Bangla migrant Vs Nepali migrant: Bangladeshi is foreigner, Nepali immigrant is welcome

No to Bangladesh (Left), Yes to Nepal (Right)

The Times of India's editorial on the issue of migrants' influx is thought-provoking.

The entire nation and the politicians cutting across the party lines have made the issue of Bangladeshi Muslims' influx as the biggest threat to India.

Strangely, the Marxists are also crying hoarse like the right-wing BJP used to do in the past over the issue.

The communalisation of Indian politics is so intense that on one hand the country has open border with Nepal, the entry of Bangla migrant who is culturally more closer to India is a strict no-no.

Lakhs of Nepalese enter India every year just because Nepal is a Hindu country [though culutrally it was not a part of India. But Bangladesh [that was just 57 years ago part of India], is a Muslim country so the migrants are unwelcome.

What the Bangla migrant does? He mingles easily and lives peacefully. On the other hand many Nepali domestic helps are involved in crimes but there is no anger against them. Had there been even a couple of incidents of crime by Bangla migrants, the national media would have made a great hue and cry.

As long as Hindus came to India from Bangladesh, it was good. The settlements of Bangladeshi Hindus through out the India are reminder to the fact but the last two decades when Muslims started arriving, it has become a big issue.

In Assam, we have similar issue that keeps raging perennially. Read an exhaustive post on the same issue that was written later on this blog. 'Branding the Bangladeshi migrant as terrorist: Illegal immigration or a humanitarian crisis'. Read it here.

Hats off to Britain for maturity in dealing with crisis

Despite the reports of rise in incidents of crime against ethnic minorities in United Kingdom, the country has largely remained peaceful.

Apart from minor incidents of arson, the British have maintained their calm in wake of London blasts. This is in sharp contrast with the manner in which right-wing groups act in India.

No sooner than a minor incident occurs, the entire Muslim populace has to bear the brunt of it and also the backlash despite no fault of its own.

On one hand, not only Tony Blaire but the entire leadership cutting across party lines has acted with great restraint, urging the people to maintain the harmony, here we have seen how head of states [Chief  Ministers] pay least attention even when mobs are out to kill at will.

In 1984 Sikhs were butchered on the streets of Delhi after the assassination of Mrs Gandhi. The state slept then and the police had turned Nelson's eye. The press was silent. Everything was hushed up and pushed under the carpet.

In 2002, the Gujarat riots saw Prime Minister and the entire central government turn away its face and the Chief Minister Narendra Modi almost supporting the carnage in which thousands were killed and millions displaced.

Hats off to you Brits. 

Linking Islam with Terrorism: What about IRA, LTTE, Hiroshima, Holocaust?

Once again the blatant use of the words like Islamic terrorism and Muslim terrorists has angered me. That people do not find it offensive, is strange.

Firstly, as a Muslim, I condemn all forms of terror and terrorism. Secondly, if misguided persons commit such acts, then their act shouldn't be linked to a religion, as we totally oppose such wanton killings and bloodshed.

Linking Islam with Terrorism, hurts Muslims. It also increased the existing fautlines within the society. Still, if some insist on using the prefix 'Muslim' or 'Islam', then  I need answers for the following queries:

1. Why the Irish Republican Army [IRA] that indulged in bombing in UK and the deadly Basque separatists in Spain never termed as Christian terrorists or Protestant/Catholic terrorists?

2. Why the LTTE that is Hindu [Tamil is their language and ethnicity] and has killed thousands of innocents including head of states in Sri Lanka besides destroying Buddhist temples never dubbed as Hindu terrorist outfit?

3. The killers of Hiroshima or Nagasaki are just not remembered as terrorists. Do we need to remind the horrors of Japan during the Second World War.

4. The massacre of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia was never termed Christian terrorism, why?

5. The murders by Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Christian outfits are never linked to religion but only when a criminal is Muslim the entire community is associated. Why the words like Muslim terrorist and Islamic terrorism used in media.

Such irresponsible, objectionable and derogatory term is used frequently by mainstream, self-styled liberal media all over the world. This is causing divide among Muslims and the non-Muslims. And even the Muslim intelligentsia does not protest. Strange!

London blasts

It is indeed sad that the London blasts have again put the Muslims on the defensive. The blasts are highly condemnable but the peace-loving Muslims should not be put in the dock for such act of terrorism.

The bombings have led to precious lives being lost. But Muslims have also suffered. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombings resulted in deaths of hundreds of thousands innocents for whom few tears were shed.

Muslims have died in all terrorist attacks. Terrorism is neither Christian nor Islamic or Hindu. It is time to restore our faith in humanity and efforts are needed to ensure that one community is not pushed to a corner.

We don't even know who is really behind the terror attacks but unfortunately the suicide bombings and terror have been linked to Muslims.

Indian habit of aping the West

The recent poll that showed Indians as the only country where support for US is highest. As many as 71% Indians hold positive opinion about Americans, the highest in the world.

While most of these Indians feel that Americans are innovative, honest and hardworking, the Americans are viewed as greedy, arrogant and immoral by many European nations.

It is nothing but the habit of servility, that of licking the feet of the powerful. Also, there is a tendency to align oneself with the power that seen as most anti-Muslim. After all, India is the only country where the poll was conducted just in urban areas.

And the urban areas of India have the millions of wannabe yuppies for whom America is the ultimate paradise. So what if these few metros together do not constitute more than 7% of India's population. Let the 93% go to dogs.