With my recent travel and subsequent computer hassles, there's a large backlog of things I want to write about. Not that I think I will get to them all, but I'm conscious of the backlog, is all.
One of those things is the recent uproar about a Canadian visa. As I'm sure I don't need to tell you, that country refused a visa to a once-BSF member because some Canadian official noted that he and/or the BSF has a record of violence.
I don't at all understand the uproar. After all, is there an Indian who doesn't believe that our security personnel indulge in excesses of violence? From Kashmir to the Northeast to everywhere we've seen massacres of innocent Indians -- in all those places, Indian police and paramilitary and army people are accused of serious crimes and brutality. I know of enough cases of police brutality -- in Bombay, in Satara, in West Bengal, in Tamil Nadu. In Manipur a few years ago, a whole lot of women actually marched naked in public to protest their treatment by Indian security forces. What would drive women to make such a protest? And then there are the regular times when we hear of men in one or the other uniform misbehaving in trains, pushing people around and often enough off the train.
Violence? I mean, be honest: would you be sanguine about your wife or sister or daughter visiting an Indian police station on her own?
This is not to say there are no men in Indian uniform who are different. No, there are plenty, and I know plenty of them, and I've even seen them in action. Exemplary in their conduct, they'd be a credit to their uniform anywhere in the world.
And yet that's just the point. The ones who resort to violence tarnish by association even the ones who try to uphold standards of professional and personal conduct. Which is one more reason the former must be identified and stopped. That we don't do that enough is one more sign justice means so little that, for example, we are yet to punish the horrific killings of November 1984.
Thing is, we know all this. If any of us pointed it out, nobody would claim some great sullying of national honour. Yet when a Canadian points it out, it is suddenly an insult to us all, besides being a slur on the fair name of the BSF. Why? What's more, the reactions to all this invariably point to crimes by Canadian forces, or other Western forces. Why? Of what possible relevance is that?
Delivering justice must mean, first of all, the courage to identify those who commit crimes. Let's find that courage, regardless of what Canada does about its visas.
Roadrunner on Amazon!
Buy Roadrunner, Indian sites
Travel: Our Judgement Free
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. (Listen)
It was January the thirtieth/And everybody was feelin' fine.
Yo!
Good times!
TwitTwotTwet
Some of my writing
Asirgarh, Narbona, towelsTsunami reports
Girls of his (my) dreams
Winner, Outlook/Picador 2004/5
'74 Bra Flinging Story
Not just about tennis
My books
Branded by Law | The Narmada Dammed | RoadrunnerSome of my photographs
Worth your time
Ramani's fieldnotesTom Pietrasik | Abi
Annie | Shivam V
Bombay Addict
Uma MD | Amitava Kumar | John Naughton
Amin for your travel needs
98 comments:
"Delivering justice must mean, first of all, the courage to identify those who commit crimes. Let's find that courage, regardless of what Canada does about its visas"
Dilep saheb, the issue is not what BSF is doing.. issue is that if you have a working relationship with another country, you recognize its government, you know it is a democratic country.. then you cannot deny visa to its official or for that matter an elected personnel (Modi) till there crime is proved.
I know you will not understand this coz you are too sentimental.. still.. there is no hurt in trying..
you cannot deny visa to its official...
One country can deny anyone it chooses a visa for any reason it chooses. I have no problem with that.
Chalo chhoro yaar.. Beena ji sa galle karo..
It seems arbitrary. Do all ex-BSF get denied visas systematically by Canada? Should Canada have a national policy of denying ex-BSF visas? If there is no specific evidence against the retired officer then it makes no sense and I understand the concern it is causing. It is a form of profiling - executed daily in India often on the basis of religion, language, accent etc. The D'Souza of this blog does not support these forms of profiling as far as I know. Is he not concerned?
a form of profiling.
Really? My wife was denied a US visa some years ago. Was that a form of profiling? A good friend was denied both UK and US visas over the last year, though he got a Schengen visa. Was that a form of profiling?
And even if you call it profiling, so what?
I can think of plenty of people and their organizations around the world whom I hope India will deny visas to, if they ever apply for one, based on their record of violence and crime. If you want to call that profiling, go ahead, but I still hope India will deny them the visa.
It is not that the establishment protests every visa denial. The establishment certainly did not protest when Narendra Modi was denied a visa by the US. (The BJP did, I suppose, but they were out of power when Mr. Modi applied for a visa.) I may be mistaken but I don't think the establishment would have protested if the Canadian government had denied visas to (say) all those who had served in Kashmir. What riled it was the blanket denial to all security personnel. This amounts to saying that there is an official GoI policy supporting human rights violations. One can see why the establishment protested.
Two points. First, if the Canadian government really felt this way, then its reaction was far too weak. Denying visas is easy: Official support for human rights violations warrants a much stronger reaction.
Second, we have no one to blame but ourselves for this state of affairs. And the longer we delay taking corrective measures and the longer we continue denying justice to the victims, the more we open ourselves to such actions.
Incidentally, Manoj Mitta in a speech in the Canadian Parliament said that the Canadian government should not have backed down. The speech is guaranteed to have every "psuedo-nationalist" boiling with rage. Stand by for the infuriated reaction.
The question is about a blanket rejection for all people associated with the BSF. And the fact that *some* people violating rules does not amount to the BSF being some sort of violent extra judicial rogue army, which I want to point out is unfair. It is sheer laziness which prevents canada from taking each application on a case to case basis and instead applying some sort of blanket ban on indian defence forces. If you take the skewed logic to it's conclusion, every Indian must be denied a visa to every country because *some* indians are criminals etc.And making such allegations only against the Indian army(or a few other armies)is hypocritical because every defence force in the world has a history of violence(including the USA). So does Canada deny visas to every member of the US armed forces(or parts of it)? No. That's hypocritical.(it may not be of relevance to the current situation but it is hypocritical).
I would add, ask yourself this: it is well known that American, British, French, Portuguese and Belgian armed forces have committed horrendous atrocities around the world, particularly in their ex-colonies and/or theatres of war. Did the Canadians ever deny visas to any *Western* countries' armed forces. When the British were ruling India, were they denied visiting rights to any country in the world- any at all? The answer is of course a resounding "no". These restrictions and controversies are meant obviously only for newly free developing countries that exercise some degree of independence from Western countries.
D'Souza's open siding with the crude officials in Canada's high commission( who have rescinded the order) is an example once again of Indians being hyper-critical of India, while wallowing in admiration at even their real or perceived master's fart, let alone the master's backside.
"Second, we have no one to blame but ourselves for this state of affairs. And the longer we delay taking corrective measures..."
What other pluralist democracy and open society has as many violent insurgencies- Kashmir, Khalistan, Naxals, Nagas and Manipuris- and is dealing with them in a far more humane and civilised manner than India? We do know for a fact that the British, Dutch, Belgian, French and Portuguese all brutally suppressed or attempted to brutally suppress anti-colonial/anti-imperial movements in their ex-colonies. One can safely say that *none* of them ever paid a marginal price as far as restrictions on travel, or serious international sanctions. But India- bad Hindus, bad, bad Hindus. Committing human rights violations. So good people must support master( in this Canada) in any effort to restrict travel of Indians.
"Really? My wife was denied a US visa ..."
About your wife is neither here nor there. Was a reason stated? I would say it was profiling if she was denied based on her membership in some group of which the visa officer had a (sudden) low opinion, although she herself is not known to have been involved in any wrongdoing.
India, for example, routinely profiles Pakistanis. All of them. Try getting a visa if you were born in Pakistan or at any time held a Pakistani passport even if you were born in India. Takes a long time! Are all Pakistanis dangerous? (Chandru K of course thinks so -- but he is a horse of a different colour). India has a right to profile the Pakistanis and she does so, regardless of the actual usefulness of the policy.
I will side with you if you have evidence that Pandher was associated with BSF atrocities. If not, he is one of the many millions that go to work daily in India, to feed their families. Give him a break!
"India has a right to profile the Pakistanis and she does so, regardless of the actual usefulness of the policy."
Good answer, except that if you are trying to draw a parallel with Canada's recent actions, it's way out in left field. Canada hasn't fought a war on its soil since 1812! Canada has had a very peaceful, stable border with the US for well over a century. India has experienced 4 wars with Pakistan in the last 60 years. Pakistan itself was created extremely violently, with an ideology that India despises. In order to see equivalence with Canada, there should be 1) a violent partition of the country based on religion or language and 2) at least 3 wars fought with the resulting new entity. 3)terrorist acts on Canadian soil that have a significant degree of involvement with the new country.
