lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) (12/18/85)
The Sunday 12/15 and Tuesday 12/17 _NY Times_ contain some interesting news about elections in the Indian state of Assam. You may remember Assam as a state in NE India where riots 2 years ago killed thousands of Muslim refugees from Bangladesh. (The rioters were Assamese and Hindu Indians.) The Indian government quelled these riots with an agreement, which, according to the newspaper, included these provisions: 1. Immigrants from after 1971 would be expelled from Assam, in some cases back to Bangladesh. This affects between 500,000 and 1 million people. (i.e. about the population of the West Bank) 2. Immigrants from between 1966 and 1971 (tens of thousands more) may remain but lose the right to vote for ten years. I look forward to a justification of these events from certain persons who criticise the Israeli government for pursuing a rather similar (perhaps even more moderate!) policy..... Why is the Arab/Israeli conflict is at the center of the stage -- no UN session is complete without a new anti-Zionist declaration -- while stories like these remain on the back pages? andy
jon@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Jonathan Gingerich) (12/18/85)
In article <11260@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> lazarus@brahms.UUCP (Andrew J Lazarus) writes: >... >The Indian government quelled these riots with an agreement, which, >according to the newspaper, included these provisions: 1. Immigrants >from after 1971 would be expelled from Assam, in some cases back to >Bangladesh. This affects between 500,000 and 1 million people. >(i.e. about the population of the West Bank) 2. Immigrants from >between 1966 and 1971 (tens of thousands more) may remain but lose >the right to vote for ten years. > >I look forward to a justification of these events from certain persons >who criticise the Israeli government for pursuing a rather similar >(perhaps even more moderate!) policy..... >... I'm sure Palestinians would look at the expulsion of post '70 immigrants and the disenfranchisement of post '65 immigrants from Palestine/Israel as a good first step! :-) ;-) :-)
paturi@harvard.UUCP (Ramamohan Paturi) (12/19/85)
In article <11260@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) writes: > > The Sunday 12/15 and Tuesday 12/17 _NY Times_ contain some interesting > news about elections in the Indian state of Assam. You may remember > Assam as a state in NE India where riots 2 years ago killed thousands > of Muslim refugees from Bangladesh. (The rioters were Assamese and Hindu > Indians.) > > The Indian government quelled these riots with an agreement, which, > according to the newspaper, included these provisions: 1. Immigrants > from after 1971 would be expelled from Assam, in some cases back to > Bangladesh. This affects between 500,000 and 1 million people. > (i.e. about the population of the West Bank) 2. Immigrants from > between 1966 and 1971 (tens of thousands more) may remain but lose > the right to vote for ten years. > > I look forward to a justification of these events from certain persons > who criticise the Israeli government for pursuing a rather similar > (perhaps even more moderate!) policy..... > Your mission of questioning the credentials of all people who criticize the government of Israel is laudable. Attacking is a better strategy than answering. It is probably necessary to attack someone who acts inconsistently with what he says. But, this consistency is a shallow measure which helps hide the real issues. For example, sometimes consistency can be easily achieved if one does not make any claims. I beleive that looking at the actions of the people provides a better measure. As for Assam, you can compare this problem with that of illegal immigration from Central America to USA. Most of the immigrants came from Bangladesh to (a relatively more job opportunity providing) Assam. These immigrants are to some extent competing for the same resources. One argument of the Assam student leaders is that this burden from Bangladesh should be shared by the whole nation, not just Assam alone. Government of India neglected this problem of large illegal immigration and even enrolled all the illegal immigrants into the voting lists so that government's party can benefit in the elctions from the loyalty of immigrants. The threat to native Assamese from a large proportion of immigrants is real (in terms of jobs and political power). When the Assam student leaders started agitating for the expulsion of immigrants from their state, government could not come up with a solution. It can not send the immigrants back into Bangladesh as Bangladesh is not willing to accept them. Bangladesh even denies that anyone has crossed its borders to come to India. Distributing the immigrants all over India is also not feasible. Many other states would object on similar grounds. The cost of rehabilitating the immigrants is also very high. Uprooting would be quite painful for the immigrants. Finally, a psuedo solution is found. Immigrants who came before 1961 would not be touched. Those who came to India between 1961 and 1971 would have to wait for full citizenship and those who came after 1971 would be expelled from the state of Assam. This is not a solution since it does not specify where the expelled immigrants would go to. The government bought some time by promising the expulsion of post 1971 immigrants. People predict that problems will again arise if the government starts expelling these people or if it postpones the task. Sending these immigrants back to Bangladesh can not even be considered becuase of the attitude of Bangladesh. Any inquiries about further information or soultions to the problem are welcome. (Back issues of NYT or Times of India would give more information.) P.S.: I apologize for any inaccuracies in my presentation of the complex situation of Assam. I hope others would make the necessary corrections. -Ramamohan Paturi paturi@harvard.HARVARD.EDU.ARPA
