India's Geo-Strategic Policy - India Adrift?

Great analysis.......

The days ahead are gloomy indeed for the country- Both Internal and external......Let us pray for the best...

rgds

Cynical Nerd,

This is an excellent post and an eye-opener. The Congress party-led UPA has indeed compromised Indian strategic interest on all fronts. You described Sri Lanka as an American client state. It might well be. But could not the same be said of India today under Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi?

India has lost its moorings and international vision. It has been reduced to a mere spectator in its own backyard. India today is impotent in its own neighborhood - thanks to Manmohan Singh.

Thank you for a thought provoking post.

Best regards

Dipendra

I would agree with you. Under Manmohan singh we are now a client state of both the US and the Vatican.

The main failures of this Govt

a. Education- Unable to fix or do anything at all about primary education

b. Rural Infrastructure- Absolutely no investments and whatever little money has been spent is going into the coffers of local politicians

c. Judiciary: Inability to expand/invest in judiciary

d. Population management: The PM made an announcement that family planning will no more be a policy of the Govt

e. water resources- Nothing has even been attempted

f.Infrastructure (Roads, Power): After BG Khanduri's exit,our men have fallen asleep

g. Foreign policy; Failures already detailed here


rgds

Cynical Nerd

Congratulations! The Toronto-based "TamilCanadian" (www.news.tamilcanadian.com)- the primier English language internet-based news site for Sri Lanka's 700,000 diaspora Tamil community has reproduced your article in its entirety with due acknowledgement to Desi Critics. The readership of that website is huge.

Chandra,

D'accord. We are in complete agreement here :-) I share your concern.

Best regards

Dipendra, if the tamilcanadian could convert our name to a link to this article, 'twould be apt.

Much fine thought, CN, a few quibbles, will save them for later.

Chandra: Thanks much. Things could not be much worser. It is a miracle that the economy is doing well despite all this. You make valid points on the bad government policies. No one knows what comes out of the education cess. The National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme is another sham to fill the coffers of Kaangress leaders. The phase of complettion of the Golden Quadrilateral highways project has considerably slowed down since this administration came to power.

Dipendra: Wow, that came as a sweet surprise to me. Thanks for your thoughts. Well, India could well be. Remember how the likes of Raja Mohan activelly championed the American line on the nuclear issue till Dr. Kakodkar and other eminent scientists went public with their concerns. There are still a dedicated set of writers with our national interest in mind such Brahma Chellaney, B. Raman, G. Parthasarathy, etc.

Aaman: Yes sir, I am sure it will be a pleasure to debate with you as always.

best regards,

Aaman,

I view Tamil Canadian reading Desi Critics as a good thing. So please take it as a positive step. I hear you though that they could have included a link to Desicritics. I would leave a comment to that effect with them for future reference.

However, the internet web site serves a broader purpose i.e. to educate the 700,000 strong Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora on current affairs. And this could mean eventually more clicks on your site.

Tamil Canadian is like Rediff India - it has a huge readership given the thirst for news in the context of a tacit news censorship within Sri Lanka.

Best regards

Cynical

Inflation figures and Interest rates have spiked up and the Govt has been trying to fix what is essentially a supply shortage of commodities with controlling money supply...idiots!!

NREGA is such a national joke...I did some analysis that day...only 16 million households (out of nearly 100 million) have participated and each household would not have earned more than Rs 6000 for the entire year. The problem is that most audits have revelead the following flaws

- No project was executed
- People who did not particpate got paid
- People who got paid, did not participate
-Contractors were used when they shouldnot

And then these are some dangerous things that I read recently

- The US Govt recommend MM Singh as FM way back in 1991

- Mani Aiyar a staunch anti-American was replaced by Murli Deora- Former head of Indo-American Parliamentary council, Pro-American.

- Two essentially pro-US agreements were signed since MM came to power
a. Framework Defence Agreement
b. The nuclear deal and all its mess

- A 'pressurised' vote against Iran

- A sad situation of MM Singh calling US senators for their votes before the Hyde act was passed....

The credibility of this PM is even lower than Sachin Tendulkar.

rgds

Chandra:

Very good points all. Indeed, rather than free up supply side constraints, they are putting the baby into the bath tub. The slowing down of consumer spending and real estate will definitely affect the economy.

That's some good analysis on the NREGA. I am yet to see a critique of that in Indian media. I'd say you should expand your points as a blog post. What I find amusing that the likes of Indian "journalism of courage" Express which used to "unearth" scam after scam during the NDA administration is completely silent these days.

Though I hate Mani Shankar Aiyer, it is very clear that he was removed for being too pro-Chinese. Funny that this came from the Americans and was replaced by the pro-american Deora.

I would like to hear more information surrounding MMS's appointment as Finance Minister, who was behind it. People who now term his as the architect of reform easily forget that he was associated with Indian economic policies since the seventies and was solidly following the Nehruvian Socialist model!

best regards,

I feel India is just being used as a proxy for sanctions against Iran that under the NPT the U.S. is prohibited from levying itself. See my blog for more of my thoughts about this if you're interested.

Wildframe:

Read your stuff. With MM as PM i dont think we need a 123 agreement or Hyde Act to make him do what the US wants :-). He would have done it anyway :-)

Wildframe makes a valid point in his post. It is clear that all kinds of riders were inserted into the Hyde Act which has been copy-pasted into the 123 agreement. The US has undermined the NPT to which it is a party. This is similar to the violation when it cut off fuel supplies to Tarapur plant after POK-1. What is the guarantee that the Americans will not screw us after say POK-3 ?

Of course Chandra, the Americans are just playing it safe just in case a more 'difficult' PM. With Dr. (Mrs.) MMS, it has never been easy for them!

Saravanan

"With Dr. (Mrs.) MMS, it has never been easy for them"

Did you mean "With Dr. (Mrs.) MMS, it has always been easy for them"?

:-)

rgds

Chandra

Superb insights. I had not known about Manmohan Singh being nominated by the Americans way back in 1991 and how US pressure ensured that Murli Deora replaced Mani Shanker Iyer. It looks as if both Narasimha Rao and more so Manmohan Singh/Sonia Gandhi are puppets of US intrigue intended to transform India into a client state. I do think that the mainstream Indian media is now bought over by US interests. The paucity of analysis on such subjects (i.e. if they are not mere heresay or rumor) is mind boggling.

Best regards

Dipendra/Chandra:

I have always had this suspicion about MMS being an American stooge. When he was the Finance Minister, he drastically cut down the funding for our strategic weapons programme. All this got little mention and scrutiny by the media. He has always received a favorable press coverage both in Western and the psec Indian press. It is a pity that the points released during Jaswant Singh's book got muddled. The Indian media should have taken it up and investigated further as to how he came to the top position.

yes Chandra, "I meant with Dr. (Mrs) MMS, it has always been easy for them."

regards,

Just to reinforce to my post, see how this government is pussyfooting with the Naxal menace. I suppose the university with pro-Naxal sympathisers they refer to is evidently the Marxist bastion JNU.

link

A section of the home ministry officials, advocating a tough line against "overground" sympathisers of Naxalites, raised the pitch after arming itself with a report on a seminar held in January on the campus of a university in Delhi. The report, drawn up by home ministry officials, said the tenor of the seminar was "pro-Naxalite". The participants, who included bureaucrats, academics and students, engaged themselves in "anti-state" discussions that seemed to justify armed uprising, it said.

By February, the officials behind the initiative had begun to discuss specific punitive measures that could be taken against the "sympathisers". Penalties put on the table included shunting officials to nondescript areas and cutting down retirement benefits. However, "intervention from the top" nipped the plan. A near-certain public furore and the ruling establishment's well-known eagerness to preserve its liberal credentials were the primary factors that forced the rethink, the sources said.

Wow, and bureaucrats participated!

Had any civil servant in China been accused of participating in any public event supporting Tibetan independence, he would have been jailed. If any American federal official participated in a seminar attacking the US Government's policy in Iraq, he would have been disciplined. Had any Sri Lankan central government official contributed to a workshop supporting Tamil independence, he would have been fired. No civil servant can oppose Government policy in a public fora in Europe either and remain in office. The whole intent is that the civil service is apolitical - in public at least!

But in India, one witnesses bureaucrats supporting the Maoists. The rot is deep within the Indian establishment - be it the bureaucracy, academia and the media.

Only open and frank debate, currently lacking in the so-called mainstream Indian free press, can spotlight this so that the electorate can see for itself how leftist segments of the establishment have appropriated and hijacked the institutions of state and civil society to pursue a blatantly partisan agenda. Until this is done, India would continue to meander. And be slipshod in all sectors where society depends on Government!

CN: Thanks for posting that link. It is scandalous that serving bureaucrats and civil servants are being allowed to express their pro-Naxal views in a public conference. Whatever happened to the famed "Steel frame of India" referring to the civil service?

Sometime back, two scientists working for BARC - the top nuclear weapons establishment in the country were found out to have pro-Maoist sympathies. I thought that was egregious. Now, this news has far more implications.

Indeed as Dipendra, there needs to be a frank and open debate which will focus the attention of the public into the rot set inside the polical and bureaucratic establishment.

warm regards,

Oh here is the link for the newsitem I was referring to:

Naxals create R&D cells with experts

A married couple with BARC was recently found to have an ultra-Red background by intelligence agencies. When confronted by authorities, the two did not conceal their ideological leanings.

The two have since left the facility, but the incident has shaken the security establishment over the network of activists and sympathisers that the naxals have built up among scientists.

Security agencies recently unearthed an R&D unit of naxalites near Bhopal and found that a number of such wings were running in different parts of India.

Saravanan,

Namaskaram/Vanakkam. The Puttaandu (traditional New Year) season is on :-)

If one were to read the history of Afghanistan, the Communists had begun to infiltrate the civil service, military and academia in the 1970s under Mohammed Daud. This enabled the communist putch in 1978 when Daud was overthrown. The Soviets invaded in December 1979. I suspect the same happened in several other "pre-revolutionary" contexts i.e. Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Laos etc in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

The left was poised to capture influence in Egypt under Nasser until Sadat "cleared" the civil service, academia and military of Marxist sympathizers. Perhaps lots more comparisons can be made.

One can not compare these contexts with India. India is far more resilient. However, one needs to ensure that the military and civil service remain depoliticized regardless. I would even argue that academia, while recognizing freedom of expression in the student body, be not overly politicized when it comes to the teaching faculty.

Cynical Nerd:
Your presentation can be lapped up only by the nationalists who want to snub and suppress people's aspirations.

The current UPA however was soft on the Naxalites with sorry consequences.

Those who understand the origin and spread of Naxalism would like to see this differently. More force will only be counterproductive. More force will result in more repression, and this in turn will increase the ranks of Naxalites. A more humane approach is the need of the hour. Not seeing Naxalites as people with alien agenda, but as those who come from repressed classes may allow us to address their problem differently. I do not agree with your view that we need to increase the force to tackle this problem. On the other hand, we need to implement aggressive policies to bring these classes into mainstream through better land reforms, education, electricity, road connectivity, etc.

Mizoram and Nagaland only became Christian majority regions under Jawaharlal Nehru who allowed unfettered missionary activity.

Your innate assumption is that such conversion is bad for the country. Is this BJP-VHP-Shiv Sena voice or does your analysis merit a serious analysis?

Under the Congress, Assam is now poised to become a Muslim majority region

Is India Hindu? Or do you innately assume that it should be Hindu? Is Muslim majority bad?

You assumption that external involvement and influx are the only reasons for the North-east problems is naïve. By being so simplistic you disqualify yourself from being a strategic thinker. What about poor policies towards Northeast? Neither a single industry nor development activity was carried out in those regions for decades! Would you not want to take that into consideration for the present unrest?

India under Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Vajpayee had Sri Lanka firmly within it's sphere of influence. But not so under Manmohan Singh!

No other person other than Rajiv Gandhi seriously bungled up Sri Lanka affair. First supporting LTTE and then making a volte-face to incur the wrath of LTTE was when he signed his own doom. What was India's strategy under Rajiv towards Sri Lanka? Can you spell it? Was it consistent or was it being played along to his whims and fancies? And what exactly do you mean Sri Lanka was under the sphere of influence of India?

India should have either supported Tamil Liberation out and out or should have opposed it. It did a dance instead. Flirted, and then moved away, like a whimsical girlfriend. What was so strategic about it?

Your 'strategic' thinking or whatever it is called seeks hegemony and yes, India doesn't know how to go about it. That I admit. If we do well to our own people, and treat them as people, then may be, India can solve some of its problems. More force and repression will only lead to balkanization. Carrying out your line of thinking will accelerate that balkanization!

Sujai

I agree that one needs land reform and the economic integration of Maoist infested areas. This is how Japan, South Korea and Taiwan stabilized their countries and avoided what happened in China.

However, the Maoists do pose a law and order threat. One can not deny the obvious. So while there needs to be land reform and empowerment of the poor and marginalized which successive Governments, including those who shout most about poverty and the marginalized, have failed to do, there is also a need to deal with the military insurrection. So yes, internal security demands that the Maoists be countered and neutralized.

Leb me be blunt. Are you anti-Hindu? One can not build a nation with the premise that the majority community concede while the minority have the right to illicitly immigrate, after first having demanded partition on account of demographics, and then there be an incipient recurrence of such Islamist demands in Assam due to the changed population ratio caused by illegal immigration.

Yes, the petroleum rich state of Assam has been grossly neglected by the center. This needs to be addressed through private sector-led growth where the investment goes back to the state and to its indigenous peoples. But what is wrong in arguing that illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are part of the problem. Just because they are Muslim, exonerates the issue in your eyes. This to me is the intellectual malaise that you represent. It is symptomatic of the bleeding heart liberal who dominated India under successive Congress governments but failed to develop the rural economy and stem the rot despite the high sounding rhetoric.

I fully endorse what Cynical Nerd has to say on Mizoram and Nagaland in that the spurt in Christian missionary activity coincided with secessionist claims much like what happened in neighboring Burma with the newly Christianized Karens, Kachins and Chins also demanding separation. No Islamic country allows unfettered conversions. Rapidly changing demographics fuel social discord and threaten social cohesion.

Unless, of course Hindu sentiment does not matter to you in the least!!

Rgds

Sujai: Thanks for your comments. Let me respond to your points.

The Naxal movement has come a long way since its peasant origin. It is now a clear and present danger to our national security and territorial integrity with active external assistance including the ISI. There is no way any government can pussy foot with this problem. But nowhere did I advocate a military-only response. As I mentioned, the Central government does not adequately support the state governments who are no longer able to control the situation. The incident in Chattisgarh involving the killing of 50+ amply illustrates this point.

