View Single Post
Old October 28, 2012, 02:55 AM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,861

Originally Posted by Navo

firstly, the issue of whether they are Bengali is still officially undetermined and secondly, EVEN if they ethnically are, is the State of Bangladesh responsible for the fate of all Bengalis, whether they have been residing in Assam, West Bengal, Arakan, Tripura etc. for decades? Should they have an open door policy where every person who has Bengali heritage can waltz in and claim Bangladesh citizenship? I don't think so.
If Sylhetis and Chatgayyas are considered Bengalis, I don't see why the Rohingya cannot be. If you want to be exclusive you can continue to draw the lines closer and closer ad absurdum.

If these people are defined as Bengalis and/or Bangladeshis, then the state absolutely should be concerned about their well being no matter where they are. I understand that defining them as Bangladeshis is impossible, but such things need not be obstacles to reacting humanely.

The state of Israel regards any Jew anywhere as a potential citizen, if that individual ever wishes for it. It took a great genocide for that to happen. The history of genocide against Bengalis should do the same.

I do believe this can be applied to any oppressed group regardless of ethnicity, language, or even religion. If Rakhine Buddhists were the minorty and attacked by Rohingya, we would have the exact same moral imperative to admit them as refugees.

My view is simple. International pressure should be exerted on Myanmar first and foremost to end such atrocities. Whether they are committed against a group they consider as being part of their citizenry or not - that is a separate issue - but what they are doing amounts to ethnic cleansing at best and genocide at worst. Whether Bangladesh or Thailand is willing to grant refugee status to them is a secondary issue and the decision to grant it should be done under the respective country's immigration/asylum laws and international conventions such as the Refugee Convention 1951, not some vague concept of citizenship and belonging. Given the horrific situation now, on that, and that ground alone, Bangladesh should consider granting them refugee status.
That would be great if it worked. But they tried diplomacy against man named Hitler once and he ended up killing 12 million directly and another 30 million as a direct result of his actions. Diplomacy rarely works. Diplomacy will not stop Ahmedinijad from getting a nuke. Difference is Ahmedinijad would have to be suicidal to actually use his nuke, ergo, diplomacy won't actually kill anyone.

Unfortunately, the Ramu calamity will not help the Rohingya cause and will give the Government further reason to take no action on this issue, as it has been strongly alleged in the media that it was some members of their community in Chittagong that were partially responsible for destroying Buddhist religious and holy sites.
I might be of the extreme minority here, but I don't think this government has much legitmacy to begin with, and what little it had on this particular issue it squandered by its inaction towards the Rohingya issue some months ago. Inaction that is morally no better than acting as an accessory, IMO.
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

Reply With Quote