Hindu migrants from Bangladesh must be accommodated: Modi

[TopCat]

Today I can't even go back to my ancestral land, you can understand how I feel.
I believe most Bengali Hindus & Muslims are far more tolerant than others, and we could have stayed together without falling into the trap of religious politics. I have many Muslim friends, during my college days, PG days, and initial phase of my work life I have lived with many Muslims in hostels and shared accommodations, we have shared rooms, we have shared 'aloor chop ar muri' from the same bowl, we have shared drinks from the same glass, went out to celebrate every festival together, the question of religion never really occurred to us ever. You won't believe but we used to do Saraswati Puja together, and we went to our Muslim friends' homes during their festivals, for food. You will find many Muslims in the Durga Puja or Kali Puja committees here, and Hindus in Muslims Daawat committees. I can't remember about any riots in WB.

For us in west Bengal, we are Indian first, then Bengalis, and then everything else, how things would be any different with BD Muslims if we were together? For me, I am not even a very religious Hindu. But yes, religious hardliners of Bangladesh would be a problem if we were together, I think religious hardliners are gaining strength in Bangladesh, prevent them, they are like cancer, these hardliners never did any good to any country wherever they flourished.

And if we were together, then you had to be a part of India, that would not be acceptable to @BDforever and @Anubis
@scorpionx @Aka123 what is your opinion on this? And @DarkPrince you didn't tell me from where you are.

Being part of India was or is the last in thing in any Bangladeshi's mind. Some of them are nostalgic about Bengali nationalism and that's where it ends. Bangladeshi's will gain nothing being part of India. It would had been better and nice if we all Bengalis could stuck together. But the good thing about you guys went with India that we can always compare ourselves how we could fare if we were part of India. Good luck and so long.

NB: Nobody stops you to come to your ancestral home. Why not find a job in Dhaka?

 

[INDIC]

Yes, but Modi was saying he was above vote bank politics.

Now he is saying the GoI should form a policy based on religion: treat Hindu migrants differently from other migrants from Bangladesh.

Why are taking it as a simple case of religions, its about people who created Pakistan in East Bengal and who didn't want Pakistan.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Yes, but Modi was saying he was above vote bank politics.

Now he is saying the GoI should form a policy based on religion: treat Hindu migrants differently from other migrants from Bangladesh.

Not really. Hindu migrants are not coming to India. Hindu refugees are.
You need to realize the motive of a Hindu BD and a Muslim BD to come are different.
One comes for life, other only for livelihood. Modi's point was to accommodate the former and reject the latter.

 

[TopCat]

Not really. Hindu migrants are not coming to India. Hindu refugees are.
You need to realize the motive of a Hindu BD and a Muslim BD to come are different.
One comes for life, other only for livelihood. Modi's point was to accommodate the former and reject the latter.

Then, you should have a refugee camp and have the UN supervise it and pressurize GOB to address the issues.

 

[dray]

Being part of India was or is the last in thing in any Bangladeshi's mind. Some of them are nostalgic about Bengali nationalism and that's where it ends. Bangladeshi's will gain nothing being part of India. It would had been better and nice if we all Bengalis could stuck together. But the good thing about you guys went with India that we can always compare ourselves how we could fare if we were part of India. Good luck and so long.

I know Bangladeshis won't like to be a part of India, and that's why partition happened, and after so many years the separate identity must have grown stronger. BTW Bangladeshis didn't want two Bengals to remain united back in 1905 also when Lord Curzon proposed partition of Bengal. Bengali identity was never a reason for Bangladeshis to demand a separate country, if it was, then there could be a possibility of united Bengal.
For us, we always considered ourselves Indians, the idea of Bengal as a separate country didn't find many takers during partition, we were/are not interested to let go our common heritage, history, and pride as Indians for a smaller identity confined to a small piece of land. And now we have also moved on like Bangladeshis.

NB: Nobody stops you to come to your ancestral home. Why not find a job in Dhaka?

Bangladesh is now a foreign land for me, I will remain an Indian even in Bangladesh. In any case there is nothing left of our houses and properties there, my parents' families left Bangladesh before partition, if I go there now I will be a refugee again. Though I want to visit those places once, but not sure how the people settled there would react after knowing my identity!! Probably I should visit Bangladesh just as a tourist and avoid my parents native places.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Then, you should have a refugee camp and have the UN supervise it and pressurize GOB to address the issues.

One course of action, but BD is a friendly state(read RAW state)No need for bad PR.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I am fighting fire with fire.

No - you are getting banned.
@Spring Onion - Bhai se galti ho gayi...

 

[jarves]

I am fighting fire with fire.

Reserve these kind of things for the types of iajdani and not for good posters like @Spring Onion

 

[Vinod2070]

One course of action, but BD is a friendly state(read RAW state)No need for bad PR.

And to add, it can be dealt with easily when needed.

Just the off duty police constables in the Assam village are enough to conquer BD when needed.

