Via the New York Times blog, The Lede, I’ve been looking at a number of links regarding India’s Border Security Force (BSF). The starting point for the coverage in the Times was the news in the Deccan Herald that 178 women have, for the first time, joined the force. But the real story The Lede blogger, Robert Mackey, is interested in are the numerous reports of abuses by the BSF, specifically the killing of unarmed people on both sides of the India-Bangladesh border, including both Bangladeshis and Indian citizens. The Lede embeds the following BBC Channel 4 report on the abuses, which is pretty horrifying:
There is obviously a huge problem when the BSF can shoot unarmed people with impunity. But this report by Jonathan Rugman also has some problems, which need to be addressed.
First, how big a problem is it? The numbers are a little confusing. The BSF itself reports 5000 “militants/extremists” killed since 1990, but there is pretty clear evidence that they are under-reporting total deaths (perhaps they simply aren’t reporting deaths of unarmed people at all). For the Channel 4 reporter at least, it was relatively easy to find many villagers on both sides of the border with relatives who had been killed — who were obviously not “militants/extremists.”
That said, there are some problems in the story above, and in Robert Mackey’s blog post about it. One is the inclusion of footage from a “BSF Recruiting video” by both reporters. In fact, you can see the video on YouTube, and it seems highly unlikely to me that “Kashsoldier,” the author of the video, is putting together his various amateur videos for official Indian military use. I wonder why they think his videos are official recruiting videos? Amy I missing something? (Would the Indian armed forces really be using American heavy metal music to recruit Indian soldiers?)
Second, in the Channel 4 coverage I linked to above, there is a good deal of what seems like irrelevant material inserted, confusing the story. The historical references to partition, and footage of places where the border between India and Bangladesh is a mere alleyway, do not relate to the people being shot around the fence. If I understand the story correctly, people are not being shot in those alleys.
Finally, the reporter, Jonathan Rugman, doesn’t really attempt to bring the two issues discussed in the story together in an adequate way. On the one hand, he is interested in the massive border fence between India and Bangladesh that is being constructed. But he is also interested in the BSF’s frequent killing of unarmed villagers, who are either crossing the border illegally, or simply working on land that happens to be a little too close to the fence. But is there a connection between the two issues? Have the numbers of killings shot up since the fence was constructed? One presumes that is what has happened, but Rugman also mentions that the BSF has been much more aggressive since the 11/26 attacks in Mumbai. So which is the main cause of these killings of unarmed people?
I’m not saying the report about the BSF isn’t still chilling. But Jonathan Rugman’s coverage of leaves something to be desired; a supporter of the Indian military might be able to find some holes.
I’m a bit conflicted here. You don’t have to convince me of the brutality/casual cruelty of the Indian police towards its own citizens, so that the BSF might be trigger happy does not require a suspension of disbelief on my part. Furthermore I have no doubt that the majority of Bangladeshi illegals are being driven into India by unimaginably desperate circumstances (given India is desperately poor as well), not a desire to wage jihad. But as I have stated in another post in a similar thread, it is very reasonable for India to annex Bangladeshi territory to support this new population. India doesn’t exactly have a labor shortage or an abundance of resources, hopefully some of you progressives can accept that (or have you drunk the “India is Shining” kool-aid too ?)
swati, please don’t turn this into a fob/ABD deal. Not all us fobs share your views. You certainly aren’t speaking for me. There are plenty of homegrown murderers where I’m from, so I wouldn’t ever be so naive as to suggest that this was somehow solely due to the fact that these were illegal immigrants. Do I think we should have open borders? No. But it would help our case all around if we cleaned up our own messes.
On a related note, here’s
Forgot to link. Here it is.
The BSF atrocities are not new. They exercise a shoot on site order in the border and because of that many innocent people were killed alongwith some smugglers/infiltrators. Here in the BSF report, they have killed 5000 extremists, I mean who gave the authority to determine whether a person is extremists or not. They have of course the right to defend when attacked. Did all the killings happened when they were under attack? I mean did those innocent farmers pointed a gun before they were killed? Does Indian constitution support the shoot at site order?
A Bangladeshi has sued BSF for illegally intruding in Bangladesh and killing his brothers: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/bangladeshi-man-sues-indias-bsf-for-killing-brother_100123615.html
Some numbers:
33 people were killed by BSF in the first 5 months of 2009 54 Bangladeshis were killed by BSF in 2008 http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=275595
102 Bangladeshis were killed by BSF in 2007 http://www.odhikar.org/documents/hr_report_2007.pdf
427 Bangladeshis were killed by BSF during 2002-2006 http://www.newagebd.com/2006/jul/17/nat.html
OK, I am just a dumb ABD, but–(1) the India-Bangla border seems to be resulting in too much death–but I’d like to know more about the details before I form a strong conclusion, (2) stop, please, with the weird anti-Amardeep stuff–he is an honest person, (3) Swati, can we have dinner next time (October) I’m in Delhi?
Amardeep,
The India-Bangladesh border is a total mess. Not only does the border run across villages in some cases, there is also the unsorted problem of the “enclaves” (parts of Bangladesh within Indian territory and vice versa). All this makes patrolling of the border a very difficult task. The failure to settle the border problem over the nearly 40 years since the formation of Bangladesh must be shared by both countries.
From an Indian perspective – and Bangladeshis will undoubtedly have a different perspective as Rezwan’s comment illustrates – one major problem is that Bangladesh refuses to even acknowledge that there is a problem of infiltration. But there is, and in some cases, the infiltration is large enough to have changed the demographics of some North-eastern states. Tripura is a good example where the migration from Bangladesh over the years has reduced the native Tripuris to a 28% minority in their own state. If you look at the list of chief ministers of Tripura, you will see that most of them have been Bengalis. In Assam, one major component of the problem is again the migration from Bangladesh. (The other part is the feeling among many Asamiyas that while New Delhi has been quick to exploit the state’s wealth [oil, tea], it has given very little back.)
All this, needless to say, does not excuse BSF atrocities. But I had two problems with the Channel 4 program. One, their attempt to put a Hindu-Muslim spin on the issue. They interviewed villagers in Bangladesh and India; fine, but why mention that the Bangladeshi villagers were Muslim and the Indian villagers Hindu? What did that have to do with anything? Incidentally, Bangladesh does have a significant Hindu population and the migration into India contains both Hindus and Muslims. And a significant section of the people in Murshidabad (India) are actually Muslim!
Secondly, I am surprised to see that the Channel 4 program did not see fit to mention (except very briefly) that Bangladesh also has the equivalent of the BSF, the Bangladesh Rifles or BDR. The program makes it appear that the BSF has a free reign in the border and that the Bangladeshi villagers are totally helpless. In some cases, no doubt. But in some other cases, the BDR – as corrupt as any other in the sub-continent – is also present. It is not exactly timid either; in an incident in 2001, it killed 16 BSF personnel. It was reported, and I don’t know how true this is, that many of the BSF soldiers’ bodies bore the imprint of torture. I think part of the Indian case is that the BDR, even where present, doesn’t do enough to stop infiltration.
Anyway, as an Indian, I don’t care what the BDR do or don’t do. I do wish that the Indian government would take this issue seriously. But given the unwarranted defensiveness of many Indians towards the defense forces – as can be seen here in this thread – that doesn’t look likely. Love of our (I mean Indian) defense forces – and I am an admirer of them – does not mean having to excuse or rationalize every crime they commit or are accused of committing.
By all maens, please feel free to paint shades of grey on this issue. It’s rife for not having them, so I injected what little I could based on little knowledge. Here are some though:
Bangla-speakers are allegedly routinely denied ration cards in Delhi, whether they are Bangladeshi or INdian, on suspicion of being undocumented. I have no verification for this, so take it for what you will.
The course of the river changed in Murshidabad so now people in that district in India now cross the border for routine tasks, from what I heard from a reporter friend of mine who did a story on it for Mint.
No one knows how many Bangladeshis there are in India, but I would hazard a guess that the total number of Bangladeshis divided by the total number of people plotting to commit violence in Bangladesh is probably 0 unless you take it to several significant digits. Given that there is an enormous surplus of labor in both Bangladesh and India, and Bangladeshi, entrepreneurs that they are, emigrate everywhere, it’s hardly shocking there are a lot of Bangladeshis emigrating there. What is more shockingi s that Indians who have enough cultural and economic capital to be on the INternets will occasionally refer to Bangladeshis as “pests” “terrorists” or other – so if you want shades of grey, a first step could be to tell these people to stfu so we can have a real conversation. There ARE real issues, but they are largely a relic of the past or “ordinary” state-state border issues or a product of the regional political-religious cmomunal tensions (in that sense, Bangladeshi Hindus and Gujarati Muslims have much in common).