Obviously, boosting the economy of the poor regions by encouraging public investment in education, health care and private investment in creating jobs needs to be addressed immediately on a warfooting.

But instead what is happening? Large scale industrial investments such as POSCO Steel in Orissa, Mittal Steel in Jharkhand which can alleviate poverty in these regions are facing opposition from mysterious groups claiming to represent the interests of the "locals".

The Congress-led government which ruled this country for most number of years with its socialist model is taking that beaten down path with wasteful government spending programs like the NREG which are highly prone to corruption. The other brilliant idea of acquiring large tracts of lands for building SEZs using British-era laws at the expense of farmers. The violent protests which we saw in Singur and Nandigram from the so-called "pro-peasant" CPI-M is result of such misguided policies.

You are obviously diverting the issue of massive illegal immigration from Bangladesh. Since you are concerned about the "root causes" of Naxals, please remember what caused ULFA to take up an armed struggle. It was due to successive Congress-led governments turning a blind eye towards Bangladeshi immigration. Of course things have turned a 180 degrees with ULFA getting active support and funding from Bangladesh.

I could not done a post-mortem about Rajiv's decisions in Sri Lanka in this blog post for the sake of brevity. I agree with you that he got double-crossed by both the Tigers and the Sri Lankan government. However, the agreement he signed with the Sri Lankan government on the North-East merger ensured territorial continuity for the Sri Lankan Tamils and somewhat fair political representation. This got annulled only recently by the Sri Lankan Supreme Court and we are seeing massive demographic change in the East with the influx of Sinhalese, i.e. majority "invading" minority territories - the reverse of what is happening in India!

You obviously are seeing strategic issues Vs. internal development (which ofcourse should happen) as a zero-sum game. In my view, it ain't so. One cannot occur at the expense of the other and it need not be so. Never did I advocate hegemony. India has to pro-active protect her interest and her people's interest. If you call that hegemony, so be it.

best regards,

To me over-simplifying the naxal problem is problematic.

the naxals are not some phenomenon out of the box and from thin air.

look at their cadres since the seventies. in seventies and mid-seventies they attracted the educated middle-class, upper-caste leadership, ideologically driven.

as time progressed, they moved down the 'ranks' and most of its cadre is dalit or obc's since the others deserted it.

why did obc's or dalits move to the naxal movement? why would any sane individual let his life at risk? unless living itself is worse than death?

the congress govt in andhra did and is repressing the naxals with impunity. the same manmohan govt at center and a congress govt at state. can one be naive to believe that encounters are really encounters?

if a law enforcing agency does not abide by laws what is the big deal about lawful societies?

wd the cops who acted extra-legally be brought to book?

if one is talking about tooth for tooth and eye for eye, let law go to hell, is not building a society based on law.

if such a line is true, bush is correct with gitmo's, abhu ghraib etc.

is it just a law and order problem? what is the extent of exploitation of the tribals?

one must be living in fantasy that muslims wd take over this country.

what are the stats? are they rich? are they faring better? are they a part of the modern economy?

general ghosts created do not gel.

would we allow a pakistani brokered agreement for independence of kashimiris in india? as much some of us wd like an independent eelam?

duplicity does not gel, unfortunately. if we root for tamils in srilanka, we should allow the pakistanis rooting for those who want azad kashmir. if we wish to believe that kashmir is an internal affair of india, so we should let the tamil issue in srilanka as their own issue.

otherwise we wd be accused of what US has been attempting to do.

my humble views.

Dipendra:
You pose a question.

Are you anti-Hindu?

I am not sure if I am one. However, I believe that a majority has certain responsibility. It is like an elephant walking next to a rabbit. If it doesn't act maturely, it can trample the minorities very easily. Either we decide that we are Hindu nation and then go about kicking out or suppressing the minorities, or say we are multi-cultural one and act responsibly.

When you talk about the immigration problem, you club two things into one- that they are Bangladeshi and that they are Muslim. Would it be okay if we get Hindu immigrants from nearby nations who are being persecuted because they are Hindu? Didn't India allow thousands of Hindus into India when they wanted safe homage in India? Should we be different if Sikhs are kicked out of some country nearby? And should we be different if Muslims need safe homage in this country?

You say the demographics in Assam have changed which seems to trouble you. Is ULFA Muslim? When GNLF was fighting for their aspirations, did we believe that Ghorkas should have gone to Nepal or Bhutan?

Just because they are Muslim, exonerates the issue in your eyes.

When you make this statement, your implicit assumption is that I am blindly pro-Muslim. I am not sure if I am one. If I were living in US, I would be more sympathetic to the minorities and ask for extra concessions to the minorities. And those minorities could be any religion or race. If I were living in India, I would like us not to push certain minorities into proving their patriotism, or discriminate their immigration just because they happen to be Muslim. India has taken in thousands of Hindu immigrants from Singapore, Malaya, Burma, Pakistan, etc. I believe we should have a consistent policy that does not differentiate the migrants based on religion. Either we say we are ready to give homage, or we say we do not and stop all immigration. Illegal or legal is based on how we want to deal with it. If we don't like the influx we call it illegal. If we embrace, we would make it legal.

Rapidly changing demographics fuel social discord and threaten social cohesion.

So, you go about stopping conversion in this nation? On what basis was this nation formed? Are you saying that this nation has a right to stop someone from getting converted?

Most of your sentiments seem to suggest that we should have declared ourselves a Hindu nation. Is that a fair assumption?

Cynical nerd:
Never did I advocate hegemony. India has to pro-active protect her interest and her people's interest. If you call that hegemony, so be it.

That was in reference to your statements regarding India have an influence over Sri Lanka.

Like in cricket, it is important that we get basics right and the runrate will take care of itself.By basics i mean, Fertility rates in BIMARU region, Primary/Secondary and Adult education, Water availability and management, size and quality of judiciary, restructuting of polic forces, infrastructure for trade and industry and efficency of Govt performance. ....sounds like a wishlist :-)

However, getting these basics into place will resolve all the 'national' issues that each of us have been raising.

As far as the two contentious issues are concerned, my view................

I think the Lankan issue is extremely complicated and I dont think India alone is responsible for where we are. The role and behavior the other two parties is equally responsible for the current stalemate.

About conversions, there are multiple problems. While one cannot stop anybody from choosing the religion of their choice, at the same time one wonders what one should do when conversions are on the basis of allurement. One of my big shocks related to conversion was when many converted tribals in my district went out to protest India's testing of nuclear weapons. The only people protesting India's testing were western Governments and CBCI (Catholic Bishops conference).

http://perso.orange.fr/sacw/saan/bishops.html

Now protesting against nuclear weapons is a fundamental right, but doing at the time when half the world is sanctioning you is a big question.

Not only that, Many dalit christian groups have gone out of the way to get Indian condemned by the EU for not categorising dalit violence as racism.

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8412&size=A

I have been a ferverent supporter of dalit causes but I cannot for one comprehend why we need to spend so much time and effort in selling our problems to the west.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/human.rights.delegation.highlights.dalit.slavery.in.india/10215.htm

So at some level, the loyalty of converted christians is something that I will not take for granted. I think at some level there are many who believe that they are a part of the west and not us.

Of course a major contributor to this problem are upper caste Hindus (particularly in rural areas) who refuse to accept dalits as their own. No wonder the missionaries are kicking their backsides.


