannot solve other countries' problem this way, this will only harm us. I would rather have Pakistan send all Hindu's that it cannot take care of to India in one go, instead of their penetrating our boundary everyday. And for Bangladesh, only a strict stand can save us. We as individuals have to stop hiring migrants as cheap labours.
Child-free by choice: A growing trend
9 years ago
12 comments:
First things first:
The title of your post is inspired by John Lennon's song "Imagine" and I find the ideas/opinions expressed in this post stark opposite to what Lennon tried to convey in that song (ofcourse that's my interpretation of the song but I don't think it can have any other meaning until and unless the song was meant to be sarcastic). So if you were trying to take a dig at the song or Lennon himself then please make it clear and once you do (and confirm my fear) I will take immense pride in ripping this blog apart.
As far as the main idea of handling immigrants is concerned, your post presents two-faced opinions. Hindus in Pakistan are your people ( and you are ready to take them back in one go) and Muslims from Bangladesh are aliens. You mentioned "Humanity" in this post somewhere and, I think, it got quite lost. Lost behind the unbreakable wall of mathematics of economy, sympathy based on religion and ideas spoon-fed by hardliners who think that it's alright when "their own people" leave this country for whatever reasons but is wrong when "aliens" enter this country for reasons (like food and basic shelter...call it tent) which probably are far more justified than the ones "our people" give (like standard of living).
Legality of immigration is a different topic and it should be discussed keeping in mind the problems this country is facing and not "Humanity" or Hindus in Pakistan. We do not live in an ideal world where boundaries could be dissolved and people allowed living and working where they feel comfortable. That's why issues like these will never cease to exist. One who lives most of his life in his head does dream of a perfect world and that's why when such people move their faces away from the hard practicalities of life and politics and preach goodwill or world peace they are referred to as "dreamers" (and sometimes murdered as well).
But what's my point here? I am thinking...Nothing.
It's undeniable that any unanticipated surge in population cripples a nation: the resources to citizens ratio, as you rightly pointed out, itself bears that out. But, going further down the same line, shouldn't states also be extended the same privilege? Why should one state bear the brunt of the migrant population of another, when the resources/funds are (predominantly) local in nature? If it can't be averted, shouldn't the central govt devise a dedicated recurring mechanism aimed solely at replenishing what's eaten away of each state by this unforeseen rise in its inhabitants? Pardon my ignorance if something along these lines does form a subset of an existing policy.
The states depend on nation for a lot of things. From taxes to natural calamities aid, a lot of things come from the central kitty.
Mumbai was shouting a lot about Bihar and UP people coming to Mumbai... It all came to a stop when they demanded NSG people to help when Hotel Taj was attacked.
I agree that migrants do create a problem in planning city resources. However, we have to admit that many migrants generate a lot of revenue for the state as well. Nobody thinks about driving away famous celebrities from M'bai or software engineers from B'lore and politicians from Delhi. This is usually not the case with illegal migrants from other countries. If there has to be some way to take into account city resources eaten away by migrants, we have to take into account those generated as well ;)
Terrorism and relief aid occur once in a blue moon, compared to the issues concerning day-to-day survival. How is the center accounting for the heightened demand due to the migrant population, of land, water, power and employment?
Revenue and resources are two very different propositions. Unmistakably, the elite migrants (read IT folks) dig a massive hole in the resources arena (B'lore illustrates this best). About the whole revenue thingie, there could be two parts to it: increased income tax collection and jobs creation. I am not sure how local the former is, and the latter aint aided by the migrant population: the employee chases the places conducive to him/her, not the other way around. Besides, there is anyhow a burning question mark over how well the fruits of the 'IT' and 'globalization' revolutions have trickled down to the majority of a country/state (exemplified by the discrepancy between the GDP and human development index).
I refuse to take the profligately irresponsible celebs of Mumbai as assets for inclusive national development. The corporates are not necessarily any better: a great deal of them are adept at exercising vast volumes of corruption and foul play with an astonishing clean public image.
To cut the long story short, infiltration at the borders is doubtlessly a non-trivial issue, but a bigger relevant issue is intra-country (esp. rural to urban) migration - a matter that we, as a nation, also have more means to make an impact upon.
Migration is always from a place of more conflict/ less opportunity to a more stable place. If people from rural areas move to metro's its because the metro city can still provide better livelihood than the villages. Nobody wants to leave an affluent stable life in order to live in a shabby place out of will.
Yes, we need to create more opportunities in the villages, not because mumbai or delhi cannot take it any more, but because we cannot afford to lose the agricultural villages to industries or barren land.
Whether you like it or not, you have to accept that anybody earning a legal livelihood and spending some portion of it on maids/ autowaala/ driver/ tax/ cook is better than one who doesn't and just consumes the resources.
Immigration from one country to another is totally different. A) because they are not our problem. Our rural people who migrate to cities are still our people. Those who come from other countries are not. I like the US way, assets are welcome, liabilities are not. B) There is still a question of security.
I see us going around in circles! No one's justifying illegal immigration; I just wanted to bring out that there is the other kind of migration which is what we should prioritize in favour of.
By the bye, the US consumes considerably higher amounts of resources than many countries far more densely populated (This corroborates, in part, its invasions on oil-rich nations)! The 'jewels' of the nation residing in the capital are (among) the worst squanderers of power and water. Just because they/we route a petty amount of their/our earnings to maids and drivers, do they/we earn the right to be excused? Surely, there are more sustainable, resource-efficient means of employment generation. It's time we garner the courage to cut to size higher-profile offenders - which may even include (folks close to), overriding our sense of awe or connectedness towards them.
PS: How would you classify the much-revered NRIs for India: assets or liabilities? Along with some employment, they contribute far greater volumes of land-hogging (and subsequent price-rise), emissions and resource depletion! Obviously, there are many exceptions (like many AIDers), but they only prove the rule :).
