« The Benoit saga’s desi twist :+: You can still help Vinay »

Culture

The story of the “other” border fence. [Updated]

By: Karthik :+: Under: Culture, Media Watch, Opinion, Politics
On: ⋅ July 3, 2007 ⋅  Email this post ⋅  Print this post ⋅ Post a comment
Discuss in our off-topic forums

Looks like you are new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Update: What I predicted, has started happening.

A well developed and patrolled US Mexico border, but most of the 2100 mile border is open.

In a border fence project worthy of a Guinness record, India is quietly building a fence to seal itself off from Bangladesh, reports this well written article in The Houston Chronicle. The length of the fence is 2,050 miles, compare this to the US Mexican that fence covering a distance of about 698 miles.

In the following weeks, this news will gradually gain momentum and find itself being hurled around the mainstream American media. Every time a border fence supporter goes on TV, the premise that “If India can, why can’t we?” will be voiced. Bollywood will make a movie about a young couple who are caught amidst this confusion, but finally find each other and the movie will end with a song and dance sequence under a tree.

I am not supporting any side on the US border issue. But I believe it’s time the US looked at immigration reform, not just for potential cheap labor from across the border, but for legal immigrants who have to jump through hoops, rings of fire and more hoops to even stand a shot at staying here for an extended period of time. But that is another post all together.

The fence being considered across the US border is only 700 miles long, but it comes with a ship load of political and economic repercussions.

The visitors claim that a well known, but over looked fact is that South American workers contribute to the American economy in ways most other immigrant societies do not. At least not right now. Cheap labor is not as much an issue as the willingness to do certain jobs.

The home side of the argument is that illegal workers drain money from the social system and this way Americans who could possibly enjoy a better return for their tax dollars do not. This is a very valid argument as far as the medical industry goes. Historically crime and violence has not been an issue with immigrants.

Without taking sides, I am merely suggesting that India has a very different set of problems. If we did compare the projects, we would not be comparing apples to apples.

To being with, India has an abundant work force and there is no foreseeable shortage of labor. Critics will argue that India’s rural populace, over the years has diminished given the migration to urban centers. Even when you consider this fact, there is enough man power to go around for everyone. Modern equipment is slowly seeping into every day life. Painters who once used brushes to paint sky scrapers are “discovering” that there are power tools available and with the advent of retailers like Walmart, there will be a cascading effect.

Being a developing nation, the medical costs are much lesser and most middle class citizens do not depend of the government funded health care system. In other words citizens do not expect a big return on their tax dollars, in some cases, people stay away from paying taxes, given the nature of the Indian society. Even private health care is much cheaper as compared to the western world, which at times, attracts people from developed nations to take a vacation and fix their body.

Bangladesh and India do not suffer from a huge economic or cultural divide like our western counterpart in this argument. The major religion might be different, but at the end of the day, we are pretty much broke and eat the same food. Around the common border, we even speak the same language.

Although the article discusses most of the details, one of the major problems faced in North Eastern India is militancy. Names like ULFA and Peoples Liberation Army find their names in the headlines more often than Sania Mirza or Narain Karthikeyan. With the instability to our west, there is always an outside chance of a skirmish and the Indian Army cannot afford to fight quarrels, when there could be a battle on the horizon.

Additionally, the results of it’s fence in the Indo-Pak border is paying off. Although infiltration has not stopped from the west, it certainly has slowed down.

Then there is the problem of Bangladesh being a naturally troubled zone. It’s low lying plains would come under attack from mother nature when the smallest thing goes awry. If a threat ever arises, India will have no track of who or for that matter how many people walked into the country.

Considering all this, the fence seems to be a good idea, but the Cultural, Economic and Environmental impact will be quicker and louder on the Bangladeshi side, but how good is this in the long run for either country?

That and now you know about why you should not be drawling parallels between the two projects.

« The Benoit saga’s desi twist :+: You can still help Vinay »
Discuss in our off-topic forums