Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Home Opinions Tolerance vs Mutual respect - How India should treat its immigration policy

Tolerance vs Mutual respect – How India should treat its immigration policy

The Government of India is considering a few amendments in regards to the Citizenship Act of 1955. The government has already set up a joint committee of parliamentarians who are examining the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 which will look into the matter of granting Indian citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Christians and Buddhists from our neighbouring countries who have been living in India for a minimum period of six years. You can check The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 here (pdf link).

There have already been a few articles that have discussed this matter. There was an article in the Times of India that was critical of this move by the government. There have been a couple of other pieces in Swarajya magazine – here and here – that have given a slightly more contrarian and nuanced view of the same.

Whom do we let in to stay with us in our country has never been an easy issue to tackle. The 1st issue that we will have to tackle in a secular democratic republic like India would be that the basic premise of the Bill violates the fundamental constitutional principle of treating each individual as a separate entity, as it appears to equate citizenship with specific religions only.

Immigration has been an issue a major portion of the world is struggling with. Whether it’s Europe, USA or India, immigration is an extremely touchy issue. Who do we let in? What can be considered a valid process of granting people asylum in any country? In fact, what should be the larger immigration policy of any country irrespective of whether it is an asylum seeker or an economic migrant?

But does compassion mean one becomes stupid and lets anyone in without any formal process? What should be the basic philosophy or ideology behind an immigration process? How do we go about vetting the people we want to let into our society beyond the economic/education parameters.

I believe immigration policies should be shaped on the principle of “Mutual Respect” which was proposed by Rajiv Malhotra in his book Being Different. Every country/society/group has a grand narrative. In the case of the group of people that live together in the entity named India our grand narrative is a pluralistic value system, which has come out of a wide range of decentralized open Dharmic Darshanas. It is this plural Dharmic value system that has let people of all denominations in from time immemorial.

Now the critics of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 say that this bill is discriminatory. But is that really the case? Take the case of Pakistan for example. Can we say that people who follow a very rigid/exclusivist/expansionist faith system like Salafi Islam merge into a pluralistic secular democratic society like India? We just have to look at the way Hindus, Christians and Sikhs have been treated in Pakistan.

For that matter what has been the trend when it comes to Hindus/Atheists in Bangladesh? A cursory look at the numbers in both these countries clearly indicates that Hindus and other minorities are being persecuted and their numbers have been declining consistently. They are either converted forcefully or murdered. In such a scenario how can anyone in their right mind object to letting in these persecuted minorities in India? Also, how can anyone who is in their senses say that we should let in the butchers of these very people into India along with them because a society cannot be selective in its choice of people it wants to let in?

If we allow people with such rigid mindsets in our society, we just create more fissures in our society. Indian Islam is already under threat from Salafi extremism. Why do we want to self inflict even more pain?

Also, as a Nireshvara (atheist), I feel letting such people in is a direct threat to my existence. Just look at the numbers provided in the Pew polls that cover Pakistan and Bangladesh. A significant chunk of the population in those two countries believes that the punishment for apostasy and blasphemy should be death. A significant majority of citizens in these countries want religious laws to govern every aspect of their life. Are these beliefs compatible with a secular democratic republic like India? How can we use secularism and democracy to let a set of people in who are completely against those very set of values that we value and cherish so much?

Anyone who comes into India should pass the test of “mutual respect”. Mere “tolerance” is not enough anymore. If India’s larger narrative is that all paths are equally valid then anyone coming inside India should be asked what they think about this inherent value system of India. Immigration has to be a tool not just to help the persecuted. It should also see to it that fault lines aren’t created in the society.

Will a practicing Salafi Muslim say that idol worship/atheism are fine? If it isn’t fine, what does he/she think ought to be done about it? Should we let in people who think atheists or idol worshippers ought to be killed? If an immigration policy leads to ghettoisation is that policy sound?

Demography matters. If some people believe that individuals carrying beliefs that are antithetical to ours will suddenly come and change those beliefs, I’m sorry, those people are extremely naive. Maybe they have been listening to John Lenon’s song “Imagine” a little too much.