Interestingly as balaji points out, dalits who have been flocking in huge numbers to christianity have Samuel reddy as the CM of AP. Yet AP is not exactly a shining example of protecting dalit rights, even though Mr Reddy has gone out of the way to build more churches using taxpayer money

Anyway,conversion and Sri lanka are much smaller issues than the basics I mentioned.

rgds

More relevant URLs

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1069539
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=4597
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0307/18.html

Naxalites

There are all kinds of naxalites and their leaders. While one cannot agree with their methods....some of them sacrificed their lives for real good. Here is one of them

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2004/12/05/stories/2004120500470400.htm

I think we will have to find multiple ways of dealing with this problem. People are being naive if they assume that all of it is home grown, dalit driven. But fixing basics is the only way that naxalites will go away.

rgds

rgds

Saravanan:

Thanks for the New Year wishes. It is celebration time.

The information on Communist infiltration setting the stage for the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan is very interesting.

I agree that bureaucracy and the military needs to be apolitical. There have been violations of this like the case of former Chief Election Commissioner MS Gill who after retiring promptly got an MP post from Congress. In Indian academic set up, especially of the humanities, I suppose freedom of expression means following the "Party Line". Arun Shourie has done well to expose them.

best regards,

I meant to address Dipendra in my last post :-)

Mr Sujai: Funny that you invoke "minority rights" in a blog post about national security. Who is arguing about trampling minority rights?

We are supposed be "sensitive" to minority rights and allow conversion by highly organized Evangelical groups who spew hate against Hindus and their culture. There is nothing to do with "free-will" with this foreign financed organizations. As a reciprocal measure, how about asking these minority groups to be more sensitive towards Hindus? Many Hindus were hurt when Karol Wojtyla (aka John Paul) came to India on Deepavali eve called for the harvesting of a billion souls. Has such a thing happened in other Western democracies? Did we utter a murmur of protests/support from the minorities. Zilch. Nada.

So, are Bangladeshi illegals driven out from their countries as refugees like Sri Lankan Tamils? Are they being persecuted or bombed by their own governments. The answer is no. Before you start calling them "economic refugees", how about opening up the gates for sub-Saharan African countries with hoardes of poor. That way we can say that India is not biased towards African Animists to satisfy your "multi-culti standards".

Sujai,

No one is disputing the issue of minority rights or more broadly, human rights!! The freedom of religion is key. Article 25 of the Indian constitution upholds that. But that very article makes this right subject to public order!

Every Indian citizen has the prerogative to adopt any religion of his/her choice and to promote his/her faith. This is freedom of religion. However, the issue under discussion is a massive, illegal and perhaps coordinated Bangladeshi immigration, not freedom of religion!! There is a threat to national security here and you try to obfuscate issues by reference to freedom of religion! The two are unrelated.

Further, one is not talking of Indian citizens when one refers to such immigrants. Illicit immigration from Bangladesh had assumed huge proportions between 1974 and 2007. Some reports, albeit unconfirmed, suggest that between 10 to 15 million Muslims from Bangladesh have illegally immigrated to Assam and West Bengal. This is entirely plausible given the percentage difference in the census figures between 1951 and 2001.

Such illegal immigration changes the demographics, poses additional burdens on a poor overstretched state's resources, and poses even more pressurs on inter-religious cohesion. This is not about the freedom of religion. It is solely about the breaking of India's immigration laws!! Due process had been violated unlike the other instances of immigration that you referred to.

As an aside, I would like to correct you. There has been no significant immigration from Malaysia or Singapore to India. Those from Burma and Pakistan you refer to literally evicted from their lands, fled to India to avoid persecution and India registered them in accordance with its law as residents. Many availed of citizenship under due process of law available to legal residents of the republic!

But let us return to the topic. The ULFA had its origins in the anti-Bengali agitation in the late 1970s because of such illicit immigration. They have now transformed themselves into a pawn in a larger geostrategic game that is being played out.

One can not compare legal immigration and those fleeing religious or other persection on one hand, from such illicit immigrants who have not gone through due process of law. They have illicitly encroached on the land of the Assamese people who face the threat of being transformed into a minority in their own state. Entire districts - like Cachar for instance - have now become Bengali Muslim dominated. And you do not seem to care the least because the illegal immigrants though non-citizens happen to be Muslim!!

India is at its core Hindu - just as the United States and Britan are Christian. And China is Confucian. And Egypt is Muslim. There has to be equal rights to all citizens regardless of his or her religion. With this preface, let us address the issue of evangelization.

The issue of religious conversions is a vexed one. Any individual has the right to chose his or her own religion. But when evangelization is a billion dollar business with huge amounts of money being poured in and vast human resources mobilized to convert entire districts, then it becomes a concern. The intent, to put it simply, is to roll back Hinduism. That is the plain and simple truth however unpalatable it may be.

As I mentioned, no Islamic or for that matter no Asian country except for India, the Philippines, East Timor and South Korea, allows unfettered missionary activity. There is a reason for that - the protection of social peace on the ground.

You say that the Hindus as the majority religion. has to concede more. This is where the problem lies. Each religious community has an equal responsibility to concede -not just the Hindu. This differential responsibility imposed on the Hindu since independence by the so-called secular fabric explains the failure of Indian secularism and yes, it has failed! There can not be unilateral concessions. There has to be a mutual give and take. Reciprocity, not unilateral concessions, lies at the heart of inter-religious peace.

Regards

Balaji

The author never advocated independence for Tamils in Sri Lanka. The comparison with Kashmir is irrelevant. The point is that Sri Lanka has been absorbed into a broader geostrategic chess game. It might well become a platform where the United States projects power into the Indian subcontinent. And that is a legitimate concern.

The Kashmiri has not faced the same level of human rights violations as the Sri Lankan Tamil.

Once again, Cynical Nerd never said that Muslims were taking over the country. And yes, in certain states, they are well off. Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are examples. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, they are backward - but so are the rest.

Dipendra:
My question is very simple. Do we go about setting rules on containing change of demographics or religious affiliations in a region? How about setting rules on how many immigrants can come in to Bangalore (so as not to upset the social accord and social cohesion)? Most Hindus were quite upset when Biharis were targeted in Assam. That problem came up due to immigration. However the reaction of Indian Hindus is different for different kinds of immigration- and I fear that is based on their prejudice against certain religions. Should we promulgate laws to contain immigration between states now (to avoid social discord)?

Either we say people can embrace a new religion, or we say that they cannot. However, your subjective argument, using, 'when', 'if', etc, will soon trample one's fundamental rights. What is the national security threat from immigration of Bangladeshi Muslims that you foresee? How come the same was not foreseen when other Hindus migrated into India?

What is India's policy towards immigration? Do we allow Hindus but not Muslims? I would like to see it spelt somewhere.

Your heart really bleeds for Assamese. Then how come ULFA movement was snubbed? Assamese were equally against Bengali and then against Bihar and then against Bangladeshi. However, we seem to take a stand of duplicity when it comes to different immigrants here. All I am asking is, either we take a stand that no immigration happens (so as to contain change in demographics- as seen with J&K), or we have a policy on who we can admit and who we cannot- that includes Bengalis in Assam or Biharis in Assam or Bangladeshis in Assam.

You say evangelization is a business. Fine! I don't see anything wrong with that. Go compete with them. Let Hindus put in money, and go to villages, save poor Dalits from suppression of local landlords and police, build temples for them, build hospitals, give free education. Don't we have enough filthy rich upper caste Hindus who can contribute? Why don't they do that? On one hand, you don't allow them to temples, you ostracize them for sitting on a horse for a wedding, you pollute their wells, and don't allow them water from the lakes, and then you go about telling them not to convert?