Palestinians in Lebanon, South Asians in the gulf, Mexicans and Bangladeshis and others in the U.S., and others who are migrants/ guestworkers/ undocumented people/ “illegal” tend to engage in the same sorts of low wage labor from what I’ve observed: contruction; domestic work; etc.
So absent any real discussion of the issues, what will have to suffice is “ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.”
Oh, and no discussion of this issue would be complete without drawing attention to what happened during the 1971 war in India- the Congress government under Indira Gandhi had many, many troops in West Bengal and the Congress and/or the Congress and CPI(M) together rooted out the most radical leftists in West Bengali, summarily killing them. This too, is a product of border paranoia gone awry.
You’re a good soul, Meluhhan. I will take this as inspiration as an ABD to make similar statements 🙂 Though I think I should get ABDLIDTOAITAA (American Born Desi, Live in Desh Twice, Once As Infant, Then As Adult) 🙂
What would happen if a series of deadly blasts happen in US, and later it was found out that the perpetrators entered US through the Mexican border ? Will there be more security on the border? Will the border guards be under more pressure to stop anyone from entering illegally?
i disagree.
Thanks Amardeep, for this post. It is an important topic, and the BSF definitely needs more training. But the lede blogger’s blogging style does not deserve to be in an acclaimed newspaper, given the bait and switch tactics he has employed with the content differing significantly from the title. Plus, it is poorly researched. He should have also mentioned number of deaths in the BSF forces (much higher than in army).
One can’t blame desperately poor people to cross the border to search for possibly better life. But, one has to remember that the resources are much more limited in India than in US, and the population very high, leading to intense competition even for the basic necessities, causing for bitterness amongst many desi’s who had actually had to fight for every need. But blaming Bangladeshi immigrants for terrorism is absolutely wrong, as most are poor people trying to make a living. On the other hand, the porosity of the border has allowed terrorists (not necessarily from Bangladesh) to use it as corridor to enter India and to run away to Bangladesh after an atrocious act. I would be glad if there is a wall in that case and many lives (both BSF and civilians) are spared.
Can’t blame Bangladeshis for fleeing: http://www.hrcbm.org/
Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities http://www.hrcbm.org
Your standard for decency is the migration policy of the U.S. during a period of paranoia?
Why this silence on organised anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh? http://www.interfaithstrength.com/images/Pogrom.html
Terrorism in South Asian countries http://www.satp.org
Hey Sameer, soon you will learn that there is never a right time to ask these questions. Never ask in polite company or you will be labeled a Hindutvaadi
Actually the drift of Sameer’s questions supports the basic point I am trying to make — that it’s very important that the BSF stop this practice of shooting unarmed people. Some people are crossing the border for economic reasons, some might be political/religious refugees. A very small number might be potential terrorists. The correct thing to do is to detain and question everyone crossing the border illegally.
From Channel4 blogs
Yeah right. Hindus don’t eat meat. 🙂
No Amardeep, I was referring to his first link regarding the abuses against Hindus in Bangladesh. There is never the right time to discuss these things, even when people are discussing human rights from a South Asian perspective (I would agree that when you look at it from an India perspective it would be a red herring as Hindus are the majority community). There is casual interest in abuses committed by the BDF expressed in some of the comments above but you can be assured that it won’t go beyond that. Ditto for the abuses against Bangladeshi-Hindus that drive them across the border to experience the same destitution in a new place. Anyone who has interest in the overall political orientation of the groups producing these videos/reports would be accused of diversionary tactics, but how did groups like ASATA react to the HAF report several years ago? Utter hypocrisy….
Probably because the issue of Bangladeshi Hindus and the violence and repercussions they’ve faced is most frequently raised in discussions on SM and similar spaces from a Hindu rights standpoint, rather than a human rights framework, a minority rights framework, and there is a perception (perhaps accurate) that it comes from people and organisations that rarely express sympathy for human rights and minority rights abuses that happen to non-Hindus. So it seems like the issue is being raised to promote an agenda of ‘Hindu’ victimhood rather than in an interest in the actual welfare of Bangladeshis who happen to be Hindus (for example, why are Bangladeshi Ahmadis, poor people, women, LGBT, labor activists, and others not included, let alone Indian Muslims and dalits and adivasis, women, and poor people, Pakistani Ahmadis and bonded labourers, everyone in Sri Lanka who is a victim of Sinhala Chauvinism or other communitarian violence, etc.).
However, that said, I agree that it is a real issue, like the other ones listed above. there is this from Amnesty International on Bangladeshi Hindus in 2001 and this from 2008. this from the same organisation on Bangladeshi Ahmadis in 2004. There is this from the UNHCR. There is this letter from Human Rights Watch to Sheikh Hasina earlier in 2009. And of course there is Lajja.
So the argument that no one is doing anything is not accurate, though obviously, it, like the sinking of the Maldives into the ocean and deaths inj Bangladesh because of climate change, is one of many underemphised issues in South Asia. Perhaps if you were to link to articles like this that offer a more broadbased and evenhanded defense of human rights around the world, people would be more sympathetic to the issue being raised. Then people could understand the links between violence against Hindus in Bangbladesh, Muslims in India, and other minority or disempowered groups in South Asia and you would be able to accomplish your goal of seeing that the human beings in bangladesh who are being discriminated against or subjected to violence would receive some measure of solidarity from other people.
If that’s your interest 😉
Nice use of “probably” Amnonsense, absolves you of the responsibility of actually reading the HAF report. I guess this means we can casually disregard the reports by Indian Muslim organizations
Amnonsense believes that objections to murder & rape incited by Bangla political parties is an assertion of Hindu rights. Disgusting.
I hear you. But I don’t care, that is a reflection of them not me. Is a person who speaks up for Sikhs whose voices have not been heard a Sikhvaadi? A Muslim a Muslimvaadi? Buddhavaadi? Jainvaadi? No. I am a pro-Obama American liberal. I see no contradiction in being both a liberal and a Hindu. To me liberalism includes speaking up for Hindus just as much as any other group. What I find is that often times because Hinduism is the majority in India it is looked over. For instance, someone posted stuff about the Indian Army in Kashmir. I agree where they crossed the line they should be held accountable, but where were the links of atrocities by militants against Kashmiris (http://www.ikashmir.net/slides/refugees/index.html), especially the ones who are of a different religion from the militants and are thus a particular target? Why is the Indian Army stuck there in Kashmir? Zadari admits that Pakistan created and nurtured terrorists. I think there is a lack of getting down to root causes of problems. As for this article, I think much more needs to be fleshed out, which I think Amardeep is trying to get. For that you need to look at what is going on over there to cause people to flee, and the terrorism going on in India which causes the BSF to be more nervous. You should also look at what terrorist groups have connections to other terrorists groups in other countries.
who doesn’t speak up about these other atrocities?
if you are going to point only to those who discount those atrocities, surely there’s at least an equal number on the other side who discount these, as we can see even from this thread? why is an appropriate response to what the bsf might be doing “but the bangladeshis are so bad”?
It is quite interesting to read Dr A’s justifications above. The same people who at the drop of a jhola would whip out their scented candles and protest on the streets for any issue (Bangladeshi Ahmadis, poor people, women, LGBT, labor activists, and others not included, let alone Indian Muslims and dalits and adivasis, women, and poor people, Pakistani Ahmadis and bonded labourers, everyone in Sri Lanka who is a victim of Sinhala Chauvinism or other communitarian violence) that touches their tender sensibilities would be found mysteriously absconding when you so much as mention the issues of Kashmiri Pandits and Bangladeshi/Pakistani Hindus. It is natural that these incidents would be reported and raised by Hindu rights groups as they are part of a very specific religion based oppression. It in no way precludes the more secular people like Dr A from looking at them from their more enlightened perspective of human rights . So why this lack of interest? It comes from an extreme fear of being labeled a Knicker-wallah and a Hindutvavadi by their own peer group (a fate far worse than becoming a hypocrite) or perhaps a visceral aversion to Hinduism (With it’s persecution of dalits, women, adivasis, Muslims, Christians — they have earned their Karma. Let God sort them out). Ever seen Arundhati Roy shed a tear for any of the groups I mentioned?
havent seen you shed a tear, even anonymously, for these groups on this post or others either. is that because you are afraid of being called secular, or a visceral aversion to Muslims?
i dont particularly care about dr amonymous or arundathi roy’s views, but be aware of where you are too.
So you agree that I am evenhanded in my neglect to shed tears about groups like Bangladeshi Ahmadis, poor people, women, LGBT, labor activists, and others not included, let alone Indian Muslims and dalits and adivasis, women, and poor people, Pakistani Ahmadis and bonded labourers, everyone in Sri Lanka who is a victim of Sinhala Chauvinism or other communitarian violence,yet you suggest that I might have a visceral aversion to muslims only. Why just muslims? why not everyone in the above group? Why can’t I be a generic misanthope? It is because you have labeled me a Hindutva-vadi and thus by default anti-Muslim in your mind. Exactly what I was talking about. I would welcome any accusations of secularism that are ever hurled in my direction. I shall wear them proudly in the buttonhole of my Nehru jacket.
way to hold on to a figleaf when you know exactly why i said what i said. i will ask if you have a visceral aversion to anybody who doesn’t identify as hindu?
it is a spectacular ability of hindutvavaadis to make every conversation about hindutva, but hindutva is anti-muslim, whatever fancy footwork you might try to do to avoid being labeled as such.
anyways, when you feel the need to point out other people’s selective sympathies and animosities based on religion, examine your own.
If the Americans experienced the number of bombings and deaths as India has over the last two decades, and the resulting terror, almost every able bodied Muslim male living in America [undocumented and documented] would either be deported, incarcerated or under very close watch. And if it turned out that the perpetrators had entered the country via the southern border, the U.S. national guard would be deployed along the border, with shoot to kill orders.
a. hindus don’t eat beef (cattle provide beef) b. even hindus seem to believe hindus don’t eat meat.
your argument being?
internment of ww2 japanese-americans and german-americans was ok then?
a. you still haven’t answered why you feel the need to say that only one side of the debate is represented? this seems like the liberal media bs that conservatives whine about. as well as the liberal reality bias that requires them to start a conservapedia. b. what i see is not your speaking up for other groups, but only speaking up for hindus even when the conversation is about other groups. of course, it is your right to express whatever opinion you want, but people will evaluate your credibility based on your selective sympathies, just like they do for those on the other side like roy.
At this time borders between India and Muslim nations are going to be dangerous…
The short answer is no. The long answer is….well…No. You see I am not a very religious person. Oh and I also eat beef, and love pork too. As I’ve said before, Rajan Zed doesn’t get to issue fatwas.
So I am one because you keep insisting I am one?
Oh yeah! And they also eat babies.
So to summarise, because I pointed out how hypocritical it is for secular human rights-wallahs to selectively ignore terrible crimes against Hindus, it makes me a Hindutva-vaadi and anti Muslim. Right….
Well someone has to. It would spare us the job if the liberal rights uncles and aunties had more integrity. Anyway, I will desist from further discussions about Hindutva or your other pet peeves as it is clearly off topic.
This is not necessarily true. There are plenty of Hindu communities that have always traditionally eaten beef. Somewhere along the way, the idea of “Hinduism” became more or less according to certain factions’ interpretations.
catholics don’t use contraception
I shouldn’t have said “interpretation.” What I meant is their particular practices of what is called Hinduism.
oohh the librul mediaz. they so bad. boo!
my pet peeves? i wasn’t the one who brought up “ooh look bangladeshis kill hindus” in relation to bsf stuff.
i’ll take your word for it given what was done to pregnant women as part of the gujarat riots…
But they have it!! Lots of it.
Aaahhh! Now we are cooking.
because only one side of the debate is represented. media bias is something real whether you hope to wish it away or not. aside from stray commenters who have pointed out the plight of bangadeshi hindus, have we ever had a serious post here on sepia about that? do we ever read about the catastrophic drop in hindus from 30% at partition to 15% in 1971 to 8% now. just take the case of pakistan. only 10% of the 25% of people who were hindus made it across the border during partition. there are only 1% now. what happened to the other 14%? in comparison, the population of muslims in india has gone up from 10% at partition to 13% and by some estimates 15%, but clearly the conduct of the bsf is a far more pressing matter since Indians are the only ones ever required to do any introspection. And please, do continue to rail about hindutvavaadis, who ask for uniform civil codes and the restoration of illegally taken holy sites (which btw, somnath was an example of. auragzeb destroyed the 5th temple at somnath and built a mosque, but the congress government under Nehru, respectfully relocated the mosque and rebuilt the ancient shiva temple there. that was what your “venomous” hindutvavaadis were originally clamoring for before the waqf board said “nein”). clearly they are far worse than the army in pak or jamaat/bdr in bangladesh.
 the fact of the matter is, whatever the conduct of the bsf, what is happening in bangladesh to hindus and what already happened to hindus is pakistan is real genocide. not “the arundhati roy, cast out all fact and call gujarat a genocide” genocide but real genocide–as in the institutionalized extermination of an entire people within a society. what happened in gujarat (which to all but the foolish would appear to be two way riots) was tragic and horrible. but both communities were victimized and made homeless. so please get your facts straight.
On this point you are right: all groups must be spoken up for. tears should be shed for all communities who suffered in all riots, not just the gujarat ones. i am talking from a purely human rights perspective. however, since the plight of hindus is not deemed fashionable to take up, the only people who have the courage to speak about it are the Lupus Solitarii of the world, and immediately they are branded hindutvavadis…
btw, if you are serious about researching the genocide being committed against hindus in bangladesh. look up richard benkin: http://www.dailypioneer.com/190435/A-terrifying-existence.html. but until then, let’s return to our daily TOI and NDTV and wring our hands at the sky about the “suffering” of emraan hashmi who couldn’t buy a flat in a posh locale. clearly, his plight is worse than the bangladeshi hindu peasant thrown off her lands at the point of a sword…so let’s have the media focus on him.
a simple search will show you that amardeep has posted about pakistan’s treatment of hindus. also in support of sonal shah. vv about the treatment of minorities in singapore and malaysia. and so on and so forth.
but continue on with your excuses of grievance mongering, and such statements as “what is happening in bangladesh to hindus and what already happened to hindus is pakistan is real genocide. not “the arundhati roy, cast out all fact and call gujarat a genocide” genocide but real genocide-” and the “real” media bias. may you find solace in the india tv channel.
a. interesting you choose to mention emraan hashmi, not amitabh bachchan or karan johar and so on. b. what does emraan hashmi’s inability to get a home, ostensibly because he is a muslim, have to do with the plight of bangladeshi hindus? (i have no idea if his complaints are grounded in reality or not) c. would it be ok to talk about the tons of middle class muslims and single women who are denied homes because of their religion or status? or is that not allowed to talk about that too because hindus are being killed in bangladesh? d. at what point are people allowed to start talking about anything other than hindus being killed in bangladesh? e. are we allowed to talk about hindus being killed in bangladesh when sudanese are being killed in darfur? f. are we allowed to talk about sudanese being killed in darfur when uighurs are being killed by the chinese?
media bias complaints are whines that “i don’t like that you’re talking about somebody that i have no sympathy for, talk about me all day all the time”.
ooookay 🙂
you folks, the self-proclaimed guardians of hinduism, do hindus much credit, btw, with your me-me-me pity parties and discounting of other people’s sufferings as fake or inconsequential.
The border is too porous for this to be feasible — this isn’t a desert, the quality of ID is not very secure – preventing easy deportation, and there are large populations very close to the border, the border is large and not even fenced
There are substantial number of people engaged in illegal activities (even excluding illegal immigration)
Besides, a system where an illegal immigrant faces little risk in trying to cross the border is one which is stacked against the law enforcement of the host country.
4.the quantity of immigration itself is a security threat. This would be so even if Bangladeshi society was secular and well educated and India had very few poor, unemployed people who would be affected by illegal immigration. (for example see how Texas became a part of the US)
The % of terrorists may be low but the border still serves as a/the major pipeline for terrorist groups into India and not just Islamic Terrorist groups ( e.g. ULFA)
BSF troops face considerable risk near the border due to the BDR.
and whither the post on bangladeshi hindus? a simple search will show you that there were none on genocide in bangladesh.