Systems based on “tolerance” will fail. Western societies are based on tolerance. Just see what’s happening there right now. Every society has to graduate from tolerance to mutual respect. And people who refuse to do that, well, they can stay where they are.

Just because a few left leaning politicians and activists have a death wish it does not mean everyone has to die. Wanting to stay alive is a basic human instinct. Why bring such people over here? What purpose does it solve?

I am not saying that we stop being humanitarian. But one can only be humanitarian if one stays alive! And while no one wants to say, it the fact of the matter is that when a society gets to a point where the quotient of Islamists increase, it leads to a significant increase in violence, terrorism and all sorts of other problems.

Wherever Salafi Islam enters, there are violent clashes. Islam that is practiced in its current form in Pakistan & Bangladesh is incompatible with pluralism of India. Stats don’t lie. If Salafi Islam is plural why are the Hindu numbers in Pakistan and Bangladesh dwindling? Also have we forgotten Kashmir?

Immigration can’t become a tool where you inflict wounds upon yourself. India as a country has to be selective in its immigration policies. It should only let in people who believe in “mutual respect”.

What I am trying to do is to say something that has been discussed in our drawing rooms for many years. I have no intention of stereotyping all Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh. I am sure there are a lot of good folks amongst them. I am not someone who has hatred in his heart. But tell me one simple thing, when you look at the stats in those Pew polls don’t you get worried?

I will end this article by quoting a small excerpt of a speech given by a gentleman called Salim Mansur to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in Canada. You can check the full text of the speech here.

“If the level of immigration in Canada is being maintained and defended on the basis of the need to deal with the problems of Canadian society in terms of aging population, fertility rates among Canadian women, skilled labour requirements, and maintaining a growth level for the population consistent with the growth of the economy, then this policy needs to be re-evaluated. We cannot fix the social problems of Canadian society by an open immigration policy that adds to the numbers at a rate that puts into question the absorptive capacity of the country, not only in economic terms, but also, if not more importantly, in cultural and social terms, and what this does to our political arrangement as a liberal democracy.

The flow of immigration into Canada from around the world, and in particular the flow from Muslim countries, means a pouring in of numbers into a liberal society of people from cultures at best non-liberal. But we know through our studies and observation that the illiberal mix of cultures poses one of the greatest dilemmas and an unprecedented challenge to liberal societies such as ours, when there is no demand placed on immigrants any longer to assimilate into the founding liberal values of the country to which they have immigrated. Instead, a misguided and thoroughly wrong-headed policy of multiculturalism encourages the opposite.”

  Support Us  

Whether NDTV or 'The Wire', they never have to worry about funds. In name of saving democracy, they get money from various sources. We need your support to fight them. Please contribute whatever you can afford

 

Related Articles

Trending now

‘Tiranga ka apman, nehi sahega Hindustan’: Angry villages in Rewari issue ultimatum to ‘farmer’ protestors to vacate Highway blockade in 24 hours

The villagers said that due to blockade on the highway, the region remains jammed with vehicles, which have created difficulties for them

Farmer bodies withdraw their support from ‘farmer’ protest, blame Rakesh Tikait for violence on Republic Day

AIKSCC's VM Singh said he does not want to be part of protests led by Rakesh Tikait.

Red Fort attack: Dear ‘liberals’, here is how a little understanding of physics can help you

The underlying message of holding a parallel parade on Republic Day was always clear. They wanted to showcase a parallel power center on the streets, a republic of mob rule.

The mayhem on Republic Day was planned by these ‘farmer leaders’. Here is how they are lying

From Yogendra Yadav to Rakesh Tikait to Darshan Pal: How the 'farmer leaders' egged the 'farmers' to run a riot on Republic Day

Red Fort Insurrection: Deep Sidhu, his Khalistani links, role in violence and how ‘liberals’, who made him a hero, are now using him to...