Can't people change faiths- either it is for the lure of the money or the lure of path to heaven? Do we say, 'oh? You are going for the money, we can't allow that! And you there, you are in for the path to heaven? Yes, you can convert!"

Roll back Hinduism? I can only laugh at that proposition. VHP-ShivSena-BJP clan has done a good job in indoctrinating their fanciful ideas. Look at the % composition of Hindus in India over the last fifty years and see how much of Hindus have given up their share? BIMARU states are doing their job well by spewing forth zillions of Hindu babies to make sure one compensates for any loss of % you foresee.

There can be unilateral concessions- they happen between those who are strong towards those who are weak. Those who are in majority towards whose who are in minority! Look at human history; you will see thousands of such unilateral concessions done by those in power towards those who do not have. Haves make concessions to have-nots.

Even Indian industry gets concessions because they have proved to the Indian government that they are not on a level-playing field with global giants. Hence, the tax sops.

Reciprocity is between equals. Unilateral concessions are between unequals.

Recently, India announced certain sops unilaterally to other SAARC nations (being a big brother).

Sorry, you make certain sweeping statements which do not merit discussion.

Sujai said:

we have enough filthy rich upper caste Hindus

Sujai

You have repeatedly made the case earlier that the world understand Islamist sentiment. And yet you refuse to concede the same space to Hindu sentiment!

You have not answered my point i.e. illegal immigration from Bangladesh vs legal Indian citizens moving to another state. Any citizen can move to any part of the country. But when millions encroach from abroad outside the due process of law, it is a different story.

The extent of Bihari immigration into Assam is not comparable to illegal Bangladeshi immigration into Assam - the numbers simply do not match.

There is significant Hindu social service - let me refer to the Sai Seva, Ramakrishna Mission, the Seva Bharati, the Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram, the Chinmaya mission, the Swadhyayan movement, the Gandhian movement etc. Hundreds of temples like Tirupathi engage in social service. The problem is that Indian temples are now controlled by the state i.e. the Hindu Religious Endowments Board which prevents the meaningful investment of temple surplus in social service i.e. the kshemakrit like in pre-modern times.

Further, Christian evangelization is a global business tied to strategic western interests. The history of colonial only reaffirms that. You know that though you conveniently choose to ignore it!

As I mentioned before that each religious community had an equal responsibility to concede -not just the Hindu. This differential responsibility imposed on the Hindu since independence by the so-called secular fabric explains the failure of Indian secularism! You once again obfuscate issues by reference to SAARC and tax concessions. Religion is a different story - it is not trade nor business.

I am convinced that you are keen to deny the Hindu religion any political or social space. As I said before, this is symptomatic of the bleeding heart liberal who dominated India under successive Congress governments but failed to develop the rural economy and stem the rot despite the high sounding rhetoric.

This is getting interesting.

My own interpretation of this blog was the incompetence of Dr.MMS and Mrs. SG and i felt this article was in line with this. Having said that, the debate seems to have moved to muslims and christianity and assam and immigration.
My views---

Firstly, I believe that Assam/Jhar/Orissa are 3 states that can do significantly better than all states including the south if there was focus and attention. In Assam, there are many reasons for ULFAs opposition to Indian rule and fundamental is the concept of an Ahom nation. That precedes opposition to Bengalis, Muslims etc. I believe any immigration is bad if it does not add to your current current resources. So, without adding a religious fervor I believe bangladesh migration to Assam is a threat as it negates the development work (if any) that is being done. However between immigration and ULFA, ULFA is definitely a bigger threat. This is because what they believe is fundamentally opposite to what we believe. I am not even willing to debate whether they are right or we are right. It is just that we disagree. Noamount of development work is ever going to change their mind. This means, we will have to go after them, slowly but surely. Now, what I think is really screwed upis accusing bangladesh everyday of providing support to these ULFA militants. It reeks of foolishness for the Govt to do that. A smart Govt is one that privately threatens the Bangladeshi Govt but publicly says good things only. Bangladeshis have many things to blame India for, some real and some unreal but i dont see our Govt willing to do anything pro-active with any of our poor neighbours. Left to me, I would have allowed unlimited trade with all our neighbours. Integrating them into our market makes them a big stakeholder as well as forces everbody to focus on producing goods in a more efficient manner (Inflation). It also reduces the pressure for people to migrate from Nepal (Migration that we tolerate) and Bangaldesh (migration that we dont tolerate).

With respect to conversions, I personally believe there are two major triggers.One is our own behavior towards lower castes (in rural areas- violence and discrimination, in urban areas- opposing reservations) and the second is financial allurement. Hindu activists on the ground will tell you that it has been a difficult task convincing caste hindus to stop their opposition to lower castes in rural areas having said that over the last 10 years many 'rich' hindus have contributed to building schools etc to ensure tribals/ dalits get quality education to compete in the real world. In other words replicating in many ways the model used by missionaries. Compared to 10 years ago, things are better. But we still have 20-30 years to go before we can clearly claim that we have done everything to bring down caste barriers. Like I have said before, inter-caste marriages are the only way forward. Currently most intercaste marriages are between upper caste hindus only.

Reading Sujai's comments, one can deduce the following: he defends the influx of Bengali Muslim migrants even if Assam gets swamped; he supports Christian missionary activity; he wants India's Hindu majority to concede. These are his words, not mine.

In other posts, he defends Islamic fundamentalism.

So let us sum all this up based on the existing information. He is uncomfortable with Hinduism.

Do not blame the chap. He is in good company - Pankaj Mishra, N. Ram, Barkha Dutta, Praful Bidwai, Romila Thapar, K.N. Pannikar etc. Add to this coterie, the likes of Arundhati Roy and Teesta Setalvad - both Christians and one sees a formidable intellectual ramming machine directed solely at Hinduism.

Sujai sidesteps Dipendra's probing questions. So what does that leave us with. He is not comfortable with Hinduism - poor chap.

Kanya Tissaveerasingham:
I will respond to your assertions about me.

he defends the influx of Bengali Muslim migrants even if Assam gets swamped;

I did not defend or oppose the Bangladeshi Muslim migration. I asked for a consistent policy from India towards migrants irrespective of their religion. My case in point was this- Assam is opposed to all kinds of migrations either it it be Indian Bengali, or Bihari or Bangladeshi Muslim. Why then did Cynical Nerd in his strategic analysis exclusively isolate the problem of Bangladeshi Muslim migration as a cause for separatist movement in Assam? On what basis one can conclude that it is not in the interest of national security to change the demographics in terms of religion?

In an attempt to ask these questions, I have put forth countering arguments. I am not sure if your deductions could go that far to understand them.

he supports Christian missionary activity;

I support it whether I like it not. There are certain consequences for having decided to be a nation that allows rights to its citizens to espouse and practice any religion they want. This is one of the consequences. One has to live with it. Opposing such conversions is tantamount to trampling on people's rights. I am definitely not for such opposition.

he wants India's Hindu majority to concede.

I made it clear- you chose not to read my words in its entirety- that a majority, in any country, has certain obligations and responsibilities, and that it has to respect the sensibilities of the minorities. I believe in that. Without having understood those responsibilities we should never have decided to become a mutli-religious, mutli-cultural nation. The haves have to make concessions to have-nots (that's why they pay more taxes). The not-so-equals need boost and concessions (thats why Indian software industry gets tax holidays and land at cheaper rates). I am consistent in my beliefs which I extend to Hindu majority in India.