Then compare Canada with India. Not a moment before.
Dilip,
Once I'd commented on a blog something on the lines of:
"If we're to continue this debate, you'll have to answer the questions I've been repeatedly asking."
The blog owner had apparently taken offence & replied back saying he was not obliged to answer & I couldn't force him into answering. I'd to point out that his obligation to answer was a caveat only if he wished to continue the debate, not otherwise.
You quoted the anonymous above selectively, ripping off all the caveats that had prefixed as well as suffixed his assertion that "you cannot deny visa to its official...".
In my opinion, the most important caveat was: "till their crime is proved".
Just like how it's Canadians' prerogative who to grant visa, it's yours how to address people's disagreements, but I'd have preferred you addressed the argument in entirety.
Most important caveat has been missed out. If Canada lays claim to being objective & impartial in rejection of visas, then as has been clearly demonstrated by Chandru, they were greatly off mark this once, & hence they also reversed their decision in their wise judgement.
You might have no problems with who Canada allows to enter their territory (even I don't have), but I'd consider their policy an arbitrary one at best, or even partial in practical terms had they not reversed their decision, or if they repeat such mistakes.
Canada is, of course, within its right to deny visa to any Indian on any ground they deem apt, but if they doesn't apply same standards to citizens of other nations, then they'll have to forego the claims of being objective & impartial. Am not sure a developed nation would be willing to do so.
Though, I disagree with Chandru when he implies (in words that I don't approve of) that Dilip approves of denial of visa. He doesn't do so at least in his blog post. He's only trying to point out that what Canadians are saying is not false.
But of course, Dilip's current approach is inconsistent with his past arguments. He makes punishing of '84-, '02-perpetrators a precondition for taking seriously Indian government's concern for justice expressed to Pakistan. But analogously, he doesn't make it a precondition to take Canada's human rights' concerns seriously that they deny visa to other nations' representatives/armymen also whose human rights' violations' record is similar to BSF's.
Suresh, thanks for the pointer to the Manoj Mitta speech. Required reading (or listening) for us all.
Vishnu, I don't know and couldn't really care less if Canada denies visas to US military personnel. Because that's irrelevant.
Canada has every right to give or deny visas to anyone they want to, with or without giving a reason. That's one thing.
The other is that all of us know what kind of record our various security forces have. Yet when Canada remarks on it, it is suddenly an insult.
Anon 1201 (I know who you are and it baffles me that you're frightened of your name): You don't need to side with me. And I don't have to produce any evidence. My point is much the same as when Modi was denied a US visa: the denial of a Canadian visa to this BSF man is no kind of insult to me, so I don't agree with it being painted that way. What does shame India is the crimes by our security forces and others that we allow to stay unpunished.
Anonymous & Chandru,
There's an important difference between profiling by Canada (in current BSF-case) & India (in case of applications coming from Pakistan).
India does it out of fear that allowing entry of certain Pakistani citizens could lead to future loss of Indian lives. So, it's a preventative measure. Though, it involves stereotyping of sorts ('every Pakistani is a potential terrorist'), which is unfortunate, casting judgement is not the intention. Canada does not face such a security-risk from an ex-BSF personnel (or at least such fear was not articulated) & was trying to pass a moral judgement (without proper investigation) on mode of BSF's operation.
Ketan, in this whole fuss I have not heard Canada "claiming to be objective and impartial in rejection of visas", as you suggest they have. Even if they did claim that, it would make me laugh, because it's a meaningless claim. Countries are driven by their self-interest, which is the way it should be, and which means such words as "objective" and "impartial" are only for the birds.
The argument is simple: Canada can choose to deny a visa to whomever they like for whatever reason they choose. That's the essence of the visa regime, after all. They don't have to demonstrate the same standards all around or anything. They can simply take their own visa decisions. Period.
Your last para is simply hollow: in this whole post and discussion, I have said nothing about taking Canada's human rights concerns seriously. So there's no "precondition" I need to meet, despite your efforts to show I didn't meet it.
As for selective quoting. It was not selective quoting for this simple reason: "till their crime is proved" is irrelevant. To the best of my knowledge, there's no visa regime that spells out that visa decisions must be kept in abeyance "till their crime is proved." Denying a visa is the prerogative of the country concerned, that's all.
was trying to pass a moral judgement (without proper investigation) on mode of BSF's operation.
Tell me Ketan, do you pass such moral judgements? That is, Do you have even the slightest reservations about the conduct of any of our security forces? Like I asked in my post, would you be sanguine about your wife or sister or daughter visiting an Indian police station on her own?
If your answer is "yes" (like most of us would answer "yes"), in what way are you different from the Canadians? AFter all, did you do a "proper investigation" to support your fears?
Dilip,
"Canada has every right to give or deny visas to anyone they want to, with or without giving a reason."
Would you ever say the following?
"India has every right to try or not try for alleged crimes anyone they want to, with or without giving a reason."
You would not say so.
Here, I try to guess the possible reasons:
1. That would violate the framework (the constitution of India) within which 'India' is supposed to function.
2. Such approach would be against the concept of natural justice - equality of opportunity & of status, etc.
Now do the above two points also apply to how Canada is supposed to reach their decision on who to grant/not grant visas?
If a framework with clear directives exists, did they work within it in their denial of visa to an ex-BSF man for being an ex-BSF man?
If you say that Canada's arbitrariness doesn't bother you because it's not your country, then I understand your argument, but "anyone they want to"-approach is a very simplistic one, & can't be applied in all cases (as I showed above), so why apply it in case of Canada's visa rejection?
Thanks, Dilip!
I have said nothing about taking Canada's human rights concerns seriously.
In your post, you said:
"Yet when a Canadian points it out, it is suddenly an insult to us all, besides being a slur on the fair name of the BSF. Why?"
My understanding is, you do not want Indians to reject Canada's criticism of BSF, which in turn means you want Indians to accept the criticism leveled by Canada. But the reason Canada makes this criticism (through rejection of visa application) is because it is implicit, it is claiming to be serious about human rights' violations (otherwise, why would they cite human rights' violations as a reason?).
...............
And I've not said at all that you did not meet a precondition. I said, going by your past line of argument (wanting Indian government to prove its seriousness), I would expect you to set a precondition for Canada to prove its sincerity in matters of human rights' violation, which incidentally Canada has not met, and nor did you set.
...............
You're alright with ideologies to be put aside in favor of strategic interests in granting/rejection of visa because that's the precedent set by almost all countries, so haven't almost all political parties & individuals in judiciary & police also set a precedent in how they allow legal machinery to function so as to suit their strategic interests by putting aside ideologies? Are you alright with that?
...............
Indian police stations
I could be uncomfortable with my female family members visiting police station on their own. But that discomfort (moral judgement, if you may) would be based on the conditions prevalent there. If I say I'm appalled by their visiting a Mumbai police station, but not Pune one (despite similar work ethics at both places), I'd be biased. If I'm sanguine about their visiting the police station based on its geographical location & not work ethics, then my outlook would be weird. Which is what precisely Canadians had done. They passed such moral judgement in case of BSF, but not in case of human rights' violations by armies of other developed nations!
...............
If there was no need for objectivity in their approach, why did Canada reverse its decision with an apology? Was it purely for strategic reasons (out of diplomatic pressure), or did they also find it important to not be too openly arbitrary?
Chandru K,
On an entirely different tangent, if India has had so many insurgencies, probably it's time to think if India as a nation is actually as much united as we, dwelling in urban areas with superficial understanding of regional & other loyalties, would like to think?
My question is, is there precedent in Canada for denying visas to other Western countries? And if not,why not? If not, which we know is true( but don't take my word for it- check Canada's history vis-a-vis European colonialism in India and Africa) why should Indians of all people praise or defend Canada's recent behavior? On the other hand, if you can dig up an incident where Canada denied visas to European security force personnel who served in the the Belgian Congo, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Algeria et al, let's hear about it. And if Canada's position then was "We are deeply concerned and hurt by reports of human rights violations by Belgian/Portuguese/French/British security force personnel against native Africans and Algerians", then Canada's (temporary) denial to Indians would at least have some moral weight and intellectual honesty and consistency. Otherwise, it's just tub-thumping and game-playing for some devious, venal or disreputable reason. Shame on any Indians for even giving it consideration. Let's keep the self-hatred and hyper-criticism of India down to a minimum.
Yes Mr. D'Souza I get your drift. It is no skin off your nose if a BSF man is denied a visa by some country somewhere. You do not own/associate strongly with the BSF and in fact assess them as offenders. However, the Govt of India owns the BSF -- and, in its self-interest, cannot tolerate the black eye and hence the protest.
As for being Anon 1201, known to thee or not - the best work, by journal referees, voters, undercover police and yes philanthropists is often done anonymously. Are they all fearful?
Chandru K: It is no use writing equations to understand countries. Obviously Canada is a lot cleverer than your India and Pakistan for keeping peace with its nearest-neighbors and treating its own citizens well. So no comparison is possible or implied and thanks for pointing that out.
Ketan, in order:
Would you ever say the following? "India has every right to try or not try for alleged crimes anyone they want to, with or without giving a reason." You would not say so."
Why do you assume I would not say so? For one thing, India has indeed chosen not to try plenty of people for plenty of alleged crimes. For another, there is the whole notion of government sanction that's necessary to prosecute government servants (like police officers). That's used to avoid trying people accused of crimes. (Of course it's a different matter that some might disagree with, and protest loudly over, such sanction not being given in some cases). For a third, countries subscribe to the idea of official pardons that prevent trials -- one example being Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon's Watergate crimes.
Canada's arbitrariness doesn't bother you...
Yet again: Canada is free to make its visa decisions. I am a whole lot less bothered by a Canadian visa denied to this man than by the crimes that go unpunished in India.
you do not want Indians to reject Canada's criticism of BSF, which in turn means you want Indians to accept the criticism leveled by Canada...
Not really. I am puzzled about why when Indians point out crimes committed by BSF and others, that's waved away and some of us refuse to even acknowledge them as crimes (see, for example, some comments here). But when a Canadian mentions it, it is suddenly to be treated as a national insult?
Let me repeat, I am not insulted. If some others are, let them feel so, but let them not speak for me.
wanting Indian government to prove its seriousness.
All I want is for the Indian government to do its duty by Indians: which includes delivering justice to too many who have been denied it. This is not a precondition for anything else, this is just the way I expect and hope my government will act. (Admittedly a weak hope).
You're alright with ideologies to be put aside in favor of strategic interests in granting/rejection of visa...
What ideology has been put aside that I am "alright with"? A canadian official rejected an Indian visa application. Again, what ideology has been put aside? Can you please answer this, since you state it?
why did Canada reverse its decision with an apology?
I suspect because of Indian outrage and pressure.
if India has had so many insurgencies, probably it's time to think if India as a nation is actually as much united as we ... would like to think?
Precisely. It is exactly the the question we should be asking and I thank you for asking it.
It is no skin off your nose if a BSF man is denied a visa by some country somewhere. You do not own/associate strongly with the BSF and in fact assess them as offenders. However, the Govt of India owns the BSF.
Wrong. It is indeed skin off my nose, for this reason that I alluded to before: what bothers me is hardly the visa rejection, but the fact that Indian crimes by security forces (and others) go unpunished. Of course I own the BSF, being a citizen of this country. All the more reason I want some accountability from them (and others).
Are they all fearful?
I don't know, really. But you seem to be.
"I want some accountability from them".
My question is this - why does D'Souza want accountability from forces that are fighting valiantly against so many incredibly violent insurgencies, like in Kashmir, Manipur and so on? They are fighting to defend one of the most humane democracies in the world, one that has bent over backwards in its treatment of these insurgencies. Of course they will commit "collateral damage" on the side in that fight, killing some innocent people but in a just struggle. And D'Souza wants accountability for that? Shame on him.
Ketan, no country has been as united as India, in the face of so many separatist insurgencies.
Dcubed, is it the same Chandru who has left all the comments on this page, or is it another one?? Or both??
Right then. An occasion for introspection and accountability, not outrage. An opportunity for improving the BSFand other forces. Such a largesse in honesty is normally not afforded by any government and the reaction is to cover up. You are right and should be lauded for demanding it. Agreed. anon 1201.
Dilip,
1. You might acknowledge India's rights to prosecute or not prosecute certain people, but are you alright with their not being prosecuted? That is the more important question.
2. I've clearly stated above that I agree who to grant/not grant visa is Canada's prerogative. But that's not the issue. Issue is whether you approve of their action.
It is my prerogative to not let anyone enter my house, but would you approve of my restricting someone's entry based on their 'low' caste?
Why I bring in this example?
Assume for the time being, I'm partial towards Brahmins, & against Shudras.
There is a Brahmin & a Shudra each who reach their homes drunk & beat up their children.
I restrict the Shudra's entry saying he indulges in child abuse. But I allow the Brahmin despite knowing he too beats up his child.
Not contesting my property rights, will you approve of my behavior?
3. "But when a Canadian mentions it, it is suddenly to be treated as a national insult?"
Now, in above analogy, would you accept the reason for the Shudra's rejection to be child abuse? Or would the reason be his caste?
So, in case of Padher & Canada, was the reason for rejection, indulgence in human rights abuse or his belonging to India's paramilitary force?
If it was latter (which I infer to be the case), then it was attempted insult of Indians, simply for being Indians. Whether I personally take that as an insult would depend on the thickness of my skin. But other Indians' skins are thinner. :)
4. Indians are overtly sensitive to criticism origination from other countries. Not sure if people of other countries are also like that. But the outrage in current case is not because of such excessive sensitivity. It is because of partisan attitude.
5. "What ideology has been put aside?"
Ideology was not put aside when Padher's visa application was rejected, but it was each time any other country's military/paramilitary personnel were allowed in Canada. And that ideology was of shunning & not siding with organizations that indulge in human rights violation. The basic issue is not that an Indian was denied visa, but the reason offered & perceived intent behind it.
6. If Canadians were ill-prepared to face the outrage & diplomatic pressure, why did they deny the visa in the first place?
Chandru K,
I agree with you there (that given the diversity & size of populace, no other country is more united than India). But the question that I'm asking is: even the current degree of unity among Indians is an outcome of some form of coercion or peer pressure?
Is there a margin for individual territories to be more stable politically, if India were to be divided? The last thing is not a rhetorical question, but more of a thought experiment.
I do not believe, someone living close to Arunachal-China border would feel greater solidarity for a Gujarati or a Keraliite living thousands of kilometers away than for a 'Chinese' living just a few kilometers across the 'border'. Likewise, a Tamil living in Tamil Nadu is more likely to feel loyalty for a Sri Lankan Tamil than for a Kashmiri. And if I'm correct, why should we hold their chosen loyalty against the said Arunachali or 'Indian' Tamil?
Under such circumstances (of sectarian divides), are arbitrary lines drawn on paper, & a heady dose of patriotism sufficient to channelize our loyalties & energies in one direction & instill a feeling of oneness?
I've come to conclude that cultural heterogeneity interferes with unification of citizens. Pointing this out has become a taboo of sorts, and is immediately dismissed as anti-national. I'm worried, that possibly people suffer from a guilt complex in this regard, & hence in their attempt to overcompensate don't even want to dwell on the issue.
I was amazed by how a friend of mine could befriend & extract discounts out of certain shopkeepers simply by mentioning he was a Marwari-Jain. Till that point, my belief had been shopkeepers are profit-minded people, & they can't be swayed by communal sentiments! But I was wrong! [This is not an adverse comment against Marwaris or Jains because such sentiments are prevalent amongst almost all birth-based communities in India].
But there's a flip side, too to such affinity shown by Marwari-Jain people that you must easily recognize, & that is a xenophobia of 'not Marwari-Jain'.
This generic example can be extended to all communities in India & how they interact with each other & within themselves, you'll better appreciate why I feel India is several countries in one jostling with each for space, resources, attention & 'supremacy'.
Ketan,
Are you suggesting that the most important question in this affair is whether *I* approve of what Canada did? You say exactly that and you stress that this is the "issue". Amazing.
In any case, I approve of it in this sense: I welcome any focus on crimes by our security forces (and others) that go unpunished. Whether that focus comes from India or Canada or Mauritania is immaterial.
If you claim that this rejection was an "attempted insult of Indian simply for being Indians", what shall we conclude from the hundreds of thousands of Indians who have been issued Canadian visas, who travel there, and in fact the hundreds of thousands who live there? (Including, of course, one man on this page). Why aren't you drawing similar conclusions from that? Is the fact that all these Indians have got visas to be taken as attempted praise for Indians, simply for being Indians?
