Record number of Pakistanis visited India last year

[Chak Bamu]

@Contrarian , I do not have much time for reading this thread. I can imagine what might have been said and what might have been suggested. You asked me about #5 in your last post, here is my take:

My POV in this regard is mainly humanistic. There are many many people on both sides of the line who are related to one another. They visit one another and maintain ties of family. Your suggestion would hit them first and foremost.

The secondary consideration is that people who travel for business reasons are going to be the vanguard of peace drive. Currently both countries transact little and only necessary business (to deal with shortages and such) via land route. UAE is a conduit for trade that could be transacted directly, saving money and effort. Mark my words: it is business relations that would drive the movement for peace. And it is for the benefit of both the countries.

The tertiary consideration is that extremists are not particularly reliant on face to face meetings to project their presence. By strangulating visa numbers you are not likely to achieve anything very positive. You can do a bit of damage, but not actually improve anything.

Tablighi jamaat or not, if someone is going to look at themselves critically they are going to do it. Tablighi jamaat just facilitates the process in a very orthodox way. I've been with Tablighi jamaat. I went out with them because I was looking at my adolescent life and looking for something. They could not get me out if I did not want to go in the first place. When someone wishes to re-evaluate their life, expectations, goals, relation with Divine, the direction one leans to is crucial. You can not really know how many young people have not fallen into violent radicalization because they went with Tablighi Jamaat instead of some Jihadist outfit. There is a slight overlap, I will own that. But Tablighi Jamaat actively discourages any activism among its members. New people are watched and if they are seen discussing things, they are gently stopped from doing so and advised to concentrate on Namaz, Zikr, Quran instead. Adoption of orthodoxy is a personal choice, not something that is dependent upon Tablighi Jamaat.

If you had been following what I have said, you would recall I am suggesting reduction in the number as a short term measure. Given the hostilities are Countries conduct business in there is is this genuine concern of Pakistani ideology spreading in India. We don't trust Pakistanis and until something positive comes out of Pakistan we cannot afford to let you guys inside our Country certainly not in such numbers. In addition, I also discourage any treatment of Pakistanis in India as there is genuine concern of that person becoming a terrorist in your country.

But we are ourselves are at fault if we have not framed a stringent enough policy for Pakistanis. You talk as if Pakistan is in the news for everything positive. You are country which survives on extremist ideology and so it is only natural for us to raise concerns.

You are not worth my time. I do not wish to dignify your views with a response. Post away however you want and let the inevitable happen.

agreed,,,,he's concerns r valid n not absurd like many assume thm to be...................although they may sound abit farfetched.


,,,,,,but concerned ppl will be concerned nonetheless
we have multiple,, 50+ pages discussions here(some with polls) on how Indian movies,serials r influencing Pakistani public opinion n culture,,,lots of tt's,mods,admins concerned about it..

What you have said is just a function of how important you think you are (as a person / nation). I do not wish to disturb your precious prejudices. I am afraid my nuances and concerns are not going to impact you at all. With this I would like to bow out from this little conversation of ours.

 

[That Guy]

Ad-hominems from you. I expected better.

The developed countries of the world are already massively tightening the influx of immigrants to their country and India forms a large number of those immigrants in many places. So yes, reduction in the flow of Indians is already happening.

And the reason its happening is that the immigrants are causing problems in their countries - that ranges from culture to crime and everything in between.

The second issue, the visa tightening process of Developed countries is more for some countries and lesser for some others. Why is it so?
Its because citizens of some countries cause more social problems than those from other countries and why the Developed countries are trying to limit the exposure of their population to these people

Example - It is easier for a Briton to get a US visa but relatively far harder for an Indian. It is easier for an Indian to get a US visa and relatively harder for a Pakistani. It is easier for a Pakistani to get a US visa and relatively harder for an Iraqi.

But as per you - all this is xenophobia. And what I suggested, limiting(not eliminating) visas given to Pakistan is xenophobia right?

I am better, and no that is not an ad hominem, I did not attack you personally, just your form of logic.

Your misrepresenting why developed nations are enacting immigration control, it has little to do with cultural reasons, and more to do with economic reasons. There is a greater screening process to weed out those that are unskilled with skilled labor, so your thought process is completely wrong. It's especially wrong when you're comparing tourist visas with immigration visas. Tourist visas are relatively easy to get,and developed nations are making it easier, so they can bring in more revenue from their tourist industries.

Also, what does immigration have to do with tourism? This entire conversation revolved around the fact that you want to stop the flow of tourists coming into your country, not immigrants looking to stay permanently.

You want to talk about logic, how about the fact that you're entire argument is a slippery slop?

If you want to use logic against me, you might want to do some research on what the terms you're using.

Here's a cheat sheet for future use.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

I think I've made my point.

 

[baajey]

Being pro active might just save us from another Mumbai.

I agree, with our security apparatus in shambles, we are at the mercy of the Indian high commission in Islamabad to save us from another Mumbai.

 

[halupridol]

What you have said is just a function of how important you think you are (as a person / nation). I do not wish to disturb your precious prejudices. I am afraid my nuances and concerns are not going to impact you at all. With this I would like to bow out from this little conversation of ours.

everybody has prejudices regarding his/her country,,,,isnt that normal..
n yes Sir,,,I do think that my country is important,,,,but that doesnt mean i have delusions of grandeur about myself or my country....
n me blabering about bolywud muvis,serials,,,,woh toh mae taang khich rha tha

 

[Contrarian]

I am better, and no that is not an ad hominem, I did not attack you personally, just your form of logic.