In other posts, he defends Islamic fundamentalism.

You are way off on this one. I never defended Islamic fundamentalism. Being an atheist, fundamentalism is anathema to me, either it is Hindu or Muslim. I have put arguments to understand why we see problems from Islamic communities, and tried to address those issues without bringing in texts and founding leaders into the picture. I tried to argue that the problems that we see from Islamic world are more due to contemporary history rather than its religious texts. If you have read it wrongly or did not understand the purport or meaning, I can't be responsible. Being ignorant or dimwitted is no excuse for wrong inferences.

He is uncomfortable with Hinduism.

I am not sure how you came up with this conclusion. Hinduism is fine as it is. It is one of many religions. I have no preference of one religion over the other. But the fact that I am born into Hinduism and so far it has not encroached upon my lifestyle and belief systems, I am quite comfortable being a Hindu. However, I see dangerous trends where certain people who have taken the mantle of being the representatives of Hinduism, where certain hardliners are trying to hijack it from the rest of us, and have tried to redefine it for us, which we do not accept.

Sujai sidesteps Dipendra's probing questions.

If there are worthy questions, I will answer them. I can't debate for the sake of debating just because some people love to do that. Getting into these debates is sometimes like mud wrestling with a pig. I get dirty but the pig seems to enjoy it.

I have certain views on a topic which I state. There are not always correct answers to every question. When I realize what the views of the other person are completely divergent and that there is no scope for reconciling or rapprochement, I am smart enough to stop that wrestling, lest it gets too dirty for me. You may want to think that I have chickened out. If it pleases you to think that way, be my guest. I stand unruffled.

Dipendra:
You make too many generalizations.

You and I differ in one aspect. You believe each religion has equal and similar responsibility. I do not. I believe that majority has to be more tolerant and forgiving than the minorities.

You ask for a different treatment of Bangladeshi migration, I ask for a consistent policy towards Hindu and Muslim migrants. I foresee that there will be major influx in future from Bangladesh and that it is only going to increase. We as India need to tackle this as a real issue which will only exacerbate. While we could easily embrace Tibetans, we cannot embrace Bangladeshi Muslims. If it is well understood, we need to come up with a policy towards migration, irrespective of religion or with religion as its cornerstone. I cannot appreciate nor condone the duplicity.

Some think that sealing the border is the solution (like George Bush) where as I think that more pragmatism is necessary to deal with it.

I referred to unilateral decision of India in SAARC to illustrate that there are concessions possible when dealing with unequal partners. It is not a digression. It is an analogy. It is to illustrate that such concessions are possible. This is to address your assertion that there are no concessions and only reciprocities.

I am convinced that you are keen to deny the Hindu religion any political or social space.

Really? How do you get convinced on that? Did I say that Hindus should not have their political parties or that they should not become the leaders of the state or the country or that they should give away certain seats to minorities or that they should not become IAS officers or that they should not celebrate their festivals or that they should give up their positions?

Rest is gobbledygook.

Sujai

Common, common - what is the gobbledygook.

You mention that Hindus should give more than Muslims or Christians. Ok - we disagree on that. But this affirms my point that you deny equality to Hinduism! That is what I meant by political and social space - Hindus should concede more and you propose different rules for different religions.

Name one country in the world where the majority religionists have conceded more to the minority religionists. I challenge you.

But as to differential treatment of Bangladeshi immigrants - you have still not answered my question - i.e the scale of the immigration, its illicit nature and its demographic consequences which would impact on social tensions on the ground. Once again the comparison with Tibet is misplaced - 100,000 Tibetans vs 15 million Bangladeshi Muslims, the Tibetans fleeing persecution and duly registered under the law, the other illicitly encroaching on land for economic reasons whose co-religionists in their native land demanded partition on account of their religion.

As Rama and Kanya argue - you are deeply and profoundly biased against Hinduism. Your retorts only confirm that. And you do not answer my points. You just go around in circles.

Sujai sujai - let me try to understand you. You called Dipendra a pig - well - I do not know him but he seems to have punch in his retorts. I quite like his, Anamika, Chandra, Aaman's and Cynical's comments. Let me try to get at what you are saying though.

You tried to deemphasize the impact of the Bengali Muslim immigrant by comparing it to immigrants from Burma, Malaysia and Tibet in India and the influx of people into Bangalore! You called for one rule to govern all instances. Ok. But Dipendra countered by alluding to the size of the Bengali Muslim problem - 15 million, the fact that it was economic not persecution related, that it was blatantly illegal and not under the immigration law of India, that it related to non-citizens (in contrast to your example of Bangalore) etc. There appeared to be clear cut principles in my view. I heard no response from you on that - references to pigs, gobbledygooks and filthy upper caste Hindus were what you came up with.

A person who loses the argument starts using swear words. Oops, I better be careful now...

You then forcefully argue that the majority religion should concede more than the minority religion. This presumably explains that even if entire states change religious complexion because of hugely financed missionary enterprise with political overtones - just read George Bush - in the context of grinding poverty and backwardness - so be it 0 the consequences notwithstanding. So what if Hinduism recedes is what seem to be arguing. Well, it matters to some of us. We care! And most countries do not allow this freedom of big dollars to come to subvert the indigenous religious traditions - be it Hinduism or other. This is not about freedom of conscience. It is about regulating the flow of funds and missionary activity whose sole aim is to destabilize.

I would like your response to Dipendra's question - which country has a system where the majority religion gives more than the minority religion is expected to. Certainly, not the US of A. It is a level playing field there - or one clearly skewed to help Protestant Christianity.

You dismissed Cynical Nerd's excellent take on the current strategic equation with a rather pompous opening line "Your presentation can be lapped up only by the nationalists who want to snub and suppress people's aspirations". Such rhetoric of yours is straight out of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties - a leftist outfit.

I have read ALL your earlier comments. And yes, you have defended Muslim extremism, calling for us to understand the context, to be sensitive to the history behind the anger etc etc etc. I can give examples but this would make the comment too long.

So in short - I think Cynical Nerd had an excellent post - which of course the likes of you would not like since it seeks to establish a united, strong and prosperous India, not a weak, poor and backward nation with 40% living below $ 1 a day and vulnerable to external manipulations.

By the way, he had a good post on Agni - you would probably oppose that - since it threatens China.....

Dipendra:
We think differently. That is good enough for me conclude the discussion. I don't have to answer your questions nor take up your challenges. Sorry about it, but this whole game of challenging is puerile to think about it.

According to me, we need to prepare for more migration from Bangladesh, in the near term or in the long term depending on how climate change is going to drown Bangladesh (either through faster meltdown of glaciers or through increase in sea-level).

Whether we want them? And if we want them, where do put them? And do we want to ensure they are not Muslim? - is up to something that India needs to address as policy.

Giving in to minorities is not tantamount to losing something in the process. Minorities have certain privileges- starting from provisions for funds to setup institutions, scholarships, easier access to education, etc. Most often, minorities tend to be more glued to their communities and tend to practice their culture more ardently. There needs to be a certain degree of tolerance towards stronger affiliations. Either it is Madrasis in North India, or Keralites in Bangalore, migrants have certain traits which needs to understood and tackled.