Your analogy makes sense to this point: if you say you will not allow the Shudra in your home because he abuses his child, I'm fine with that. If the Shudra values your opinion, I would hope this would push him to stop abusing his child. What some Brahmin does or how you react to that is immaterial to the need for the Shudra to stop abusing his child.
In other words, the most important thing here is for us to punish crimes and deliver justice, period. That pursuit has nothing to do with visa decisions by Canadian officials.
Ketan, thank you for your comment of 702pm above. That's exactly right and you said what I have often wanted to say, far more clearly than I would have managed.
Dilip,
1. Yes, I'm considering Canada's partisan attitude to be an issue. Because just like how it's alright for Canada to pass moral judgements on India's security forces, it's alright for Indians to pass judgement on Canada's duplicity. You might ask what's of greater concern - Indian security forces' unethical behavior or Canada's partisan attitude? Answer would be former, but that doesn't mean the latter be ignored & considered irrelevant. On what all bases is the relevance of an issue determined? Your post's title is 'Canadian visa', not 'India's human rights violations'.
2. In the child abuse analogy, yes, I too would expect that the Shudra (as well as the Brahmin) stop child abuse even if I were not to restrict the Shudra's entry. But I won't be surprised if the Shudra would feel (seeing the Brahmin happilly chatting with me, then getting drunk & beating his child again) that I was biased against him, & nor would I dismiss his concern, if he later brings it up with me. [But the situation's more complex than that. To make the analogy more accurate, I'd be restricting entry not because the said Shudra beats up his child, but 'cuz one of his distant cousins does!]
3. Yes, you're right (& I was wrong) when you point out that Canada's granted visas to thousands of Indians. More precisely then, Canada is applying more stringent standards in matters of human rights to Indian security forces than to other countries'.
4. "What some Brahmin does or how you react to that is immaterial to the need for the Shudra to stop abusing his child."
I think that's where I differ most from you. Why should I restrict the scope of inferences I draw from an event only to whether it promotes or dissuades child abuse? [Moreover, with the Shudra's perception of victimization, I'd be skeptical if he can take my criticism seriously]. Even before Canada rejected Padher's visa application, I was aware of the allegations against Indian security forces of human rights violations, so Canada's act did not add anything to my knowledge. But what did get added to my knowledge was their applying different standards to citizens of different countries. But personally, I would not want Indians to feel insulted, because for that to happen, we need to hold Canada's judgement of human rights situations in high regard, which in turn would require them to be less partisan than they were.
Thanks for the compliment!
D'Souza is ignoring the crtux of the matter, and that is Canada's arrogant brazenness in questioning the credentials and integrity of an Indian individual just because of his association with an organisation that is operating in Kashmir! That is crude arrogance, and it is utterly devoid of any transcendent concern for human rights. Nor could it possibly be out of concern for Canadian security. There is vulgar, venal human rights tub-thumping going on here. And shame on any Indian or person of Indian origin who rises to the defense of the trashy Canadian diplomats for their behaviour.
D'Souza is shamelessly refusing to answer the real question, which is what is wrong with some innocent lives being lost when a humane democracy like India has to work so hard to suppress so many insurgencies? Of course there will be collateral damage, and we should be proud of our BSF and others for fighting so hard to finish off the insurgencies even with all the so-called human rights concern about those few hundred or so lives lost.
That's the real crux, and in the end, it is not about this Canadian visa (though that is perverse enough).
Also, I had purposely kept away from this forum for a few weeks to see if the fake Chandru K would vanish. I had hoped he had, because he hasn't commented for a while. But now I find he is still here. For the record, the last two comments attributed to "Chandru K" on this page (June 13 756 am above, and June 12 1118 am) are both by the false "Chandru K", i.e. not by me. Why don't you grow up and use your own id?
Notwithstanding D'Souza's goal of using this issue to highlight and improve the BSF, Pandher should not be used as a pawn in this game. Unless Pandher is culpable by more than just association.
Chandru K & Chandru K: both of you sound alike so keep up the good work. Chandru K (original or fake) if you do want to separate yourself try the following. Chose any long sentence, say, "Mary had a little lamb". Put in MHALL in your posting. Next posting, put in your code phrase and a new string of code letters. It's not foolproof but might work. Here is an example: "TRISSMITP"
"TRISSMITP" (The Rain in Spain Stays Mainly in the Plain). . Good luck! "NPNG".
1. Ketan's "shudra whose cousin beats his kids" is a pretty good analogy. If the house owner was openly discriminatory, the shudra would cease to care for his opinions on kids, or anything else for that matter.
But more shudras than brahmins could *need*, or *want* to go to the house in which case the owner could act differently with these groups. Maybe the owner needs the 'brahmins' more than they need him, so he is not in a position to pass such judgments on them (while secretly disapproving of their beating their kids).
ie. the owner, gets to display his selfless care for other's kids at considerably lower costs.
---------------
Now consider the flip. Any individual faced with such an accusation will most likely come up with such stories of discrimination- he will create a 'brahmin' class if none exists and will exaggerate any favors done to such a class, to discredit his accuser.
This is automatic defence mechanism. Canada used one large grouping- BSF- to peg its peeves on. Their critics use an even larger one- India- and suggest this larger identity is under attack / insult.
I do believe the "brahmin" kids fare a lot better and do get less abuse than the "shudra" (analogy getting overstretched?)
----------
AFAI can tell, Dilip doesnt much care for the posturing, as long as the kids beatings cease.
2. the police station test:
FWIW, my wife did go alone to the police stn for her passport enquiry. Well, the first day she was accompanied by another lady, but both of them were only a few yrs in the city, and not familiar with the local language.
I wasnt worried. (Looks like I should have been?) she said the cops were pretty okay though the passport took its time. I actually thought they got treated better than any guy going there alone.
regards,
Jai
Late to this thread since I was travelling.
1. The police station test: my wife has been to them, alone. She may go again, if need be. I wouldn't worry (unless she were accused of some crime, and even then, she'd probably be treated better than a male suspect). At least in this city, I've generally found police officials polite and approachable (but not to everyone: see below).
2. I agree that selective punishment for crimes (the Brahmin/Shudra example) is discriminatory. The Shudra may deserve to be punished but to single him out is discriminatory by any definition. And it is not a hypothetical example. Daily I see traffic police bawling out, or worse, auto and tempo drivers who edge past a stop line, but doing nothing about air-conditioned cars guilty of much more egregious driving. In the US, recreational drug use is similar among blacks and whites, but the number of blacks in jail for such offences dwarfs the number of whites.
3. Certainly none of us is entitled to a Canadian visa and they aren't required to give reasons. But the perception of being discriminatory or unfair is damaging in itself. We may openly discriminate against Pakistanis but most Western countries take pains to avoid being seen as discriminatory. The BSF visa case damaged Canada's reputation even if they were within their rights, simply because they were clearly being discriminatory (they wouldn't deny US soldiers visas based on Iraq, would they?) That's probably why they backtracked: because of the effect on public perception.
We may openly discriminate against Pakistanis but most Western countries take pains to avoid being seen as discriminatory.
Really? I don't know what is meant by discriminatory but applications for a Schengen visa are treated differently (depending on nationality) by the French embassy in London. The differential treatment is openly stated:
Nationals from the following countries are required to submit their French Schengen visa applications in person: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarussian, Burma, Burundi, Colombia, Congo(Zaire), Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, North Korea, Lebanon, Libya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Surinam, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Not just that, but the time for processing can be more for the countries on this list. (I suppose as Indians, we ought to feel -- happy? grateful? superior? -- that we are not on this list unlike Pakistan.)
The French embassy site does address the question of why some nationalities are differently but all it gives by way of explanation is that issuing a Schengen visa requires consultations with all Schengen countries and that this inevitably takes time because the applications have to be sent to France. (Neatly avoids answering why it takes more time for some nationalities.)
I don't think perceptions of discrimination had much to do with Canada's decision. Frankly, no one outside India paid any attention to this story. (We are far less important than some of us think.) And notwithstanding the noise in the press, the number of applications for Canadian visas was unlikely to be affected even if the Canadian government had stuck to its guns. I think the explanation lies elsewhere.
Finally, what exactly is meant by India openly discriminates against Pakistanis? Yes, visa applications from Pakistani citizens are handled differently than those from US citizens (say) but how does that imply discrimination?