 but please, do continue to avoid answering the direct question and branding anyone who raises legitimate questions as a hindutvavaadi… clearly the lone sepia post about the courts in pakistan (and apparently a sonal shah piece) and their treatment of hindus is the equivalent of a discussion on the genocide and sexual slavery that has taken place in pakistan and balanced by the cartload on the gujarat riots. but hey no surprise that your only recourse is to trivialize and mock the crimes against humanity that are being perpetrated there by describing it as “grievance mongering”– clearly emblematic of that “liberal conscience” of yours. it is the tried and tested tactic of dr. a as seen above: to draw moral equivalence where there is none. hindus in pak/bangla have a far more dangerous and oppressive existence than muslims in india (who live in a secular society, unlike the other two countries). the simple post partition census alone is proof of that…
also i am not a “self-proclaimed guardian” of anything. so stop trying to muzzle dissent with that spooky label “hindutvavaadi”. i am an advocate of universal human rights, who is aghast at so-called “libruhls” who claim to espouse the same principles as i do (universal human rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech/press) yet somehow conveniently forget to apply them to all groups (and give the rest of us a bad name in the process)…that is why we differ on this matter…
as for uighurs and africans in darfur, yes let us indeed talk about them. but the fact remains that while people do talk about them in the media (these are obv cause celebres –and rightly so), no one talks about the genocide against hindus. that’s the point that lupus was making above. it is never the time for hindus. far better to tar apolitical human rights advocators as hindutvavaadis than to actually address the content of their point: people need to raise awareness about the ongoing genocide of hindus in bangladesh. but hey, far better to pretend that we are “discounting other people’s suffering” when in actuality where are saying “consider everyone’s suffering, not just those whom you can feel proud for talking about with your fashionable libruhl buddies”.
libruhl:”gee, you mean i can talk about the plight of hindus, while condemning the riots in gujarat, all while speaking out about uighurs, sudanese, and tibetans?” the rest of us: “why yes you can–imagine that”.
anyhow, you may now continue flying off the handle about emraan hashemi and those mean old hindus in pali hills. i’m sure the innocent hindu girls of bangladesh being sold into slavery can wait for their due place in the pecking order of your “liberal conscience”…ÂÂÂ
ultimately, to the rest of you who do have open minds. while this response was meant to highlight the callousness and double standards of people like “why?”, i do think there must be a space to discuss these issues in a civilized manner appropriate for all south asian nationalities. what happened in gujarat was absolutely wrong and i hope the perpetrators (hindu and muslim) are brought to justice for the attacks on innocent men, women and children in 2002. but i do think that those of us who are truly conscious of universal human rights must recognize that that while the 2002 riots must never happen again, the genocide in pakistan and bangladesh are not equivalent to riots, but an institutionalized one-way assault on human dignity, female dignity, and religious freedom and more on the order of the holocaust. There should be space to discuss ALL thease issues. These are all serious issues That don’t merit the misplaced and mocking sarcastic smiley faces of Certain commenters above. Anyhow  while there are enough divisions among the nations  of south asia i hope this topic can be discussed in a polite and dignified way (for all south asians) on its own sepia post, rather than this one
…so enough for now. we are clearly off topicÂÂÂ
As a rule I take any criticism about Bharat coming from our colonial friends and their neo-colonial Indian lackeys with a huge lump of salt. This seems prudent to me given the history of the subcontinent and the generous support to various subcontinental extremists from this quarter.
With that POV, I went looking for more information and dug up more reports in the local media. Thus far then, the facts as I see them are –
A large number of people are dying on the Bangladesh border. 59 (34 Bangladeshi, 4 unidentified) were killed in 2008.
The border is militarized. The BSF and the BDR are known to exchange fire.
Entire villages on the border are involved in smuggling across the border.
The BSF is rather poorly equipped lacking basic equipment like night vision devices.
So yes, there is a problem here, but it isn’t as clear cut that peaceful apprehension of trespassers is a possible alternative.
My references –
Border a tough challenge
Another BSF jawan killed by BDR
59 killed while illegally crossing
i did? i couldnt care less about him as i said in my response to your bringing him up in the first place.
no arundathi roy can even match the spectacular internal sabotage that the hindutva combination of insecurity and bigotry of hindutva has and will continue to inflict on hinduism. it will win one day just as muslim religious fundamentalists have “won”. as i said, keep on keepin’ on!
and indulge in oppression olympics with statements that say that the treatment of hindus in pak and bdesh is much worse than gujarat riots, hence it is the former that we must discuss gratuitously on a post about purported bsf atrocities.
over and out.
Thanks “Because.” That’s indeed the definitive statistic that can’t be denied by any honest person.
It’s tough being an idolworshipper, heathen, unsaved hindu blackie. Besides, there is no such thing as Hinduism and Rajan Zed is clearly a devil.
Oh my god, rajan zed promoted vegetarianism. what a rascal. if only he was a white peta activist.