Migration is something we are used to on this subcontinent- one has to make a comprehensive policy of it rather than deal with each situation in a ad hoc manner. Sensitivity of the locals to outsiders is something that is not based on nationality alone. Assam could feel xenophobic to Biharis, Bengalis or Bangladeshis.

I don't see Hindus losing out on anything. Just look at the representation of Hindus vs. Muslims in higher school education and employment in public and private industry. Experience and the numbers suggest that Hindus are overrepresented while Muslims are underrepresented.

Kanya-
I did not call Dipendra a pig. Analogies, metaphors, similes, phrases, etc, are part of English language. Taken quite literally one gets lot of fun- as you just did! Enjoy it! Ignorance is bliss!

Kanya-
While trying to separate wheat from chaff-

I have no problems with Indians stopping Bangladeshis from entering India. I have a problem when we stop them because they are Muslim on the pretext or concern that they change the demographics through religious percentages. This is what Cynical Nerd suggested, and hence I expressed my opinion. In that context, I ask for a consistent policy- Would India deny immigration to Hindus because they happen to be 10 million or above? If there is a straightforward answer, I would like to hear it - spelt out by our policy makers.

I cannot or should not entertain answering to wrong inferences. As I said earlier, ignorance or dimwittedness is not an excuse for wrong inferences. Calling for understanding of extremism is not same as condoning it or defending it.

By the way, he had a good post on Agni - you would probably oppose that - since it threatens China...

You assume a lot! Ignorance in most domains compounded by half-knowledge in few others is a dangerous cocktail which I would not like to savor.

And do you seriously expect people to really answer to such wild assumptions? Temerity, gall and cheek!

Kanya,

You summed it up better than I did. Thank you. Nice to get support from a Jaffna Tamil by the way :-)

Sujai

I actually liked your comment # 45.

But one sentence struck me where you said:

"I don't have to answer your questions nor take up your challenges".

Now, here's an admission that you have no answers!!! As Kanya put it - you side step the issue - except perhaps in comment # 45.

Sujai:I have no problems with Indians stopping Bangladeshis from entering India. I have a problem when we stop them because they are Muslim on the pretext or concern that they change the demographics through religious percentages

Chandra: I think we should stop immigrants primarily because they are muslims. Muslim majority regions/cities have always been a problem in India. Why create more problems? Dont we have enough examples? - Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, Hyderabad............

Sujai:I don't see Hindus losing out on anything. Just look at the representation of Hindus vs. Muslims in higher school education and employment in public and private industry. Experience and the numbers suggest that Hindus are overrepresented while Muslims are underrepresented.

Chandra: Thats part of the data. Muslims are severly over represented in petty crime, organised crime as well subversive activities. I am not sure how that is good for the country. Do you want more of it?

It is one thing to argue development of minorities in our own country and another to say ...please come over from other countries because your stupid Govt cant feed you...thats a silly argument....more so when these minorities have a history of seeking their own nation......

It is one thing arguing for fairness and equality, it is another to be dim-witted and ignorant enough to ignore ground reality and live in a drug induced utopia.

Dipendra:

What can I say? Tittikum Tamil Puttandu vaazhtukkal uritakuha!

Chandra:

You are spot on.

Once again, Sujai does not respond to the factual positions presented to you. He sidesteps issues and make sweeping generalizations that are not supported by facts. I wish he would stop the name calling and get to the issues but he can't!...Need I say more.

East Bengal was a Muslim majority province in 1947. That region was the first of the Muslim majority provinces of India to demand that it be included in Pakistan. Since then, all Muslim majority provinces had demanded the same - Kashmir being the latest example.

It is Hinduism that has kept India together. It is the civilizational link between widely different regions.

So East Pakistan was created in 1947. It was economically unfeasible. That was not India's fault. So since 1974 onwards, Muslim immigrants illegally moved to India and encroached on Indian land. Cachar has now become Muslim majority province in Assam with Islamic fundamentalist groups active. Murshidabad and the Sundarbans present a similar scenario in West Bengal.

In fact, the illegal immigration took place in the 1960s but India deported several lakhs at that time because Bangladesh then formed a part of Pakistan. The security threat was obvious then. It should be obvious today too, the likes of Sujai notwithstanding.

These illegal immigrants now need to be registered as guest workers and eventually sent back as Vajpayee had proposed while Prime Minister. There is no other solution. It is no point talking of glaciers melting and of rising sea levels as Sujai does. That is not India's problem. It is Bangladesh's problem. They were the ones who demanded partition and need to face the consequences of that.

Of course, Sujai being pro-Muslim would not see this. He is ideologically of a set opinion.

This is how other countries in the neighborhood dealt with ethnic and religious minorities. Pakistan had a Hindu and Sikh minority that was 19% in 1947. Today, the Hindu population in 1.5% Bangladesh had a Hindu minority of 29% in 1947. Today it is 10%. Talk of ethnic cleansing. These were facts that I learnt in earlier Desicritics posts!

Bhutan with a population of 700,000, kicked out 100,000 "Nepalese" 10 years back. Burma kicked out 1,000,000 "Indians" in 1962. Sri Lanka "repatriated" 500,000 "Indians" between 1964 and 1977. Malaysia with a population of 19 million kicked out 1,000,000 illegal immigrants from Indonesia and Bangladesh in just six months - this was a few years back.

So regardless of the Brinda Karats and Sujais, India would need to carry out a bold census exercise, map these folks, register them as guest workers and eventually say "Namoshkor" - your time is up! The land belongs to the Assamese.

India needs a firm immigration policy - not bury its head in the sand like an ostrich. The Bangladeshi Muslim illegal immigrants are a security threat - 15 million is way too much.

Whoa, this post has been moving fast indeed. Excellent points from Rama, Kanya, Dipendra and Chandra. Very informative indeed.

It is clear that Sujai is obfuscating the issue of ILLEGAL Bangladeshi immigration under the garb of minority rights. If they are not persecuted in their home country, international asylum laws DO NOT apply. There is no comparison with Tibetans. They were literally chased out by the Han Chinese. Same with the Tamils from Sri Lanka.

America allows mainly Protestant Canadians to cross the border freely and it does not do so with Catholic Mexicans. Is anyone there saying that that America is anti-Catholic?

Rama says:
Excellent points from Rama, Kanya, Dipendra and Chandra. Very informative indeed.

?

:)

Rama:

You said, "Are we gonna allow this kinda hate speech?"

To my, we have enough filthy rich upper caste Hindus

Which part of this sentence seems to be hate speech for you? That there are some filthy rich people or that some of them are upper caste Hindus? Is terming someone filthy rich considered hate speech?

I don't care who funds which organizations to convert what people. If you are ready to give good living, a temple to go to, treat them equal, give them food, give them education, I don't care what religion they belong to. If the money is coming into move the begging kids to go to school in the name of religion or in the name of caste or in the name of language, I don't care. I am happy about it. Instead of doing something about it, we are concerned whether those begging kids are Hindu or converted Christian? That makes me feel sad for us yuppie crowd.

I am not afraid for Hinduism. It has survived Muslim rule for hundreds of years and British rule for another few hundred years. Though people seem to believe that Muslims will overtake India, our numbers never seem to shrink. We are making enough babies thanks to BIMARU states that keep filling our ranks.

If Dalits get a dress to wear, a school to go to, some respect as people, I am happy. Why all this concern for them all of a sudden? That they are decreasing our size as Hindu community or because they are getting a better life and self-respect? How come we were not so concerned about them before Christian missionaries started tapping them as resources to increase their rank and file?