agrawal@csd2.UUCP (Try m/c ACF6) (12/19/85)
>/* csd2:net.politics / lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) / 9:23 pm Dec 17, 1985 */ > >news about elections in the Indian state of Assam. You may remember >Assam as a state in NE India where riots 2 years ago killed thousands >of Muslim refugees from Bangladesh. (The rioters were Assamese and Hindu >Indians.) > >The Indian government quelled these riots with an agreement, which, >according to the newspaper, included these provisions: 1. Immigrants >from after 1971 would be expelled from Assam, in some cases back to >Bangladesh. This affects between 500,000 and 1 million people. >(i.e. about the population of the West Bank) 2. Immigrants from >between 1966 and 1971 (tens of thousands more) may remain but lose >the right to vote for ten years. >andy >/* ---------- */ I think you have got your facts rather distorted. you make it sound like the Congress(I) government is trying to get rid of the Muslim population of Assam. In fact , it is just the opposite. During the period 1965-1971 approximately 5 million refugees crossed into India from East Pakistan due to the civil war in that that country (By the way , U.S. wasn't even willing to agree thatany civil war was going on or that the positoin was abnormal ). After BanglaDesh's independence , another 1/2 million people have supposed to have crossed over to Assam. This whole thing has caused the Refugee population of Assam to be almost 1/3 of the total population of Assam. However , the Muslim and other minorities have always been the vote bank of the Congress Party , and this case was no exception. The Congress allowed this illegal immigration to go on and the Electoral rolls got highly distorted. The a couple of years back , Indira Gandhi forcibly tried to have an election despite extreme opposition to any elections before the question of Electoral roles could be sorted out. This led to large scale rioting and started to take on a secessionist tone and eventually has become an agitation not only against the Muslims, but against all the non-assamese and especially Bengalees. Now an accord with the agitation leaders has been reached. However BanglaDesh will not be taking back any of the immigrants and they will have to be absorbed elsewhere in India. As to the defranchising of the people who came between 1965-1971 does make sense because otherwise the electoral balance has totally shifted due to illegal immigration. (Just imagin what US would do if suddenly so many immigrants from Mexico came and somehow got themselves **** registered as voters **** and their population was as much as 1/3 of the total population.) The Assam accord is simply attempt to cope with a situation that had got out of hand because of Mrs. Gandhi's covert approval of the Muslim immigration from BanglaDesh because that served as her vote bank. However she did try to stop the infiltration from across the border after the agitation took the ugly turn at the elections.A barbed wire fence is supposed to be constructed along the whole Bangla Desh borded with India. However this has led to a serious dispute with BanglaDesh. Mukul Babu Agrawal agrawal@csd2.nyu.arpa ...cmcl2!csd2!agrawal p.s. Assam had elections this Monday . I do not know what happened but I'll post the results when I get my weekly paper.
baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (12/19/85)
In article <11260@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> lazarus@brahms.UUCP (Andrew J Lazarus) writes: > >The Sunday 12/15 and Tuesday 12/17 _NY Times_ contain some interesting >news about elections in the Indian state of Assam. You may remember >Assam as a state in NE India where riots 2 years ago killed thousands >of Muslim refugees from Bangladesh. (The rioters were Assamese and Hindu >Indians.) > >The Indian government quelled these riots with an agreement, which, >according to the newspaper, included these provisions: 1. Immigrants >from after 1971 would be expelled from Assam, in some cases back to >Bangladesh. This affects between 500,000 and 1 million people. >(i.e. about the population of the West Bank) 2. Immigrants from >between 1966 and 1971 (tens of thousands more) may remain but lose >the right to vote for ten years. > >I look forward to a justification of these events from certain persons >who criticise the Israeli government for pursuing a rather similar >(perhaps even more moderate!) policy..... > Huh? I was under the impression that Israel "immigrated" to the West Bank, while the Arabs there were native to that place. In the case of Assam, it is just the opposite: the people being disenfranchised are Bangladeshi (then East Pakistani) refugees from the war of 1971 who illegally remained (they were definitely not naturalized Indian citizens), and the people demanding their disenfranchisement and expulsion are native Assamese. Only (crooked) political and humanitarian considerations (they would have to go back to Bangladesh, an even poorer country than India, and while they remain in Assam, they can be made to vote (illegally) for the ruling party as a price for ignoring their illegal status) prevented them from being sent back home sooner, and led to a violent agitation on the part of the native Assamese who feared "competition for jobs and erosion of their culture". (Familiar ring there!) >Why is the Arab/Israeli >conflict is at the center of the stage -- no UN session is complete >without a new anti-Zionist declaration -- while stories like these >remain on the back pages? > >andy Wonder why? Maybe the UN took the Andy Lazarus Correspondence Course in Logic! :-). --Bapa Rao.