In my opinion I'd say there is discrimination if the policy of treating Pakistani visa applications differently has no rationale other than the fact that the Indian government simply doesn't want Pakistanis visiting our country. (Something like the former Australian "Whites only" policy.) Do you have any evidence that our government is treating Pakistani visa applications differently simply because it doesn't like Pakistanis?
I might be wrong here but I love the way this Chandru K character refers to Dcubed as D'Souza which ofcourse is legitimately his name but if I understand this Chandru K guy's mentality he wants to constantly remind the reader that Dcubed is a "Christian Western apologist who would always be biased towards the west" which I am quite positively sure Chandru K believes.
Ofcourse in the kind of world we live thats a scary kind of a hatred spewing attempt the kind that the Right wing Americans are trying when they keep referring to the president as Barack "Hussein" Obama.
But for people who are sort of really over all this religious communal rubbish of which Dcubed himself seems to be a member, it is genuinely hilarious.
"D'Souza, why don't you go back to where you came from - Europe" LOL.
Anonymous. Sorry but I have to stay anonymous cos everyone who writes against this Chandru K character gets a lot of spam on his comment space. Actually, I wouldn't be shocked to find that he is a member of the "RSS's front fighting India's enemy"
1. Just saw today a news report on an old case in N.Ireland (Londonderry shooting, 38 yrs ago) that identified that British troops had overreacted and shot folks fleeing or even just helping injured demonstrators. The UK govt has apologized but has still not agreed to prosecute the soldiers.
There are several inferences and parallels to this thread here, including that UK citizens dont even need visas to enter Canada.
2. Occasionally read Radley Balko at agitator.com who seems to specialize in collecting reports of police mistreatment / overreach in the US. He averages 5 incidents a week in a "police roundup".
3. Notwithstanding the above, my perception is that these "brahmin"? countries do take better care of their "kids" overall, than "shudras" facing admittedly discriminatory bans. They have a better record of going after "kid abusers".
We "shudras"(?) could featherbed our "kids" and still face *some* discrimination from a Canadian "house owner" because he essentially pursues his "house" interest.
3. The police station test could be a fail for people who the police think they can get away with abusing- as Rahul pointed out. This is one area the "brahmin" countries do better in (or are perceived so at least).
thanks,
Jai
PS to above and apologies for OT:
Ive been coming across Ketan P lots of places now including most recently a link from comment thread on Abi's blog, leading to, as usual, a well constructed argument that seems to give the target (Ashley Tellis) some space. It appears to take pains to state the opposing PoV fairly.
Thanks Ketan and do keep dropping in at this blog.
Not that this should be a "If your experience was that, mine is this other" kind of back-and-forth. But to take (only) one example, I know a woman who went to the police station to inquire about her husband who had been picked up by the cops; she was herself abused and beaten and driven out; they later told her her husband had hung himself with a towel in his cell. (A court case still later determined that the police officers had beaten him to death).
About Canada being discriminatory (if that's the word) in its treatment of visa applications: to me that's irrelevant. What's relevant to my life (and others around me) here in India is to have some measure of justice and accountability from our security forces. It would be nice some day to see a similar degree of outrage at what happened to the woman I mentioned above, as has been directed at Canada. If it takes a Canadian visa being turned down to focus on that need for accountability, I have no problems with that.
By the way, I've been meaning to ask, but it keeps slipping my mind: would anyone on this page like to comment on the case of Kurt Waldheim, former UN Secretary-General and later President of Austria? As President, he was placed on a US watch-list of people who could not enter that country, and was similarly disallowed entry into a number of other countries. (He made practically no state visits to other countries as President).
All because of his past as a Nazi soldier during WWII.
(See, for example, his Reuters obit here).
Dilip: Ah, Godwin's Law strikes again!
I hope you're not seriously trying to compare the BSF with the Nazis. ALL armies commit atrocities. It comes from their training and their sexual repression. But the Nazis were in another category altogether.
I agree we should worry about police atrocities at home. I don't agree that the Canadians should worry about them. And I certainly don't agree that a man should be tainted by association with the BSF, without any specific evidence of abuse against him. Because of the police abuse case you mention (and countless others like it), would you agree with Canada deciding to ban visas for anyone associated with the Indian police?
(Yes, they would have the right to do it. But I think they are smart enough not to exercise such a right.)
Dilip - ps: in your police station example, the man fared worse -- as I surmised above, and as is usually the case, I believe. (Of course, she was not a suspect, only the wife of one: but I think, even for suspects, custodial torture / deaths are much less common for women than for men.) So I was wondering why you wrote "would you let your wife/mother/daughter visit the police station alone", rather than husband/father/son.
I know there is a stigma against women going to the police station, but I think it has little to do with the actual increased risk to them, and more to do with vague concepts of "family honour".
RS: Godwin's law or not, another category or not, the point is this: to my knowledge, Waldheim was never found guilty of any particular crimes (and never confessed to any). What's more, much of his country did not see him as guilty. All anyone knew was that he had been a Nazi soldier, serving under a man who was executed for war crimes. Guilt by association? I don't know. But this was reason enough for the US and other countries to deny him a visa for entry, despite him being a head of state.
It seems parallel enough for me.
Incidentally, why shouldn't Canadians "worry about" crimes in India? After all, I was horrified by the massacre in Rwanda in 1994, as I am by the Abu Ghraib incidents, as I am by the killings in Kyrgyzstan. By extension, why shouldn't a Canadian be concerned about killings in India?
I'm no votary of anyone saying "the crimes we commit in our border are our business, you in that other country don't need to worry about it, so keep your opinions to yourself".
It's hardly that I agree or disagree with the decision not to issue a Canadian visa. The issue is whether we know that there are crimes committed by our security personnel. Don't you know it? Don't we all know it? Then why the outrage when a Canadian official says what we know?
About wife vs husband: you have a point. But take that very station where the incident I mentioned happened. When I think about it, I would be just a little less worried about going there myself for something, or if my father went, than if my wife or mother went. (And if not that station, I have visited other police stations where officers have themselves told me about the third-degree they've used on people in custody). Maybe I can't fully explain why, but that's the case. That's was why I wrote that about wife/sister/daughter
Dilip: the point is guilt by association (which is why, I suppose, you brought up Waldheim). Nobody accused Pandher personally of committing any kind of abuse. The Canadians only accused him of being a former member of a "notoriously violent force."
You are worried about Rwanda, Kyrgyzstan, Abu Ghraib: would you support a blanket ban on visas for any military or ex-military people from the countries involved?
Yes, they (and we) have a right to do that. We also have a right to refuse visas to people with eyebrow piercings or green eyes or bad teeth. That's not the point here.
Banning ex-Nazis is a more than slightly different matter. I'm personally happy with "guilt by association" in that case, unless proven otherwise (ie, unless the ex-Nazi had provably recoiled from the excesses of his regime when he learned about it). In Waldheim's case I think it is not so much his Nazi history, as the fact that he had hidden his past for so long.
Incidentally, I know personally of a Pakistan Army officer to whom India refused a visa several times. Something I wrote when I went to meet him is here.
The Canadians only accused him of being a former member of a "notoriously violent force."
Which is essentially what Waldheim was accused of.
Of course he had hidden his Nazi past, but do you think he would have been treated any differently (i.e. in regard to being barred from entry to the US and other countries) had he been open about it? In other words, of course it is his Nazi past that made these countries treat him that way.
I'm not sure why you want to know what I would support or not, despite my saying a few times that my concern here is not what I would support. I have my opinions on that (in eash case, Rwanda or Kyrgyzstan or whatever), but I don't see the relevance to the issue I'm trying to focus this post on, which is the record of our security forces.
Dilip: you say in your post, "The ones who resort to violence tarnish by association even the ones who try to uphold standards of professional and personal conduct."
But how is Canada's conduct different from "tarnishing by association"? They had no specific criticism against Pandher himself. Maybe he had high standards of professional and personal conduct: we don't know. And by using his case as a launching pad for your tirade against our forces, how are you yourself not guilty of "tarnishing [Pandher] by association"? Or do you know something about him that we don't?
You say "I don't see the relevance [of your opinions on other things] to the issue I'm trying to focus this post on, which is the record of our security forces." But I don't see the relevance of the visa case to the issue you are trying to focus on, either. Maybe I'd have no argument with you if you just didn't use this case as your starting point.