* Correction:
It's time we garner the courage to cut to size higher-profile offenders - which may even include (folks close to) *us*, overriding our sense of awe or connectedness towards them.
about migration from villages to cities, I agree I would repeat what I said earlier... it should be stopped not to save he cities but to save the villages. People migrate from less resources/ safety to more... so the day cities stop providing employement to new comers because there are way too many people, migration will die its natural death... but by then we would have killed the arable village land!!
As far as other higher income group consuming more resources is concerned, I understand that there has to be a limit to your resource consumption. But the reason why people work harder or earn more is to improve their living standard. Nobody aims to earn well to live a life of misery. And living standard has a price. Probably people living in slums do not mind not wearing clean clothes, but that doesn't mean you can ask a person earning well for himself to give up using the extra water that he uses to wash clothes, untill everyone has drinking water. Yes this is exaggeration to what you have said, but is on the same lines..
As far as question of NRIs is concerned.. what do you expect? that people should slog, make the best use of the opportunity that they have been given and earn as much money and still not make themselves comfortable? that they should not buy property or that they should buy only as much land as is available to any other Indian? I think everybody is responsible for himself/ herself and people close to him/her first and then towards anyone else. I believe if everybody did that the world would be fine!!!
Probably we both agree that here has to be a line drawn to which a person is allowed to use resources meant for other not so "privileged" people. But where and how is different!!!
How is your hypothetical point along the same lines of the reality I drew? I don't have them my finger tips, but you would be appalled to know of the stats regarding Delhites' water abuse for frivolous things like car wash, cooling the exteriors, extravagant shower panels/bath tubs, and a whole host of such things. This is at a time where people not far away from Delhi literally migrate (not knowing how to survive) for the lack of water. Look at power. In NCR, we burn the most unclean fuel, diesel, to pump our generators, and yet even today, well post Diwali, I see decorative lights around me! Why should we not be criminally charged for squandering away resources that truly and already have meant a matter of life and death for several others? Instead of ensuring rain water harvesting and water/energy efficiency, we still need debates like this to be even convinced of our glaring wastage! This is no 'standard' of living - you are consuming exorbitantly more than you need; this is just dreadful apathy which has no place inside either a fair system or an honest conscience.
Yes, I most certainly expect NRIs not to hog land for the sake of 'investments' forcing others to live like a pack of sheep (I already mentioned the maddening price rise even in non-IT cities like A'bad).
The trouble is we don't think of rights and responsibilities as a pair. We want to relish all the rights and own up to minimal responsibility. The 'family' argument is no excuse: Yes, your parents deserve your support in old age, but you are not duty-bound to fulfill any of their (possible) unreasonable wishes. For instance, my parents didn't approve of me interacting with 'lower-cast' slum people or leading a low-resource, 'low-status' lifestyle. Should I have grabbed this chance to give up on my social/environmental responsibilities, hiding behind the 'family' excuse? The irony is that when it comes to marriage, we (the new generation) readily assert ourselves, saying (quite rightly) that the parents have no business/right interfering in our lives; but when it comes to social duties, we conveniently change the pitch!
There are people who have cars, people who have pets, govt. that has gardens and fountains. All these consume water, which probably you will argue be better used as drinking water for poor people. Probably washing car or maintaining pets, bathing daily, washing clothes, maintaining fountains should be stopped. You say people should not consume unnecessary resources; however definition of "need" is different for different people and in different situations. Agreed having "Diwali lights" untill new year is a waste, but am I allowed to light a diwali ka diya? The oil can be used by a poor man for cooking? Untill what limit do you want one person to give up his luxuries because someone else cant afford that?
What do you want NRIs to do? You have abandoned India once and don't come back??? Or every Indian is entitled to some 100 sq feet of land, you can not have more than that? We dont have any law on how much one is supposed to work or how many kids you are allowed to have, but we have a law on how much you are allowed to enjoy your wealth? We expect you to work hard, be the ones who had the opportunity to earn more and who did, and then we want you to give all to charity? Charity should be by choice.
When I said family, I meant yes comfort and convenience for your parents, but I also meant good education, values and possible opportunities for the next generation. Everything else considered equal your dependents are your first responsibility
Just because you found a tide to run with and make cheap (You can't be serious about *all* of the affluent people having worked "hard") bucks, tomorrow you could also advocate buying people as slaves or owning air and water reservoirs (Already ground water is being abused big time that way: Remember the private bottling water plants sucking some of our villages dry!). Many countries have begun impeding cars without giving a hoot to your riches. There have to be similar regulations on land holding, infinitely more stringent for people who drop in once a year. I got nothing against NRIs - many of my close relatives fall into that category, but what's fair remains so.
Are we for the greatest common good or sucking up to the rich and famous? Why should you be allowed to multiply your money by hogging land when others have barely enough to sleep on? For believers in fairness, it's just common sense, not charity!
On a different, general note, there is a fine line between charity and responsibility. Some would term even helping a friend an act of charity. To me, it's simply my responsibility, just like leading a resource-efficient life! I don't need a law to tell me either :).
About the limit on resource consumption, even a toddler knows that there can't be lines inscribed in stones there, but that's not to say that there should not be any. The foremost thing is to be aware of - and more importantly, sensitive to - the invisible, but alarming consequences of our consumption and choices made day in day out. Things will automatically start falling in place from then on, should you have a functional conscience.
You may still wash cloths, but do it with least water possible, and perhaps less frequently! You may put the car away and try mass transport. On occasions when you do use the car, you may employ a wet cloth as opposed to water being poured. You may light only one Diya for Diwali and obviate decorative lights altogether! The bottom line is a cliche: A will will find away!
Post a Comment