varikoot@gondor.UUCP (kill) (12/20/85)
> > The Sunday 12/15 and Tuesday 12/17 _NY Times_ contain some interesting > news about elections in the Indian state of Assam. You may remember > Assam as a state in NE India where riots 2 years ago killed thousands > of Muslim refugees from Bangladesh. (The rioters were Assamese and Hindu > Indians.) > > The Indian government quelled these riots with an agreement, which, > according to the newspaper, included these provisions: 1. Immigrants > from after 1971 would be expelled from Assam, in some cases back to > Bangladesh. This affects between 500,000 and 1 million people. > (i.e. about the population of the West Bank) These immigrants are illegal immigrants. Bangladesh and India had a pact that after the 1971 war that all illegal immigrants to India will be taken back by Bangladesh. > 2. Immigrants from > between 1966 and 1971 (tens of thousands more) may remain but lose > the right to vote for ten years. > Even these immigrants are illegal but since they have not been covered under the treaty it was proposed to regularise their situation after ten years. The US congress is proposing a somewhat akin regularisation of illegal immigrants before 1984 ( ? ) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
rajeev@sfmag.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (12/22/85)
uscvax!baparao's response to brahms!lazarus: > In article <11260@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> lazarus@brahms.UUCP (Andrew J Lazarus) writes: > > > >The Sunday 12/15 and Tuesday 12/17 _NY Times_ contain some interesting > >news about elections in the Indian state of Assam. You may remember > >Assam as a state in NE India where riots 2 years ago killed thousands > >of Muslim refugees from Bangladesh. (The rioters were Assamese and Hindu > >Indians.) Minor quibble: Assamese happen to be Indians too; and quite a few of them are Hindus. > >The Indian government quelled these riots with an agreement, which, > >according to the newspaper, included these provisions: 1. Immigrants > >from after 1971 would be expelled from Assam, in some cases back to > >Bangladesh. This affects between 500,000 and 1 million people. > >(i.e. about the population of the West Bank) 2. Immigrants from > >between 1966 and 1971 (tens of thousands more) may remain but lose > >the right to vote for ten years. > > > >I look forward to a justification of these events from certain persons > >who criticise the Israeli government for pursuing a rather similar > >(perhaps even more moderate!) policy..... > > > > Huh? I was under the impression that Israel "immigrated" to the West Bank, > while the Arabs there were native to that place. In the case of Assam, it is > just the opposite: the people being disenfranchised are Bangladeshi (then > East Pakistani) refugees from the war of 1971 who illegally remained (they > were definitely not naturalized Indian citizens), and the people demanding > their disenfranchisement and expulsion are native Assamese. Only (crooked) Bapa Rao is quite right in pointing out the inaccuracy of the analogy made by brahms!lazarus. A more accurate analogy (though not perfect) would be the following: How would Israel react if 500,000 Iranians "immigrated" and demanded Israeli citizenship? How would the USA react if 10 million poor Mexicans walked over the Texas border and settled down? I think the answer to the second question is fast becoming evident, with the Simpson-Mazzoli bill and so on. > >Why is the Arab/Israeli > >conflict is at the center of the stage -- no UN session is complete > >without a new anti-Zionist declaration -- while stories like these > >remain on the back pages? > Yes, why indeed? And why not similar incidents in nations Brahms probably considers paragons of moral rectitude: a) Britain has stopped immigration from its former colonies (though its non-indigenous population is miniscule, some 1% or so) because of fears of being "swamped culturally" [Enoch Powell: paraphrased]; b) France's Algerian population is facing more and more racism courtesy of Monsieur Le Pen [recent NYT report about how the traditional French symbol, Marianne, appears garbed in Arab dress in one of Le Pen's inflammatory tracts about the Arabization of France; c) Turkish 'gastarbeiters' were welcomed to do the menial labour in West Germany, but must now be ejected ... [Note that all these groups of immigrants were perfectly legal, unlike the Bangladeshis who immigrated illegally to Assam]. And in none of these cases does the sheer number of immigrants threaten to overwhelm the locals as in the case of Assam. So by all means, have the UN look into Assam, as soon as it has finished solving the human rights problems in Argentina, Afghanistan, South Africa, Cambodia,... Sri Rajeev.