PS - about Waldheim, again: the current Pope has a Nazi past too. He has addressed it (inadequately in my opinion). No country has banned him. (It's hard to ban a pope, but they could have banned him before he became the pope: he was quite well known already). I think the point is that his past was known, while Waldheim's wasn't (to the wider world) until AFTER he finished his term as UN secretary-general and got elected as the Austrian president. The world was angry at having been taken for a ride.
1. the outrage at Canada:
Much of it is generated from IMO perverse reasons of inflated naitonal pride and reverse racism, or caring too highly for Canadian opinion. Nobody would have cared for a Mauritanian visa denial.
It wont directly map to outrage for a poor woman getting beaten here since the driver is different.
Perhaps a mindset that cares for Mauritanian opinion equally will help setup better and more equal treatment for fellow Indians from Indians.
2. Police killings and outrage:
Some quick googling tells me we have abt 1500 custodial deaths a year in India and maybe 15 a year in Canada (extrapolating from a report of 80 deaths across 5 yrs in BC, Canada).
I was typing a kind of rebuttal to Dilip based on my reading of Balko but the numbers speak for themselves- I'm skipping it.
Lets get to within a decadic difference before rushing to the Brahmin-Shudra debates.
thx,
Jai
RS: I used this case as a launching pad? How? It wasn't me who denied the visa, nor me who got outraged about it.
Besides, I've been writing about police (and other security personnel) abuses since at least 1993/4, I think. It's been my hope always to get people to think about the dangers of unaccountability in these armed forces. This incident offers one opportunity to remember some of those crimes.
I know nothing about Pandher. I do know that the BSF (and other forces) have committed crimes. I don't at all believe that mentioning that tarnishes anyone by association. On the contrary, as I said in my post, identifying and stopping the "ones who resort to violence" is how we can support high standards of conduct in these forces.
Rahul & Dilip,
Sorry to butt in on your conv.
Rahul,
My reading is that DD tries to point out the difference in outrage taken to try and redirect it to where it "should" be aimed at. Its unlikely to work as I outlined above but he will keep trying.
Dilip,
One of the oddest things about these convs is that even when the other party takes pains to answer your questions across multiple comments you fend off counter-questions ( blanket bans on kyrgizstan etc) with:
"why do you need to know"
"how is this relevant"
and this, while as much within your rights as a grant-of-comment-visa :-) looks very awkward.
I hope this helps you answer Rahul as seriously as he engages with your thinking.
Thanks and bye for this thread,
Jai
Dilip - I don't mean you used the visa case as a launching pad for your career (I know your career is older than that). I mean you used it as a launching pad for your arguments in this particular blog post. Re-read it to see what I mean. You didn't create the uproar but you are using it as the point of departure to criticise the excesses of our security forces. What I (like many above) fail to see is the relevance of the visa case to the excesses of our security forces.
It would have been different if Pandher had been denied the visa based on something specific that he had done. But they made a blanket criticism of the BSF, with no reference to Pandher. To accept that as relevant is to accept their grounds as valid -- to say that the BSF not only commits excesses, but does so on such an atrocious scale that guilt-by-association is justified, as it was with the Nazis. (With the Nazis it was not just their war crimes but their ideology: anyone who served for them is assumed to have agreed with that ideology. I am unaware of a similar ideology behind the BSF.)
In fact, though the BSF has been guilty of brutality, I think they have been no worse than the US Marines in Iraq/Afghanistan, or pretty much any other military in the world. You yourself say that not all our servicemen are guilty of this; you offer no evidence that Pandher, in particular, was; but you say the uproar in his case is unjustified because of how our "security personnel", in general, behave.
If that is not "tarnishing by association", then what is?
Exactly, Rahul. I've kept mentioning this point as well. Does Canada have a history of deep, heartfelt concern for human rights, whatever the country or environment. The answer is a resounding no. The Canadian government and media have no history of denouncing violations by the British, French, Belgian, Portuguese etc. In fact, Canada has a mostly dishonourable and shameful role when it comes to European colonialism in Asia and Africa. So this issue is not about a transcendent concern for human rights; it's about some kind of crude, venal,tub thumping. Again, shame on any Indians for defending the Canadian stance.
But I suppose the Indians like D'Souza who are spiritedly defending the Canadian action( now discontinued) are the same ones who spiritedly defend if not promote, jackasses like Paul Brass, Katherine Mayo, Winston Churchill and Barbara Crossette. Absolute crap that they write or speak, but since it is critical of India, sophisticated Indians must see their words as a mirror to observe the faults of Indian society and politics. Yeah, right. It's better to have a venomous snake come at you; at least most people know right away what the snake is up to, and can take remedial action. With the above named characters as well as the Canadian officials, there's that pretense of sophistication and depth, that people get fooled by.
"In fact, Canada has a mostly dishonourable and shameful role when it comes to European colonialism in Asia and Africa."
which is why I live there. So there, Canada!
"which is why I live there. So there, Canada!"
Pointing out Canada's dishonourable history with respect to European colonialism, and racist immigration policies including toward Indians well into the 20th century, does not disentitle someone from living there. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts, that Canada opened its doors to immigrants from all over starting essentially in the 50's. It was to fill labour and skill needs. Canada needed people back then.
Chandru - I don't need your support. I don't know many 'Indians like D'Souza' (pity) but I know Dilip.
Jai,
Thanks for the comment & the reply! Though, am mildly surprised that you extended welcome to me on this blog, despite it belonging to Dilip! :)
As happens with any crude analogy, I'll have to modify the Brahmin-Shudra one, again. Canada had not stated that they were opposed to human rights' violations only within an organization's international borders. They were (are) opposed to such violations anywhere - whether in one's native country or not. And going by that standard, as Chandru pointed out, they ought to have banned the entry of representatives of many other countries (especially, the developed ones).
So, Canada's response would correspond to my restricting entry of only those who abuse their own kids, but being alright with those who abuse someone else's kids! All this, despite the stated sentiment that I am opposed to child abuse in general - not necessarily only by kids' parents.
Yes, I agree that developed countries have much better domestic human rights records, & that's something worth emulating. As an aside, but, doing so won't be easy. The root of such problem, as I've been trying to point out through my comments since a last few posts on this blog, lies in the tendency of Indians to worship 'power'. Perceived power becomes coveted. One of the important ways to prove power to oneself & others is through subjugation & domination of those less powerful. This basic psyche is, for instance, also behind subjugation of women, economically backward people, etc. Somehow, Indian society has not been able to imbibe the concept of egalitarianism despite its making such an easy intuitive sense. We're a society obsessed with hierarchies. How do we change that?
I also understand that Indians are much more dependent on Canada, than Canadians are on Indians. And thus, it's understandable they reject Indian visa applications more frequently than that originating from countries on who they depend more or are afraid of. But then why lie about it, that too in a sanctimonious tone?
I perfectly understand your example of how strategic compulsions can offset ideals. But then, is such a value-system tinged with risk-benefit ratio worth respecting or taking seriously?
Dilip,
I was going to point out the same difference between BSF & Nazis as pointed out by Rahul.
I don't know history very well, but Nazis had ethnic cleansing of Jews, & the ideal of Aryan supremacy as guiding policy....
Ketan,
I'm certainly not appropriating blog ownership or in any way implying that.
Your commentary is welcome and useful (to *me*, and IMO to other readers of this blog)... even when I disagree with it. While I dont think it is unwelcome to Dilip I dont offer any opinion on that.
FWIW I "welcomed" lefty commenters on INI commentspaces in the hope of keeping them engaged there.
bye all,
Jai
Dilip,
Let me try to put my argument bit differently.
It's said that correlation is not necessarily the same as causation.
One of the important criteria to determine causation is repeatability of the cause-effect sequence.
The 'effect' in given case is rejection of Canadian visa. The stated cause is association with organizations accused of human rights violation.
If this causation is true, then each case of organized human rights violation must lead to rejection of Canadian visa. Has this been the case? No. So, either the correlation is spurious or causation is multifactorial (as pointed out by Jai).
Jai,
Thanks for the explanation about the welcome! I was just having some fun! Hope, it's alright with all concerned, most important, Dilip.
You'd once suggested that Chandru K & I are supporters of Hindutva. Speaking for myself, I find the concept of 'Hindutva' ridiculous if all it means is a deep sense of Indian-ness (which in turn in itself is quite an ambiguous term).