Opposition leaders who had supported Deep Sidhu saying it is a farmer are now alleging he is linked to BJP

Recently Popular

Protesting mob enters Red Fort, unfurl the Sikh flag, Terrorist outfit SFJ had demanded Khalistani flag to be hoisted: Details

The protestors have hoisted the flag on Red Fort that appears to be the Sikh Flag. Some believe it is the Khalistan Flag.

‘Flag of Khalistan is waving on Red Fort,’ ‘Historic Moment’: All Pakistan Muslim League celebrates “Black Day” for India

The All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) is celebrating the hoisting of the 'Khalistan Flag' at Red Fort on Republic Day.

Here is how Congress and trolls tried to paint a Khalistani accused of spearheading the Red Fort siege as a ‘sanghi’

Deep Sidhu is accused of being responsible for the hoisting of the Sikh flag at Red Fort on Republic Day.

Rajdeep Sardesai lies twice, says ‘farmer’ was killed because the police shot him in the head: Here is the truth

In this way, those who had shared the fake news once would live under the false impression that it was indeed a case of police firing.

Watch: Protestors throw away Tricolour, place Sikh flag on top of flag pole at Red Fort

Disturbing visuals emerge from the tractor rally on Republic Day.

Tractor rally: Rioting mob vandalised Ram Mandir and Kedarnath tableaux from Republic Day parade

Rioting mob on Tuesday not only desecrated the Red Fort and tried to kill the Delhi Police personnel but also vandalised the tableau from the Republic Day parade.
- Advertisement -

 

Post-mortem of protestor killed during tractor rally confirms he died of antemortem injuries, busts left-liberal propaganda of being shot

Left-liberals had tried to blame Delhi Police for the death, spreading the fake news that the protestor was shot dead by Police.

Farmer protests: Twitter suspends 550 accounts for inciting violence, abuse, and threats

Delhi Police had claimed that hundreds of Twitter accounts were created to sow confusion about the tractor rally proposed by the 'farmers'.

Congress leader Digvijaya Singh blames Delhi Police for Republic Day violence by ‘farmer’ protestors

While it was already known that barricades will be removed after Republic Day parade is over, Digvijay Singh blamed police barricades for riots

‘You cannot hurt religious sentiments’: SC rejects anticipatory bail pleas of ‘Tandav’ makers

"Freedom of speech was not absolute. You cannot hurt anyone's religious sentiments", Supreme Court of India said to makers of 'Tandav'.

Banned Khalistani outfit SFJ confesses to their hand in Red Fort attack, announces reward for laying siege on Indian Parliament on February 1

Khalistani terror organisation SFJ has announced a reward of $350,000 for those who wave Khalistani flags at the Parliament

‘Tiranga ka apman, nehi sahega Hindustan’: Angry villages in Rewari issue ultimatum to ‘farmer’ protestors to vacate Highway blockade in 24 hours

The villagers said that due to blockade on the highway, the region remains jammed with vehicles, which have created difficulties for them

Farmer bodies withdraw their support from ‘farmer’ protest, blame Rakesh Tikait for violence on Republic Day

AIKSCC's VM Singh said he does not want to be part of protests led by Rakesh Tikait.

Red Fort attack: Dear ‘liberals’, here is how a little understanding of physics can help you

The underlying message of holding a parallel parade on Republic Day was always clear. They wanted to showcase a parallel power center on the streets, a republic of mob rule.

The mayhem on Republic Day was planned by these ‘farmer leaders’. Here is how they are lying

From Yogendra Yadav to Rakesh Tikait to Darshan Pal: How the 'farmer leaders' egged the 'farmers' to run a riot on Republic Day

Red Fort Insurrection: Deep Sidhu, his Khalistani links, role in violence and how ‘liberals’, who made him a hero, are now using him to...

Opposition leaders who had supported Deep Sidhu saying it is a farmer are now alleging he is linked to BJP

Connect with us

245,563FansLike
496,912FollowersFollow
23,000SubscribersSubscribe