The Fallacy of the “Two Sides” - Part II

Part I

The two sides of a cause, or a narrative, or an ideology 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: Do you think the government is sincere in solving the specific problem you describe [protecting the persecuted minorities of the Indian subcontinent], and you see no ulterior / broader motive?

Other One: Well, let me ask, do you think any Muslim who has been staying in India forever would be illegally made a non-citizen now, like what everyone is talking? NRC in Assam had lot of Hindus who were excluded. There would be many errors, but I can say many are not errors. They did actually trickle in between 71 and now.

Any One: Well, 2 million people who were left out of the NRC are right now headed for detention camps. In another day and age, we would have called them concentration camps. Who are we to judge how many of those 2 million are genuine illegals. And even if they are, locking then up isn’t an answer that's acceptable in 2019.

Other One: Yes, that I agree, [that] detention camp is not the solution. But no one else is coming up with [a] good solution either. Political parties like TMC can’t be given a free hand to lure Muslims from Bangladesh just to secure their vote bank. That’s also illegal and how do you stop that? No one even speaks about the condition in Bengal, and one day it will also erupt like the NE. The change in demographics in many parts of Bengal is rampant now. Someone should come up with a solution. And yes, it should be better than what we have now, I mean what the [incumbent] government is doing. By the way, see, even now we refer to [the] Bangladeshi Hindus and “illegals”. Isn’t it sad? Why are they illegals first of all? And why am I then legal?

Any One: I think what's missing is proper asylum refugee policy. If as you say Ahmadi and Tamils are free to avail of that policy, why isn't it accessible to Hindus from Bangladesh? Why isn't migration from Nepal an issue? Is it because they are Hindu? What about persecuted minorities in Nepal? I see this whole process as riddled with contradictions, aimed to suit one group in politics, no different from Mamata. Referring to anyone as illegal is sad. No one can be illegal. We are all legitimate humans with legitimate aspirations. These ‘infiltrators’ and ‘termites’ that Shah refers to are the poorest people in the sub-continent. I mean Muslims, who migrate from Bangladesh to India. How poor must they be to want a better life in India, where Muslims are as low as Dalits in socio economic terms?

Other One: My point is simple, this “anyone else” from erstwhile East Pakistan must be treated differently because they were not allowed to enter India and were not taken care of earlier – there shouldn’t be a question of asylum to them. My father didn’t get asylum. “Anyone else” from Pakistan who wanted to come to India after partition shouldn’t be a case for asylum – they are as good citizens as any other, like you and me. As they were then not allowed to claim the Indian citizenship they were entitled to [because being a party to the partition, India implicitly accepted the Two Nation Theory in letter and spirit and hence was obligated to give refuge to all willing non-Muslims from Pakistan], first they should be allowed to do so now. That should be separate from anything else, I feel. And then, there can be any humane rules for absorbing people from other countries on compassionate grounds irrespective of religions, as much as India can afford to, like the Tibetans. All of them [who had fled Tibet] were absorbed in due course. Something like that could always be there. Anyway, let’s continue with the arguments as that’s what is very much needed, in civilized form, not attacking each other.

Any One: Academic thought exercise: How do you feel about a regular Muslim who chose to leave Dhaka in 1975 because she wanted to live in secular India with better women's rights? In your view is her claim to Indian citizenship weaker than a Hindu from Bangladesh who decided to migrate at the same time?

Other One: I believe, she can always seek citizenship through natural process, like Adnan Sami and many of Pakistani origin have also done. She doesn’t have to illegally enter India without documents. It’s like our friends settling in the US for better opportunities. Taslima Nasreen is also staying legally in India and she will surely get Indian citizenship someday. Interestingly, she’s hounded by the Muslims not the Hindus, please note. No one is talking about such cases. The Baloch leader Bugti was granted Indian citizenship. There are so many Shias from POK staying peacefully in India, legally. But for the Hindus of Bangladesh, that’s a total different story. The partition gave them the right to stay in India, and no one can deny that. Millions of them were not allowed to stay in India – so their case can’t be mixed with anyone else’s, I feel. It’s like the Pandits’ right to go back to Kashmir. It can’t be mixed with anything else. Their claim to citizenship is above all, even before mine and yours because they have been wronged in the most horrific way by India. They were denied their legal right by India. For everyone else [the other persecuted people in question] – India didn’t do any wrong to them.

The data I have dug out, and have also validated with a report from a Bangladeshi Muslim reporter’s article, says, only seven lakh Muslims actually crossed border from India to East Pakistan, during the partition, and many of them were Hindi speaking Biharis. And multiple reports say that very few of these seven lakh would have left because of the fear of persecution. On the contrary, the Great Calcutta Killing and the Nokhali riots [of 1946] had made it very clear that Hindus were no longer safe in Bangladesh or East Pakistan. So when the partition happened, there was absolutely no reason to deny them entry to India. That’s the most inhuman act ever done to any community – leave them to die. And they did. Peer reviewed papers cite reports that more than 2.5 million Hindus were killed in East Pakistan between 1947 and 1971 – these numbers are comparable to Holocaust. And they died just because they were not allowed to enter India. How can I compare them with anyone else? Sometimes I myself feel disillusioned why these particular community – the Hindus from Bangladesh – never got any sympathy from anyone.

Part III