The answer the simple. Bangladesh can gain a lot on other economic dimensions - trade concessions, investment incentives - that India may be in a position to offer. That is the essentia premise of bilateralism - you give up on certain fronts to gain on others. Indians are rather bad at it - particularly in their dealings with the smaller neighbors. This is the unilateralism Sanjib is talking about.
Santanu. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ram Sarangapani > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Assam] Unfriendly neighbourhood > > > > India's unilateralism in dealing with illegal immigration > shows a> misunderstanding about its power and influence, says > Sanjib Baruah > I am not sure I understand this. What kind of benefits would > Indiaachieve to bring B'desh into this influx problem? Why > should Indiagive a bargaining chip to B'desh, where none existed? > One can fathom what B'desh would bring to the table in such > negotiations: > (a) Give illegals the rights to settle down in India(b) Give > them guest-worker ids(c) The GOI/GOA must provide aid and > comfort to the illegals > IHMO, it would not be in B'desh's interest to stem the flow > ofillegals into India. From their point of view, the more the > merrier.All that does is to shift the social and moral > responsibility ofcaring of B'deshi's poor citizens to India: > ie shift the burden ofpoverty onto India. > > The US-Mexico dialogue on illegal immigration to the United > States of America> is a case in point. Under the leadership > of its president, Vicente Fox, Mexico> has successfully > pushed for a say in US immigration policy. It has asserted > its> moral right in the well-being of Mexican immigrants in > the US, irrespective of> their legal status. .............. > The fact that the Bush administration capitulated to > pressures fromMexico is only an example of politics creeping > into a soundimmigration policy. It makes political sense to > garner the Hispanicvote bloc. It has nothing to with what in > the long run is good for theUS. > Further, earlier experiments by previous US administrations > of generalamensties to illegals has not had any effect on the > flow ofimmigrants. In fact, it can be argued, that programs > such asguest-workers or amenesty only encourage more illegals > to come across,because some future administration may > actually grant themcitizenships. > > India's way of dealing with the problem has been mostly > unilateral. Thus when> reports appeared of an exodus of > suspected Bangladeshis from Assam for> fear of vigilante > action, following a local youth group's call for an economic> > boycott, Bangladesh promptly threatened to seek the > intervention of the> United Nations Human Commission for Refugees. > This is just a lot of doublespeak on the part of B'desh. On > the onehand they claim there are no illegal B'deshis in > India, on the otherthey seem rather sensitive to reports of > vigilante actions. If thereare no illegal B'deshis in India, > why is B'desh worried aboutnon-B'deshis? > I haven't thought this thru, but IMHO, India can have some > discussionwith B'desh. But the discussions have to be > centered on B'desh'sresponsibility to make sure it secures > its borders, and also acceptthe illegals when deported.There > is very little reason for India to capitulate. B'desh > shouldconsider themselves lucky that India is not giving them > the bill forthe huge expenses involved.. > >India's unilateralism on > illegal immigration may reflect a > similar>misunderstanding about its relative power vis-à-vis > its neighbours. > So, what is the author's solution?--Ram > > > > On 6/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050608/asp/opinion/story_483841 > 8.asp> > The Telegraph (Calcutta) Wednesday, June 08, 2005.> > > UNFRIENDLY NEIGHBOURHOOD> > India's unilateralism in > dealing with illegal immigration shows a> misunderstanding > about its power and influence, says Sanjib Baruah> > India is > hardly alone in facing the problem of large-scale illegal > immigration> from a neighbouring country. But unlike some > other countries, it is yet to> realize the value of > cooperation with the source country. India has mostly> stuck > to a unilateral course of action. Yet bilateral cooperation > has produced> good results in other parts of the world.> > > The US-Mexico dialogue on illegal immigration to the United > States of America> is a case in point. Under the leadership > of its president, Vicente Fox, Mexico> has successfully > pushed for a say in US immigration policy. It has asserted > its> moral right in the well-being of Mexican immigr! > ants in the US, irrespective of> their legal status. Measures > taken by the US on illegal immigrants are part of> Mexican > political debates — not unlike debates generated in > Bangladesh by the> Indian treatment of their compatriots. It > is partly in response to Mexican> pressures that George W. > Bush has proposed a Temporary Workers Program> that will give > amnesty to a large number of illegal immigrants.> > India's > way of dealing with the problem has been mostly unilateral. > Thus when> reports appeared of an exodus of suspected > Bangladeshis from Assam for> fear of vigilante action, > following a local youth group's call for an economic> > boycott, Bangladesh promptly threatened to seek the > intervention of the> United Nations Human Commission for > Refugees.> > One can hardly blame them. In Operation Pushback > in the Nineties, suspected> Bangladeshi illegal immigrants > were rounded up and deported even though> Ban- gladesh had > not agreed that the people were Bangladeshi citizens. They> we! > re simply left in the no-man's-land between the two countries > with the> Border Security Force pointing guns at them from > one side and the> Bangladesh Rifles doing so from the other.> > > There are important differences between the US situation > and India's. Very> few of India's poorer countrymen carry > identity papers. Many of them move> around in search of > livelihood. It would be dangerous to go by looks and> decide > that a new group of people in town are Bangladeshis. Giving > policemen> the right to ask for identity papers is a sure way > of bringing harassment to> them. On the other hand, a highly > compromised system of obtaining official> documentation > effectively puts on fast-track the process of an illegal> > immigrant becoming a citizen with voting rights. This has few > parallels in the> world.> > Most suspected Bangladeshis > fleeing from the Dibrugarh area of Assam,> according to > reports, were workers in the construction industry — working > at> brick kilns and building sites — and! > rickshaw-pullers. From random> conversations with people in > these occupations in Assam it appears that a> significant > number are seasonal migrants. They come in increasing > numbers> from other parts of India as well as from Bangladesh > in response to the> massive labour demand in north-east > India's booming construction industry.> The Assamese > discourse on illegal Bangladeshi immigration assumes that > all> illegal migrants, as before, are potential settlers and > citizens, but the reality> may be quite different. There is > now a transnational grid of seasonal> movement by the > labouring poor in south Asia and Bangladeshis are certainly> > a part of it.> > However, to save themselves from harassment, > seasonal migrants from> Bangladesh have to seek the > protection of powerful political patrons and they> try to get > some form of official documentation as proof of citizenship. > Were> legal status in India as temporary workers — like the > ones applicable to> Mexicans in the US — available to ! > them, one wonders if they would have had> an interest in > claiming citizenship. Indeed, a transnational legal regime > for> temporary workers — something that can be established > only with> Bangladesh's cooperation — might significantly > reduce the demand for political> patrons and the market for > false documents to prove citizenship. Making such> a status > available could also reduce the anxiety of many Assamese and > other> north-easterners about the impact of illegal > immigration on the state's future> demographic and political > balance.> > Of course, there is much that can be done about > illegal immigration that does> not depend on cooperation with > Bangladesh. India's laws, for instance, could> target and > penalize the contractor, the brick-kiln owner, the > house-builder or> the land-owner who prefers employing > illegal immigrants because they are> cheaper and less likely > to assert their rights. Historically, the incapacity of the> > Assam government to protect public lands from encroach! > ments — be it> forests or the flood plains of the Brahmaputra > -— has been a major factor in> attracting immigrants to > Assam.> > Apart from the political trouble this has caused, > the state's cavalier attitude to> its responsibilities as > custodian of public lands has significantly worsened the> > region's environment and quality of life. The incapacity to > hold on to public> lands has also created the political space > for vigilantism. In western Assam,> for instance, the fact > that many "Bangladeshi" victims of Bodo violence were> > settled in lands that are legally-speaking reserved forests, > has made it> impossible to resettle them after the violence > ended. This has also created a> dangerous example in the > region of the effectiveness of vigilante action to> deal with > the illegal encroachment on public lands by "Bangladeshis".> > > India's reliance on unilateralism in dealing with illegal > immigration may reflect a> misunderstanding about power and > influence in the world of internationa! > l> relations today. The political scientist, Joseph Nye, uses > the metaphor of a> three-dimensional chess game to describe > the contemporary world. There is> the traditional level of > hard military power, the second level of economic power> and > influence, and a third level where Nye places migration along > with currency> flows, the media, the internet and > transnational movements of various kinds.> Countries that > wield power at one level may be quite ineffective at > another.> > Thus, while the US may be the only superpower in > terms of hard military> power, it does not have the same > status at the second level, where soft> power counts for a > lot. And at the third level, where non-state actors have> > more influence, the most powerful of state actors can be > quite powerless. Nye> is critical of those in charge of > shaping US foreign policy today for playing only> at the > first level and assuming that military firepower alone can > win victories> without engaging the world at the other two l! > evels. India's unilateralism on> illegal immigration may > reflect a similar misunderstanding about its relative> power > vis-à-vis its neighbours.> > The author is visiting > professor, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.> > > > __________________________________________________> Do You > Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around> http://mail.yahoo.com> ----- End forwarded > message -----> > > > > > _______________________________________________> Assam > mailing list> [email protected]> > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam> > Mailing > list FAQ:> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html> To > unsubscribe or change options:> > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Assam mailing list > [email protected] > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam > > Mailing list FAQ: > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html > To unsubscribe or change options: > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam > _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
