In reality, both the sides are like the two sides of the same coin, which has no value without either of them. But still one thinks it’s superior to the other and the other dismisses it as though its existence is inconsequential. But one thing that comes about, seen holistically, is that both the sides are adamant, arrogant and insensitive to each other. The reality is that, one exists because of the other and if one hadn’t been there perhaps the other wouldn’t be there too. There’s a “Bhakt”, only because there’s also a “Sickular”. There’s a “Sold Media” because there’s also a “Modia”. And in the melee, the coin seems meaningless.
To give an example,
let’s go through a conversation between “Any One” and “Other One”, who
represent the two sides. They both are friends and come from similar
backgrounds. But still they are on the two sides and here goes their
conversation, about the recent CAA, Citizenship Amendment Act.
Any One: I'm sure you know which side of the CAA debate I am
on.
Other One: Well, it’s a very layered thing. The entire North
East is also on the same side as you, but of course for a totally different
reason. And, one thing that everyone is forgetting is that the problem arose
because, very few people might know, millions of Hindus who wanted to flee East
Pakistan, what later became Bangladesh, and take refuge in India around the
Indian Independence, were actually sent back [due to the ill-conceived Nehru-Liaquat Pact] and they and their descendants
kept pouring into India ever since – they can’t be called illegal, because
there’s no difference between them and me and my father, who managed to somehow
enter into India [at the nick of time]. It’s sad that it took so long to
acknowledge that they are not illegal. But then, this is totally lost in the
narrative of the CAA.
Any One: In my view, if the intent was as noble as that, there
could have been other laws that could have been passed, refugee and amnesty
laws that so many countries have. This bill to me, stinks of a clear agenda. When
taken together with the NRC, it’s nothing short of anti-national in the
strongest possible sense.
Other One: Yes, the way it was done was not right. NE broke
into chaos and the various sentiments were not handled properly. But somewhere,
the colossal wrong against the Hindus from East Bengal had to be corrected. It was
wrapped under the carpet forever that few millions of them were not allowed to
settle in India when it was India’s moral obligation to give them shelter. Just
in one stroke, few millions were made to bear the ignominy of being illegal
forever. No one ever bothered to correct this serious wrong. The entire NE problem
is also due to that. [Those] who were not allowed to [take refuge] in India
legally, trickled into the entire NE slowly, [changing the demographics of the
entire region]. The locals do have a reason to be angry with that. Now, I
really don’t know what should have been a better way. Whatever you do, amnesty
or anything [else], the basic point remains that the Hindus from Bangladesh had
to be treated differently. There also, the same arguments would have come – why
amnesty only to them?
Any One: Do you know anyone personally who is alive, Hindu,
and staying illegally in West Bengal today because they were forced to migrate
due to minority circumstances? Someone who could benefit from this bill?
Other One: Well, I speak so vocally about this because I realized
many things from within my own family. My father, an uncle and an aunt, seven,
fourteen and nine years of age, entered India in 1948, alone. My grandmother
and grandfather stayed back in East Pakistan, because they had already heard
that the Hindus pouring into India were not being entertained at all. Many had
already been sent back. My grandfather was more than seventy. He didn’t want to
go through all these. They stayed back till 1965, till he died. My grandma
entered India along with my aunt in 1965. By that time my father already had a job
and it was not hard for them to settle in India. My grandma died in the 80s and
never had a Voter’s card, nor a passport. My aunt never got a passport because
there were always some complications as she didn’t go to any school in India. Her
son, my cousin brother, now stays in Dubai. He tried all ways to get her there,
but the passport itself couldn’t be done. My aunt’s husband is idealistic and
never wanted to go to the local MLA for help.
Likewise, many of my relatives were still there, in
Bangladesh, because they had heard horrid stories about rehabilitation of the
Hindus from East Pakistan. But by the sixties, they all wanted to flee. By then,
few had managed to go to the US, and many more eventually relocated to US. Again,
the fear was [uncertainties] about their rehabilitation in India – especially because
of India’s stand taken by Nehru, I don’t know why, to not allow the Hindu
refugees from Bangladesh any more in India beyond 1950. Somehow, we and our
flock, who were allowed to settle in India, moved up in the social ladder and
managed. Many settled in the US. So, now I don’t know anyone personally in India
who would benefit from this new amendment, but I kept on hearing from my
relatives [from across the border], who came to India much later, and also many,
who stayed back in the US illegally for years before getting asylum, that all
through the 80s and 90s lot of poor Hindus, who didn’t have any richer
relatives in India [or in the US], moved into the NE – that’s the root cause of
the entire issue in NE. The Hindu migrants there are predominantly the next
generations of the poor Hindus who couldn’t settle in India in the 50s because
of India’s hostile attitude towards them. Don’t you think it’s just by sheer
luck that I’m here and not in the NE, having “infiltrated” into India? I could
have been one of them, and if I got the citizen why not them?
If the premise of partition, which India, whatever it might
say in paper, also agreed to, is that Pakistan is the home for the Muslims,
where very soon “anyone else” was alienated, it’s India’s moral obligation to
accommodate this “anyone else”. It should have been from [the] day one, don’t
you think? The Shias in Kashmir and POK, Baluch, Ahmadis, Kalash, Hazara etc.
from Pakistan should also be accommodated and they can always take asylum. Same
goes for the Sri Lankan Tamils – they have already got asylum. But whatever you
do, there will always be some classification, as asylum can’t be given [indiscriminately]
to everyone. Finally, the whole problem, you also know, has aggravated because
the Left, and now the Trinamool Congress, have aggressively lured Muslims from
Bangladesh to change the demographics of Bengal, just for their vote bank. My
cousin stays at a place near Diamond Harbor, the constituency of Mamata’s
nephew, and I hear interesting stories from there all the time about how the
proportion of Bangladeshi Muslims is suddenly on rise since 2011. I visited one
such neighborhood few years back, just out of curiosity, and I can say none of
them came to India because of any good reason – they just knew someone here who
lured them to come here.
Part II
Part II
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment