Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfmag.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!sfmag!rajeev From: rajeev@sfmag.UUCP (S.Rajeev) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Rajiv Gandhi takes a cue from the ultra-Zionists Message-ID: <827@sfmag.UUCP> Date: Sun, 22-Dec-85 09:59:04 EST Article-I.D.: sfmag.827 Posted: Sun Dec 22 09:59:04 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 05:47:51 EST References: <11260@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <129@uscvax.UUCP> Distribution: net.politics Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Summit, NJ Lines: 63 uscvax!baparao's response to brahms!lazarus: > In article <11260@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> lazarus@brahms.UUCP (Andrew J Lazarus) writes: > > > >The Sunday 12/15 and Tuesday 12/17 _NY Times_ contain some interesting > >news about elections in the Indian state of Assam. You may remember > >Assam as a state in NE India where riots 2 years ago killed thousands > >of Muslim refugees from Bangladesh. (The rioters were Assamese and Hindu > >Indians.) Minor quibble: Assamese happen to be Indians too; and quite a few of them are Hindus. > >The Indian government quelled these riots with an agreement, which, > >according to the newspaper, included these provisions: 1. Immigrants > >from after 1971 would be expelled from Assam, in some cases back to > >Bangladesh. This affects between 500,000 and 1 million people. > >(i.e. about the population of the West Bank) 2. Immigrants from > >between 1966 and 1971 (tens of thousands more) may remain but lose > >the right to vote for ten years. > > > >I look forward to a justification of these events from certain persons > >who criticise the Israeli government for pursuing a rather similar > >(perhaps even more moderate!) policy..... > > > > Huh? I was under the impression that Israel "immigrated" to the West Bank, > while the Arabs there were native to that place. In the case of Assam, it is > just the opposite: the people being disenfranchised are Bangladeshi (then > East Pakistani) refugees from the war of 1971 who illegally remained (they > were definitely not naturalized Indian citizens), and the people demanding > their disenfranchisement and expulsion are native Assamese. Only (crooked) Bapa Rao is quite right in pointing out the inaccuracy of the analogy made by brahms!lazarus. A more accurate analogy (though not perfect) would be the following: How would Israel react if 500,000 Iranians "immigrated" and demanded Israeli citizenship? How would the USA react if 10 million poor Mexicans walked over the Texas border and settled down? I think the answer to the second question is fast becoming evident, with the Simpson-Mazzoli bill and so on. > >Why is the Arab/Israeli > >conflict is at the center of the stage -- no UN session is complete > >without a new anti-Zionist declaration -- while stories like these > >remain on the back pages? > Yes, why indeed? And why not similar incidents in nations Brahms probably considers paragons of moral rectitude: a) Britain has stopped immigration from its former colonies (though its non-indigenous population is miniscule, some 1% or so) because of fears of being "swamped culturally" [Enoch Powell: paraphrased]; b) France's Algerian population is facing more and more racism courtesy of Monsieur Le Pen [recent NYT report about how the traditional French symbol, Marianne, appears garbed in Arab dress in one of Le Pen's inflammatory tracts about the Arabization of France; c) Turkish 'gastarbeiters' were welcomed to do the menial labour in West Germany, but must now be ejected ... [Note that all these groups of immigrants were perfectly legal, unlike the Bangladeshis who immigrated illegally to Assam]. And in none of these cases does the sheer number of immigrants threaten to overwhelm the locals as in the case of Assam. So by all means, have the UN look into Assam, as soon as it has finished solving the human rights problems in Argentina, Afghanistan, South Africa, Cambodia,... Sri Rajeev.