The reason I'm writing in this off-mark comment is because if you try to categorize my views one way or the other, you'd get my world view wrong.
In tests administered by The Political Compass, & other like that, I happen to be a leftist! I guess, it's difficult for almost any Indian to be a rightist with the kind of poverty, & attendant difficulties to survive & lack of opportunities we've seen. Yet, the ideology I possibly most deeply try to follow is to be found in two Ayn Rand novels - The Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged.
I'm an atheist, & in a way quite opposed to organized religion.
It is weird & unfortunate for the world of philosophy that liberal ideals based on skepticism, rationalism, naturalism, materialism (which lead to atheism) are seen as opposed to that of free market!
When did communism come to hijack liberalism?
Also, unfortunately because atheism came to be associated with the 'left' (communism), religious fanaticism/extremism came to be associated with the 'right'. 'Right-winger' is almost an abuse.
So well, I hope you might have gathered by now where I do stand on the right-left-liberal-fundamentalist divide! ;) Not that understanding my stand is vitally important, but hope you'll not (if you had been) view my arguments from a narrow perspective of their belonging to one broad ideology or the other!
In response to "'lefty' on INI"! :)
("NPNG" No Pain No Gain) What do you think of this case
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/world/middleeast/16yemen.html
where the man cannot get entry on to a plane, let alone a country. Is the FBI justified in discriminating against its own citizens? Chandu K & Chandru K maybe you can answer. ("ASITSN")
I wanted to reiterate that I am in Canada because they need my skills, (and they are plenty) not because of any kind of better life I might have here than in India. In fact my life would be far better in India than in this sinkhole of a country. But they need me, so I live here.
But that doesn't mean I cannot point out their double standards when it comes to human rights. They have no business talking human rights to a humane and compassionate democracy like India - the only one where we have fought dozens of insurgencies and more every day, getting stronger every day because guys like D'Souza and Siddharthan don't support India. So what if some thousands of lives are lost by the actions of the BSF? They are fighting to keep India united against a host of forces who would tear us apart. There will be collateral damage of lives lost.
If I wasn't needed here in Canada I would be there in a shot in India to support the BSF in its work, collateral damage or not. But this country (Canada) needs my skills.
"ASITSN"
Shouldn't that be "ASITS9"?
RS:
you are using it as the point of departure to criticise the excesses of our security forces.
I thought about this one. Actually I don't agree. I've criticised the excesses of our security forces for a long time, in sometimes specific terms. This was just an occasion where the issue came up (in more general terms, if you like), that's all. I'm actually with you: the visa case is irrelevant to the excesses of the security forces. All I would like is for there to be some answering for excesses. In that respect, I don't really care about a visa denial or otherwise.
I still can't see what's wrong if a country chooses to bring up excesses by our BSF. For one thing, there have been excesses. Like I said, we all know it. (The resident Canadian resident, or his alter ego or whatever it is, also appears to know it).
Look at another analogy. If someone who was in Haiti's Tonton Macoute applied for a visa to India, I would personally hope (and campaign) that we'd deny it to him, given the impression I have of the excesses of the TM. I don't find it inconceivable that people in other countries have such an impression of the BSF.
Here's another analogy. Someone I know met many members of a particular Army regiment that fought in Kargil. He spent a lot ot time with those men right after the war. They told him openly about horrible atrocities they had committed against enemy soldiers. To me, entirely understandable -- war makes people do ghastly things, and there was immense provocation on those slopes.
This friend told me he met so many such men that he (and because he told me, me too) formed a definite impression that this regiment was prone to atrocities. (As an aside, I've also seen writing by other journalists repeating this about this same regiment).
Is this "relevant", or "criticism", or what? I don't know, nor does it really matter. All I would hope is that when the next war comes around, this regiment will not commit these atrocities.
And if it's OK with all here, I think this is the last I'll say on the subject. I feel like I'm going in circles, and when I feel like that it's best to stop.
Very crafty to bring up Haiti and the Tonton Macoute- leaving aside Haiti's own tortured history where the US and before them, the French, played absolutely brutal roles, whether directly or indirectly in occupation, or propping up regimes like the Duvaliers. And it's safe to say( correct me if I'm wrong) that neither the US nor France suffered in terms of travel restrictions for their soldiers, and positively not from Canada. So let's not put on airs on behalf of the great advanced countries, the way "Dcubed" is doing. That's despicable.
Again, as far as the BSF goes, you would have to find a country that has as big a problem with infiltration and insurgency as India does, and is dealing with it in a far more humane and civilised way than India. That would be the most relevant and fairest comparison to make.
"I feel like I'm going in circles, and when I feel like that it's best to stop"
Beena ji ke saath bhi toh chakkar pe chakkar laga rahe the.. tab to koi problem nahi thi..
Fake "Chandru K" - please get your own id! Again, the last two comments (June 16 1038pm and 938pm) by that name are not by me, the real Chandru K.
I dont agree with the comparison to Tonton Macoute, because that was a criminal brutal gang of psychotics. There is no comparison to the noble aims and work of the BSF in India. I am disinclined to believe any talk of crimes by the BSF, which I know to be working to high standards of human rights.
"ASITSN" (A Stitch in Time Saves Nine). So yes, 9 could be at the end depending on your coding standards.
Chandru K (Fake, Canadian) so you stay in Canada purely because CANADA needs you? You have no interest in living in Canada. Yet, you cannot go to India like a shot. That must be sinkhole humour, I don't believe a word of it. You live in Canada because you want to do so and like it and don't have the guts to move back to India and support the BSF.
"WISFTGISFTG"
That's a very weak argument i.e that in order to defend or praise another country's institutions or ideology, you really must live or move back to that country. Cliched as it sounds, we live in a globalised world, where there is open, free discussion on a range of issues, like the environment, human rights, history, technology, sports and yes, politics.
To the other Chandru K, this should not really be a comparison between the BSF and the Tonton Macoute; it was D'Souza who brought in that comparison. Rather, between *both* of them and the security forces( including colonial occupation armies) of the UK, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, the US and yes, even Canada itself.
> "Rather, between *both* of them
> and the security forces(
> including colonial occupation
> armies) of the UK, France,
> Belgium, Portugal, Spain, the US
> and yes, even Canada itself"
I had to rub my eyes in disbeleif when I read this. Is this Chandru character really equating BSF to the Tontons Macoutes, one of the most criminal and notorious gangs of the 20th century? Is he really trying to find some 3rd world or anti-colonial solidarity with the dregs of humankind?
This is nauseating.
Who said anything about equating the two? Actually, it is Dcubed who made the equation. The BSF should be assessed based on number and nature of threats it has to deal with, and how its conduct compares with other paramilitary entities in the world faced with similar circumstances. This is what I've been saying all along. The comparison, not equation, with the Tonton Macoute, should be made in order to come to the correct conclusion that they are in fact *not* equivalent.
Anonymous June 16 938: your remark must have hit home!! Note please how Chandru K has now started saying "Dcubed".
Chandru, at least have the guts to stand behind what you said, and what you said was pretty clear: "this should not really be a comparison between the BSF and the Tonton Macoute - Rather, between *both* of them and the security forces( including colonial occupation armies) of the UK, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, the US and yes, even Canada itself."
ie BSF and TM on one side, colonial occupation armies etc on the other.
Sounds like Gurpreet was right, this is at attempted solidarity btw BSF and what he calls the "Dregs of humankind".
I cant understand how this is a defence of the BSF.
by theway which Chandru K are you anyway? You are addressing yourself in one comment above. Can anyone here follow the multiple identies and arguments that look the same to me anyway? Is it just only one Chandru K trying to fool us for some reason since long?
(same anonymous as above)
Someone I know met many members of a particular Army regiment that fought in Kargil. He spent a lot ot time with those men right after the war. They told him openly about horrible atrocities they had committed against enemy soldiers. To me, entirely understandable -- war makes people do ghastly things, and there was immense provocation on those slopes.
So Dilip - could you please enlighten the rest of us ill informed mortals about the 'horrible atrocities'? If firing and killing enemy soldiers in defence is a horrible atrocity, then i have nothing to add. But if there was something else done to those dregs, please let us know.
No mention here of how Saurav Kalia and his regiment were brutally tortured.
So rule is believe anything negative said about India and its troops and treat it as gospel truth, while always willing to disbelieve anyhting said about Pakistan or at least treat it with a pinch of salt.