Your misrepresenting why developed nations are enacting immigration control, it has little to do with cultural reasons, and more to do with economic reasons. There is a greater screening process to weed out those that are unskilled with skilled labor, so your thought process is completely wrong. It's especially wrong when you're comparing tourist visas with immigration visas. Tourist visas are relatively easy to get,and developed nations are making it easier, so they can bring in more revenue from their tourist industries.

Also, what does immigration have to do with tourism? This entire conversation revolved around the fact that you want to stop the flow of tourists coming into your country, not immigrants looking to stay permanently.
You want to talk about logic, how about the fact that you're entire argument is a slippery slop?

If you want to use logic against me, you might want to do some research on what the terms you're using.

Here's a cheat sheet for future use.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

I think I've made my point.

First of all -
Immigration and tourism are two sides of the same coin.
9600 Pakistanis 'missing' after visa expiry - The Times of India

2. My point was logically sound when we talk of tourist visas. It is relativism.
Is it not a fact that tourist visas are easier for a Briton than it is for an Indian, and it is easier for an Indian than it is for a Pakistani? Why is this so? Why is it that tourists from some countries are more kosher than from some others?

3. The reason why all of Europe is tightening its visa requirements is not just economic reasons. You would be intellectually dishonest if you imply that that is the only reason. Britain for example has deliberately clamped down on visas given to Muslim countries because of the cultural issues they are facing from Muslims in Britain and the consequent demand of a large number of its people.
Has not France's extreme right party won the local elections based on the promise of stopping halal food in its schools and canteens? What do you think this is? Is this not a sign that the majority is finding it hard to live with people from some societies?

All these factors are also at play with India. Does India not see a social cost of giving out extremely high number of tourist visas a year to Pakistan or not. And this is the real question.
An outgrow of this is - What should be an adequate number of visas handed out to maintain decent relations and carry out talks and progress but also limit the exposure of a common Pakistani to Indians.

 

[That Guy]

First of all -
Immigration and tourism are two sides of the same coin.
9600 Pakistanis 'missing' after visa expiry - The Times of India

Read your own article, the visas that were handed out were simple travel visas, that doesn't necessarily mean tourist visas, it can mean business visas, or other types.

2. My point was logically sound when we talk of tourist visas. It is relativism.
Is it not a fact that tourist visas are easier for a Briton than it is for an Indian, and it is easier for an Indian than it is for a Pakistani? Why is this so? Why is it that tourists from some countries are more kosher than from some others?

And no, they're not the two sides of the same coin. Just because you claim something, doesn't make it true.

Second, I don't think you quite understand what relativism means, but that's a different argument altogether. The simple fact is that logic doesn't have a difference in perception and opinion. Logic does not negate facts, just enhances it, and you have no presented facts.

It is not a fact that it's easier for Indians to get a tourist visa than it is for Pakistanis, however, I will admit that it is harder for a Pakistani to get a immigration visa than an India.

3. The reason why all of Europe is tightening its visa requirements is not just economic reasons. You would be intellectually dishonest if you imply that that is the only reason. Britain for example has deliberately clamped down on visas given to Muslim countries because of the cultural issues they are facing from Muslims in Britain and the consequent demand of a large number of its people.

It isn't the only reason, but it is the main reason. Cultural issues have very little effect on British immigration policies, and for you to sit there and type that cultural issues are the main reason, that is the real intellectual dishonesty.

Despite what you claim, the tyranny of the majority has been an issue that Britain has dealt with a long time ago. There are regulations in place that stop populist laws from passing, if those populist laws are inherently racist, xenophobic, or in anyway discriminatory.

Has not France's extreme right party won the local elections based on the promise of stopping halal food in its schools and canteens? What do you think this is? Is this not a sign that the majority is finding it hard to live with people from some societies?

A small protest vote against main-stream parties is hardly a vote to kick out Muslims. Besides, if the majority found it hard to live with Muslims in their societies, parties like the Front Nationale would have won the last elections, and gotten a majority. Even today, if elections were held in France, they wouldn't win. The only reason why they've even gotten the votes they did is because the local population is sick of mainstream parties, and not because of Muslims living among them. In fact, if you looked at the language the NF were using, it was more to do with economy and job creation, rather than anti-immigration and anti-Islam messages. Even the NF have started to move towards the center, because they realize that their extremist anti-immigrant message is something that will put voters off.

All these factors are also at play with India. Does India not see a social cost of giving out extremely high number of tourist visas a year to Pakistan or not. And this is the real question.

Considering I just showed how ridiculous your comments are, I think this comment isn't even worth talking about.

But I do have to mention this, I don't think your problem is with Pakistanis, with the language you've used, you have some sort of issue with Muslims as a whole. This shows me that you're not only xenophobic, but also Islamophobic.

An outgrow of this is - What should be an adequate number of visas handed out to maintain decent relations and carry out talks and progress but also limit the exposure of a common Pakistani to Indians.

No, just no. The best way forward is to enhance interactions between the people of the two countries, to reduce animosity. What you're suggesting is only going to create greater divisions, and hostility. If people are given the chance to talk to one another, they'll be less inclined to want to fight.