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (12/26/85)
> The Indian government quelled these riots with an agreement, which, > according to the newspaper, included these provisions: 1. Immigrants > from after 1971 would be expelled from Assam, in some cases back to > Bangladesh. This affects between 500,000 and 1 million people. > (i.e. about the population of the West Bank) 2. Immigrants from > between 1966 and 1971 (tens of thousands more) may remain but lose > the right to vote for ten years. > I look forward to a justification of these events from certain persons > who criticise the Israeli government for pursuing a rather similar > (perhaps even more moderate!) policy..... > andy 1. Israel is not pursuing ANYTHING LIKE such a policy. It is Rabbi Meir Kahane who proposes taking away the votes from non-Jews (not just Arabs), and ejecting ONLY THOSE ARABS who refuse to live without political rights -- and Rabbi Kahane is banned from radio-TV, and the new anti- Kahane laws passed in the Knesset will make it illegal for anyone advocating his policies even to run for office. 2. The concept of throwing out everyone who immigrated after a given date is from the Palestine National Covenant -- all Jews who came (or whose ancestors came) to Palestine after some given year (1917? 1947?) would have to go back where they (or their ancestors) came from. It's not fair to attribute to the Israelis the ideas of their principal adversaries. -- Matt Rosenblatt
baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (01/01/86)
In article <1051@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >> The Indian government quelled these riots with an agreement, which, >> according to the newspaper, included these provisions: 1. Immigrants >> from after 1971 would be expelled from Assam, in some cases back to >> Bangladesh. This affects between 500,000 and 1 million people. >> (i.e. about the population of the West Bank) 2. Immigrants from >> between 1966 and 1971 (tens of thousands more) may remain but lose >> the right to vote for ten years. > >> I look forward to a justification of these events from certain persons >> who criticise the Israeli government for pursuing a rather similar >> (perhaps even more moderate!) policy..... > >> andy > >1. Israel is not pursuing ANYTHING LIKE such a policy. It is Rabbi >Meir Kahane who proposes taking away the votes from non-Jews (not just >Arabs), and ejecting ONLY THOSE ARABS who refuse to live without political >rights -- and Rabbi Kahane is banned from radio-TV, and the new anti- >Kahane laws passed in the Knesset will make it illegal for anyone advocating >his policies even to run for office. > >2. The concept of throwing out everyone who immigrated after a given date >is from the Palestine National Covenant -- all Jews who came (or whose >ancestors came) to Palestine after some given year (1917? 1947?) would >have to go back where they (or their ancestors) came from. It's not fair >to attribute to the Israelis the ideas of their principal adversaries. > > -- Matt Rosenblatt Dear vocal debaters of Israeli policy: I am at a loss to understand what earthly logical connection can possibly exist between the following two situations: 1. The adjudication of the legal status of Bangladeshi (and erstwhile East Pakistani) citizens who ILLEGALLY entered the state of Assam (which is an integral part of the Republic of India) without the proper documents and permits (such as passports and visas) normally required by ALL countries of prospective immigrants. 2. The policy (benevolent or otherwise) pursued by Israel towards the Arab population (and the descendants of that population) that existed in its territory from a time prior to the constitution of modern Israel as a soverign state. Debate Israel as loudly and often you please, but do try and refrain from dragging in analogies that simply don't apply. Seeking to make points without the benefit of facts reflects poorly on you and the cause that you so shrilly advocate. Get rid of the silly header and citations about Rajiv Gandhi's Assam policy; you'll be the better for it. And please, don't trouble yourselves to explain this "connection" to my mailbox; my mind is already made up that no such connection exists. I wish everyone a happy and prosperous 1986. --Bapa Rao.