It's up to each of us to preach what we want. I thought that's what we decided upon when we formed this nation.

Why didn't the Hindus sat together to bring Dalits into the mainstream? Didn't they have enough money? Or they thought they didn't want to pollute their caste by bringing the lower caste into their fold?

Coming to my belief as to why majorities need to be sensitive to minorities, I extend that argument to other aspects of Indian cultures.

For example, I seriously and strongly defend Tamilians adhering to their Tamil language. And I believe that it was Tamilians resistance to imposition of Hindi which allowed other languages to maintain their linguistic identity. India, being a mutli-cultural country, either has to treat each of its cultures with respect and allow their identities to prevail or curb them completely to make it homogeneous country. In my earlier arguments, I expressed my belief that India can achieve its unity only my respecting the diversity without making attempts to bring in homogeniety.

I do not agree with those who think that our immigration policies should be based on what religion they belong to. If India was a Hindu country, and professed as as such, then it would have been OK. The fact that it did not, and we agreed to remain multi-religious, we cannot and should not make immigration policies based on religion.

Sujai:I do not agree with those who think that our immigration policies should be based on what religion they belong to. If India was a Hindu country, and professed as as such, then it would have been OK

Chandra: India preventing muslims from entering the country has nothing to do with our religion. Nobody is suggesting we should not let muslims come in because we are Hindu.

As your yourself say, we have a poor history of not treating minorities properly. Can we first take care of who we have first?

Secondly,we have a history of muslim minorities demanding a separate nation.How many more such nations do we want to create? I would rather wish we spend money fedeing people we have rather than inviting more and then spending time fighting their national aspirations.

Thirdly, look at the size of immigration. Opening up to unlimited immigration from large countries like Bangladesh is inevitably going to cause problems to us. I would hasten to add I am opposed to even Hindu economic migration from Bangladesh.

Having said this i believe we should have a well designed guest worker program to attract engineers and other professionals from all SAARC countries. We should target atleast 20-30000 such executives. Hopefully that will have some impact on our tight labor market. This is over and above almost free trade with these countries.

rgds

Chandra, in comment #49:
I think we should stop immigrants primarily because they are muslims.

Chandra, in comment #55:
Nobody is suggesting we should not let muslims come in because we are Hindu.

Make up your mind. Are we playing with nuances here, talking about differences in shades of grey of value 132 and 133 on a scale of 0 to 255?

Sujai

Post-partition India is Hindu by civilization. It has a secular constitution but is Hindu in terms of civilizational roots. As mentioned earlier in this comment thread, the United States is Christian for similar reason while China is Confucian even though both countries have "secular" constitutions. Civilization precedes constitutions.

Sujai:Chandra, in comment #49:
I think we should stop immigrants primarily because they are muslims

Chandra: I have already elaborated why we should not let muslims come in (Economic, nationalism)

Sujai:Nobody is suggesting we should not let muslims come in because we are Hindu.

Chandra: It is the same logic that you used about you having the same stand on minorities irrespective of which country you belonged.I would have opposed muslim immigration irrespective of whether I was a Hindu, an atheist a christian or a sikh. My criterion would be past experience and that has been unfortunately bad for our country (with Pak, BD and now Kashmir).

No nuances here at all mate!!!

cheers

Sujai:If Dalits get a dress to wear, a school to go to, some respect as people, I am happy. Why all this concern for them all of a sudden? That they are decreasing our size as Hindu community or because they are getting a better life and self-respect? How come we were not so concerned about them before Christian missionaries started tapping them as resources to increase their rank and file?

Chandra: Very valid point!!! It needs to get into the head of upper caste Hindus that the only way people will stay back with our religion is if we remove caste discrimination in rural areas and provide affirmative action in urban areas

rgds

Sujai:

I did not mean to include myself in the list of those making excellent points. But I try my best :-)

Meanwhile,

Which part of this sentence seems to be hate speech for you? That there are some filthy rich people or that some of them are upper caste Hindus? Is terming someone filthy rich considered hate speech?

I don't care who funds which organizations to convert what people. ....Instead of doing something about it, we are concerned whether those begging kids are Hindu or converted Christian? That makes me feel sad for us yuppie crowd.

Sujai said:

For example, I seriously and strongly defend Tamilians adhering to their Tamil language. And I believe that it was Tamilians resistance to imposition of Hindi which allowed other languages to maintain their linguistic identity.

Chandra, Saravanan,

Sujai argues in comment 54 that India is a multireligious country and not Hindu. He concludes that attempts to roll back/prevent illegal Bangladeshi immigration on account of religion are not in keeping with India's alleged "multi-religious" character.

He fails to refute the points made earlier i.e. that the 15 million immigrants illegally encroached on land for economic reasons outside the law, that the sheer numbers exceed all other instances of immigration (including partition and the influx of Sikhs/Hindus into India in 1947), that this immigration is not driven by persecution, and that it violates Indian immigration law.

Moreover, the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are a strain on the resource base of a poor neglected state - Assam. They threaten to change the linguistic and religious identity of Assam. It places the already fragile Indian North East sandwiched between China, Myanmar and Bangladesh in an even more precarious situation. Remember that China claims vast tracks of the North East. Pakistan had earlier claimed Cachar when East Pakistan was ruled from Karachi. The illicit immigration adds to communal tension. There can be no comparison with inter-state immigration within India - the numbers are way off.

Now to the issue of multi-religious states that Sujai makes. There are multi-religious states with an overarching identity that derives from one religion. Prosperous Malaysia is 50% Muslim (though the census is manipulated to make it 60%). The country has Islam has its official religion. Sri Lanka is 69% Buddhist. The constitution gives preeminent place to Buddhism. Britain has the Church of England as the established church - though the UK is pluralist in every sense of the world. Bangladesh has Islam as the official religion though 14% are non-Muslims.

The 1950 Indian constitution conversely upholds secularism. But Hinduism has been preeminent in the 5,000 years of Indian history, a fact strengthened by partition. The prevailing leftist "political correct" approach would like to sweep this under the carpet - but centuries of history and tradition can not be denied. India's identity is Hindu - it is the shared civilizational inheritance that keeps a very diverse land together - nothing else.

In short, Sujai has not refuted the case for tough measures to curb and undo the illicit immigration to date from Bangladesh into Assam.

Regards

Rama:
I said:we have enough filthy rich upper caste Hindus.

THAT DOES NOT mean all filthy rich people are upper caste NOR that all upper caste is filthy rich.

"There are enough rich people in China" means there are good number of rich people in China. It does not mean that all Chinese are rich people. Or that all rich people are Chinese.

This is called logic.

Next, you run into some kind of illogical assumptions about me or the alleged group I represent which does not warrant response from any sane person.

Kanya, Dipendra, Saravanan, Rama

I think it is pointless trying to debate with somebody who has already made up his/her mind. No arguments, data or otherwise will change his/her mind. Have a good weekend. :-)

cheers

Saravanan:
Idiocy has no limits. Half-knowledge is dangerous.

You woke up in the middle of class and ask an irrelevant question.

Yeah, whatever. Selective political correctness and obfuscation of facts through diversionary tactics will get you nowhere. It is clear that you have refused to answer none of the points raised by other posters here like illegal immigration, equal treatment to Hinduism. No can wake up someone like you pretending to sleep with an ostrich like mentality.