The Sweltering Sky

Re: # 28
re: harimau: Not only have you ignored the direct questions I`ve put to you, you continue to advocate a violent path of territorial aggression against a neighbouring country. harimau, are you aware that what you say is directly in contravention of international law? are you aware of the possible consequences that might flow from your intended actions? oh, and, do you consider yourself secular? and if so, how do you define your secularism?

cheers,
aha_snark

Re: # 29 BJ
//...The borders of a country are creations of men, not God....//

Of course. But then Indian Constitution is created by men, not God. Constitution does believe in a boundary and it doesn`t believe in any God. In fact Constitution is very adamant about keeping all kinds Gods out of where the said Gods don`t belong.

So please don`t bring God into this. This is about being realistic about realities of life. Being emotional and invoking God at the drop of hat is counter-productive and very dangerous.

Has Aha_Snark shed a single tear over the Kashmiri Pandits who are also displaced from their homeland and are living in slums in New Delhi?

No.

Has FV written a single article on Chowk dedicated to the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits?

No.

So, am I wrong in presuming that all this humanitarian concern is a thin pretext for talking about the heartless Hindus?

PS. The day FV writes an article on Kashmiri Pandits and sends it to Chowk would be her last day as a featured columnist on Chowk!

Re: # 30
re: mohar11
[Constitution of india applies ONLY to Indian citizens who abide by its law.]

Wrong. First of all, the Constitution applies to all citizens, even the most heinous law breakers, by virtue of their citizenship. Secondly, Indian law states that the State of India should behave in a fashion that is consistent with the ``basic structure`` of the Constitution - so, for example, a law or practice regulating immigration on the basis of religion would be struck down as being ultra vires the basic structure or unconstitutional.

[My objection towards muslims from Bdesh is because I believe that partition is final - it was for a reason the separation was done. People should live with their choices. ]

So, for the same reason, if you were white and born in England, you would say no to all immigration from India - because we had gone and made ourselves independent. And that we should live with our choices. Do you think that the UK has anything to thank British Asians for?

[It`s also unfair to us - On one hand we are reviled about ``hindu domination`` and on the other hand we have to bear the burden of very people who revile us. Either we are evil hindu kufrs or we are not. You can`t have it both ways.]

Are you responsible for the statements of every Indian politician? Can they be held against you? Are you willing to face discrimination because of what Laloo or Atal or Prakash or Arun said? Or will you scream and demand individual treatment based on what you have said? Can you paint an entire community as undeserving in a monolithic fashion? Are you planning to answer the questions I have raised directly to you such as:

1. Can persecution only be on the basis of religion?
2. What if the country is run by robber barons who do not provide any form of food ration system? Is that persecution?
3. What if a country stamps on those rights granted to me by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Is that persecution?
4. Do you call yourself secular? And what exactly does your definition of that term? Does it have any consonance with the Supreme Court`s definition?

Additionally,

[We have limitations - and it should be our choice who we can help.]

Great. I agree completely with you. What are the guidelines that you propose? Are those in consonance with the Constitution of India? Are you aware of the existing guidelines for immigration into India?
cheers.

#36 by Aha_Snark

[First of all, the Constitution applies to all citizens, even the most heinous law breakers, by virtue of their citizenship.]

So please tell us to what category do the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants belong?

[So, for the same reason, if you were white and born in England, you would say no to all immigration from India - because we had gone and made ourselves independent.]

Every country has a right to say NO to illegal immigration, even if it is England saying no to an illegal Indian immigrant. There is nothing wrong in saying no here.

Re: # 32
re:mohar11

I said:
//Please point out where in the article she has said that ...illegal Bangladeshi immigrants who are Hindus should not be given special consideration because of their oppressed status in Bangladesh. ..//
You replied:
[I just did. Read my post where I quoted from her article.]

You quote farzana versey as saying:
[``On the other hand, there is acceptance of Hindu infiltrators in the North East. The deputy minister for national security in the previous government, I. D. Swami, had agreed to give them special treatment``]

Where has she said that illegal Hindu Bangladeshi immigrants should not be given spcial treatment? As I see it, she has contrasted two sets of facts. Not said that no special consideration shoudl be given to illegal Bangladeshi Hindu immigrants.

Re: # 35
re: harimau:

Ah. The tears shed over the Kashmiri Pandit issue. For the record, I am STRONGLY AGAINST the reported ethnic cleansing that has taken place aganist Kashmiri Pandits in Kashmir and I deeply sympathise with their plight, as I do with the plight of all internally displaced people.

Whether or not Farzana has written an article talking about the plight of Pandits is besides the point of this article. And harimau, are you thinking over the answers to the questions I have posted that you have not replied to?

Re: # 34
re: mohar11:

So glad to see your faith in the Constitution. Do you agree with the position of the Constitution on Secularism, as interpreted by the Supreme Court? And are you planning to answer the questions I`ve posed you sometime soon?

Yesterady a BDR guy shot and killed a BSF guy at the border.The BSF has been restrained `cause if they decide to go on a rampage BDR head roll,and then India is made out to look like the big, bad guy.That`s all the Bangla creeps want to do.Score petty cheap thrills and points against India.Creepy country, creepy people.Build a fence and keep them out is what i say.Or , maybe Canada can accomodate all of them.The canadians just love these kind of people, it seems.

Re: # 37
re: harish_hyd:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Re: # 41
re : cayenne:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: # 45

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

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

Complete abdication of your claim:

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

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

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

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

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

4. How can you say Bangladesh is a theocracy?

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

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

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

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

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

#2 by vagabond78

Chowk Staff,

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Re: # 36 Snark

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

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