But we know by now that torture and killing of Indian soldiers / Hindus and trashing eveything about India is something you seem to approve of.
could you please enlighten the rest of us ill informed mortals about the 'horrible atrocities'?
No. Find out for yourself if it interests you. Or please feel free to disbelieve me, which you do anyway.
As for Saurav Kalia, please also feel free to make all the insinuations you want about that. I'll remain content with my visit to meet his family -- I was the first journalist to visit them after what happened to their son. I know what they said to me, I have an idea of all they felt, I have copies of their correspondence with Army and Government officers, and I wrote about it all several times. Yes, please continue with your insinuation.
Please continue to believe that I approve of torture.
No. Find out for yourself if it interests you. Or please feel free to disbelieve me, which you do anyway.
Why Dilip? The onus is on the person who makes the allegations about the integrity of the armed forces (which I consider a great institution with a great degree of integrity compared to others in India) - which are quite serious by the way.
As for Saurav Kalia, please also feel free to make all the insinuations you want about that. I'll remain content with my visit to meet his family -- I was the first journalist to visit them after what happened to their son. I know what they said to me, I have an idea of all they felt, I have copies of their correspondence with Army and Government officers, and I wrote about it all several times.
Good for that. But the crux of his fathers petition is mentioned here
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060409/himachal.htm#1
Did you take this up with respected Beenaji? This was done by theor armed forces. Contrast this with our armed forces who, in war zones, have behaved more admirably.
BTW even Vajpayee visited the Gujarat refugee camps but did not carry out the tough decisions, but he should be flayed by you for that.
The onus is on the person who makes the allegations about the integrity of the armed forces ... [etc]
Shows how little you've read and followed what happened in Kargil.
Contrast this with our armed forces who, in war zones, have behaved more admirably.
When you refuse to believe what soldiers themselves have said about the fighting, of course you will believe they behaved "more admirably".
No more from me on this, so please believe what you like.
Shows how little you've read and followed what happened in Kargil.
Do the usual trick when cornered. Hurl allegations etc. You used the word 'horrible atrocities'. This word is quite loaded and is equivalent to what happened in 1984,1990, 1992, 2002 - pick any riot, bombings by terrorists in India, ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri pandits and you can see the gist of what I am saying.
Now did our forces in Kargill do anything remotely anything in Kargill happen that can be compared to the above? torture and merciless slaughter of enemy soldiers (BTW our soldiers were not the invaders at all)
Yes. I followed the Kargill skirmish and have read a lot about it.
Nothing more from me either.
"this should not really be a comparison between the BSF and the Tonton Macoute - Rather, between *both* of them and the security forces( including colonial occupation armies) of the UK, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, the US and yes, even Canada itself."
Yes, I said that. But not to morally equate the BSF and Tonton Macoute. Such innuendo was made by Dcubed/D'Souza. Nor to express solidarity between the two. Rather, to compare their behaviour and the resulting moral outrage/diplomatic policies toward them, and that of the security forces of Belgium, Portugal, France, the UK etc.
"Is it just only one Chandru K trying to fool us for some reason since long?"
Positively not. If you look at the remarks of the 'other' Chandru K, you can notice a real reactive and sarcastic tone to the postings i.e when he refers to the brave BSF fighting against insurgencies and killing people as collateral damage, or when refers to being in Canada because it needs his skills.
Nikhil, considering what that war meant to India, can I at the least kindly request you to spell the name right? It is Kargil, not with "ll" at the end. The spelling matters to people like me who fought in that war and lost friends and colleagues.
As a matter of aside. I have no interest in identifying myself here, but I have personal knowledge of what would be called horrible things done by Indian soldiers. I make no apologies for this and neither would they do the same, because as the blog owner says terrible things are done in wars - and yes also being that there was extreme provocation.
"but I have personal knowledge of what would be called horrible things done by Indian soldiers."
The Indian soldiers were fighting uphill,literally and figuratively. They had heard of the heinous atrocity against Saurabh Kalia. And the war itself was a sneak attack. They deserve the benefit of the doubt in every one of those cases you refer to.
Pvs commenter, please be so kind as to avoid commenting on things you know nothing about, eg my comment before your's.
I have followed your attitude and views here with disgust. I am thankful none of my colleagues in uniform think like you. Please dont bother replying to this as I have nothing further to say to you.
"Pvs commenter, please be so kind as to avoid commenting on things you know nothing aboutI have followed your attitude and views here with disgust. I am thankful none of my colleagues in uniform think like you."
Okay, request granted. But I'm not even sure what profound issue it is we disagree about. I'm totally sympathetic to the Indian army's travails in Kargil, and I oppose the(temporary) Canadian visa restriction on the BSF. But if you are so fanatically intolerant that you get so disgusted so easily, perhaps it is better that I don't respond to any more of your remarks.
"WISFTG.."(What is sauce for the goose...)
Chandru Ks (both of you): Kindly have respect for members of India's armed forces. Your happiness depends on them. Even if you are in Canada and hostage to your great skills. Can you kindly go and infest some other blog now?
Soldier Anonymous: I salute you.
"MMQQHDYGG"
"If you look at the remarks of the 'other' Chandru K,"
which one is that?? i am confused again. i thought you referred to your skills being necessary to canada, etc.
"MMQQHDYGG"(Mary Mary Quite Quantrary - oops)
Anonymous soldier, undoubtedly there is only one Chandru K. He is doubling his pleasure and our pain. I hope this is the last we see of both of them.
"OMDHAF"
"i thought you referred to your skills being necessary to canada, etc."
That was one of the sarcastic remarks made by the 'other' person using my name. The same guy also mocks my postings by using phraseology like 'comparatively minor events like the Delhi riots of 1984' and 'valiant BSF killing innocent civilians as necessary collateral damage' Not exact quotes. But the tone and tenor are not mine.
"That was one of the sarcastic remarks made by the 'other' person using my name."
more confusion. to me, "other" person and "you" are no different, i didnt even know they were not same person. only time i have thought theres a different person is when you point to a particular posting and say that was not by you. so why dont you do that for all postings which are not by you, if they actuaklly are not by you?? right now your only success is in confusing everyone abt who you are, but maybe you planned it that way.
Don't be silly Anonymous. If I do that, then the 'other' character will step in and assert that the previous post is not by him, but by someone using his name. And the circus will continue. I'm going to have to start using those abbreviations people have suggested.
What gives you the impression that I'm a joker? If you have read my postings, they are pretty serious. Whether the topic is the Gujarat riots and their connection/lack thereof to terrorism; the failure of large numbers of Moslems and Christians to identify with the Indic heritage; partition and India/Pakistan; the perverse interest in Indian communal riots displayed by non-Indian 'scholars' like Paul Brass.
Calling my positions flawed is one thing, but they are earnest and serious.
"What gives you the impression that I'm a joker?"
this is a serious question??
ans: you.
you, with your multiple identities that sound the same, but then try to point to the other guy to say you'r not him, or he's not you, or both not somebody else.
and this is before you're twisted view of hindus and indians. dont get me started on that.
A slip of my fingers caused a couple of postings to fall under "Anonymous", which I corrected in the next post. After this, some joker started mocking me with sarcastic messages using language like "comparatively minor incidents like Delhi in 1984".
Incidentally, what are some of your weightier messages, not including the ones criticising my posts?
CKFC
If you people (last few comments) cannot discuss this post in your comments and are only intent on calling each other joker and the like, may I request you to take it elsewhere? thank you.
Immigration on a whole is very beneficial to Canada and its residents. History tells repeatedly that it is human kind that loses its previleges. Immigration is good for Canada and its people in any way you consider but the undeue advantage taken by a few people in the name of refugee act bestowed by Canadian government is being highly misused. We have to wait and see how far Canada can allow people in the name of refugees. Of course, humanitarian concerns are to be given the highest priority for human kind’s development and survival but misuse of a syustm is highly deplorable. Let us all pray that the gates of immigration be not closed for all those good people and eligible aspirants just because of the refugees who infiltrate this country and can be a bigger and unsolvable problem. As of now Canada is large in heart and resources.
Just read today that Canada may give or has already given a visa to Shri Narendra Modi....dont know for sure but saw it on a couple of sites incl rediff.
Maybe they're only concerned about unimportant ppl who served in forces that were known to commit atrocities rather than anybody who might have had more culpability and responsibility...
oh i dont know i'll leave it to others to cut this cloth and fit it.
thanks,
Jai
Post a Comment