 

[rubyjackass]

First please don't divide only 'Hindus'. By Hindu I mean all Dharmic faiths. Keep reading
Many policy makers hate refugees only because they are Hindu or Sikh. This is my personal experience. No wonder a substantial portion of the so called majority community lives as refugees in their own motherland.

Please don't throw sentimental BS at me. If UNHCR calls India's as a model refugee policy, they also take the position that all refugees should be able to go back to their homes. I think that is the right position.
What people like you say is to give citizenship rightaway to Hindu refugees as a right. This is the main issue, however you try to twist the facts.
I don't think policy makers or even people hate refugees whether Hindu or not. But encouraging refugees is a dangerous proposition, both for the host country and the people left behind. And policy makers recognise this. There is no prejudice against Hindus here. Either you are lying or are seriously misled.

 

[rubyjackass]

1. Why did you think Ambedkar converted into Buddhism? In his book "Pakistan or the Partition of India" he has already written that all Indian religions are part of the same culture. Islam and other Abrahamic religions are not compatible with our way of life. He was a critic of Hinduism, he did not denounce it.

Ambedkar hated Hinduism and denounced. There is enough evidence of that. Please don't BS openly.

2. Secularism is a Christian concept, religious tolerance is embedded into Hinduism, but I won't call it Secularism. Hindus have accepted people of all religions, but people of "other" religions have attacked at the roots of Hinduism time and again. Tolerance is not one-way street.

Pfft... Secularism is a secular concept. It became a standard policy in Christian majority countries only after fierce resistance. It has to do with governance and law and nothing with any way of life. So there is no scope for Hinduism or any religion to have secularism as a concept. It is clear where your hatred for secularism is coming from.

3. The liberals who feel like vomiting when they hear the word "HINDU" may pack their bags and migrate to Qatar or even better "Maldives".

Nobody is vomiting at the word HINDU. The question is about giving citizenship to refugees right away. We already give these people refugee status. So what does accommodation mean but citizenship?
And stop being an extremist under the pretext of being more Indian.

4. When India got partitioned and all Muslims were supposed to move out of India. Similarly all Hindus were supposed to move back here, and this policy must continue until the "partition" becomes complete.

According to what? The Sangh's constitution?

 

[PlanetWarrior]

India did fcuk all for Indian descendants who were persecuted in apartheid South Africa and for those kicked out of Uganda. India did fcuk all for Hindus persecuted in Pakistan. Due to the mounting pressure of the refugee crisis, India intervened when amongst others Hindus were being persecuted in East Pakistan by the Pakistani army. Mr Modi, accept it.Ever since it obtained independence from the British, India doesn't have the stomach to tackle any issue affecting people who descended from its land and it never will.

PS. Foreign Hindus or descendants of Indian Hindus who live abroard do recognise India as a holy land but not as a motherland

 

[amitkriit]

Ambedkar hated Hinduism and denounced. There is enough evidence of that. Please don't BS openly.


Pfft... Secularism is a secular concept. It became a standard policy in Christian majority countries only after fierce resistance. It has to do with governance and law and nothing with any way of life. So there is no scope for Hinduism or any religion to have secularism as a concept. It is clear where your hatred for secularism is coming from.

Do not talk on behalf of Ambedakar. I have given the reference. He advocated complete partition. He wanted India for the people following the Indian religions.

Christianity believes in complete control of society and state like all Abrahamic religions even if that requires bloodshed. That is not true in case of Hinduism. And yes Secularism was reaction to the misdeeds of the Churches. India doesn't require this foreign concept, Hinduism is already flexible enough.

India belongs to Hindus first.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Please don't throw sentimental BS at me. If UNHCR calls India's as a model refugee policy, they also take the position that all refugees should be able to go back to their homes. I think that is the right position.
What people like you say is to give citizenship rightaway to Hindu refugees as a right. This is the main issue, however you try to twist the facts.
I don't think policy makers or even people hate refugees whether Hindu or not. But encouraging refugees is a dangerous proposition, both for the host country and the people left behind. And policy makers recognise this. There is no prejudice against Hindus here. Either you are lying or are seriously misled.

Don't make personal attacks.

Yes - I say Hindu refugees should be given citizenship rights as a final course of action. What is for you a sentimental BS is a matter for life and death for many. You won't understand. I don't expect you to either. My uncle left Habba Kadal alone. There was no UN, no left, right center wing, no RSS, no BJP, no Congress by our side. It has not changed much now either. We have helped ourselves. So yeah - I will twist facts, lie through my teeth if necessary - but I will try everything I can - go to every extent possible to accommodate as many Hindu/Sikh/Boudh/Christian refugees as possible. First become residents and if things don't improve try to get citizenship status.

As I said - you are within your rights to go to courts against us - whatever we do we do publicly. But don't resort to personal attacks. I have found conviction in this way of action, you are free to choose yours.

 

[Riyad]

I think India should not accommodate illegal migrants even if they are poor.