[#History] From European Migrant Crisis to the Rohingya Crisis - A Journey

A Refugee or Migrant Crisis gripped Europe in the summer of 2015. It was a humanitarian disaster; as thousands of refugees died on their way to safe heavens in Europe, with images of their capsized boats and dead bodies reported by media going viral on internet. Since 2015, 15 Lakh (1.5 million) refugees arrived in Europe by the sea. 15 Lakh was not a small number given the population in European nations. E.g. total population of Denmark is 57 Lakh and Switzerland is 83 Lakh. The migrants were mostly Muslims. According to a report from UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the top 3 nationalities of entrants of the over 10 lakh between Jan 2015 and March 2016 were Syrian (46.7%), Afghan (20.9%) and Iraqi (9.4%). Around 60% were adult males. The demographic constitution of migrants made the European Christians worry a lot. It was said that with such large influx of Muslims, the demography of Europe would change forever. This caused some panic and corrective actions. But the migrants were determined. If one route was closed, they switched to another route. If one country tightened its doors, they tried to reach for another. They were determined, as they had nothing to lose and everything to gain, in their endeavors.

The interesting thing about this migrant crisis was that it never ended. It is still happening while we speak, in 2017. About 95,000 migrants reached Italy in 2017 so far and 9,000 migrants have arrived in Spain in 2017 from the same routes.

A lot of politics is changing in Europe due the migrant influx. At several places, anti-minority and far Right parties and leaders have gained popularity and power. People have started fearing Muslims in general, depicted in new terms like 'Islamophobia'. And there were reasons behind that fear. Most immigrants were coming from war-torn terrorism infested countries and there were no valid means to separate the persecuted from the persecutors. Intelligence reports indicated that large number of terrorists were entering Europe in the guise of refugees. Those who wanted migrants to settle in Europe labelled such reports as 'Islamophobia". But the data can show how terror attacks have increased in Europe in the recent years after 2015 when the migrant crisis began.

On New Year's Eve 2015-16 in Cologne, Germany, groups of migrant men assaulted about 1200 women during New Year celebrations. A report by the German Police Office on crime in the context of immigration found that immigrants were responsible for 17% of all theft, 10% of fraud, 11% of all violent crime, 8% of drug crime, 9% of sexual crimes and 15% of all crime resulting in loss of life. And after huge migrant influx of 2015, year 2016 saw a 53% rise in immigrant crime! Speaking of terror attacks - Paris, London, Brussels, Barcelona and beyond, one after the other European cities have seen clear increase in terror attacks and these are seen to be related to the migrant crisis of 2015.

Indians watched the European Migrant crisis first in horror, disbelief and gradually in the end, with a passive acceptance. "It happened since it was to happen that way" - the famous philosophy which has made Indians accept fate and move on for ages. Europe had anyway become too far and "foreign" to majority of Indians.

It seemed dust had just settled and European migrant crisis was to be forgotten as a historical event of the past. At that moment, something happened in India's backyard - Rohingya Muslims started to flee Myanmar and enter neighboring countries like Bangladesh and India.

Rohingya people are mostly Muslims while some are Hindus. By its constitution and law, Myanmar does not recognize Rohingya people as its citizens. They don't have equal rights as others, can't vote, because of obvious reasons that they are not citizens of Myanmar. According to the law, they are "stateless" people. Buddhists consider Rohingya Muslims as "Bengali Muslims" i.e. those who came from Bangladesh. Some Rohingya Muslims have formed militant groups and hence every once in a while Myanmar police and army attacks the Rohingya villages and reports tell about violations, abuses and violence against them. Rohingya are persecuted people.

There are several similarities between the European and Myanmar's Rohingya crises. Migrants in both crises were supposed to be persecuted people running away from homeland torn by violence. Both often took boats to travel in the sea while fleeing. Both were unwelcome in the countries they wanted to enter. Some among both were linked to terror and violent groups and hence were considered security treats to their hosts. And of course, both were Muslims.

Now there were also several differences. The Muslims fleeing Arab and African nations did not have any "roots" in Europe. But the Muslims fleeing Myanmar were supposed to have Bengali origin; and still Bangladesh did not want them. India tried to persuade Bangladesh to take those refugees.

Several European countries initially saw the refugees as "opportunities" since those could be used in doing low-end manual jobs which no one wanted to do. But in case of Bangladesh and India, these had already got enough poor to cater to; hence their "glass was already full" and the poor migrants were seen as economic "burden". Economic reason was one of the most important factors in other countries not welcoming the refugees; but not all. Most important was that those Rohingya Muslims were supposed to be linked to terror groups and hence were seen as "security threats".

The way European media tried to hide the crime and violence committed by the Migrants of 2015 was also a different case. On the other hand, Indian and Bangladeshi media were swift to show the "real face", the violent background and the crime history of the poor Rohingyas who were running for life. Hence, the national response and people's opinion in both these cases differed widely. India which is home to about 3 Lakh "legal refugees" and innumerable illegal ones, decided to "deport" the 40,000 Rohingya Muslims who were living in India illegally after crossing the Indo-Bangladesh border. What happened to India which has a long history of providing asylum to persecuted refugees to make an exception to Rohingya Muslims?

It can be discussed if the way European Migrant Crisis unfolded had any impact on India's response to Rohingya Muslims' plea to help. Perhaps the European Migrant Crisis has not yet totally "unfolded"; with the terror attacks so farhave been only a "beginning"; and hence it is too early to say if Indians learnt something from the European experience.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - it was said by George Santayana (16 Dec 1863 - 26 Sep 1952), a philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist; born in Spain.

After a long track record of not learning from history, has India finally awoken? Has it started learning from not only history but also from events and crises in other countries? Only time can tell.

But somewhere, amidst all the discussions and debates on what should be done and how, there are poor hapless people who are suffering. Somewhere a refugee with a criminal history or not commits a crime, and a hundred other innocent ones suffer. History has been particularly ruthless against the weak. And refugees almost always happen to be weak.

All this concludes only in emphasizing the importance of "peace". "Om shanti shanti shanti," - an invocation of peace. Perhaps our forefathers knew the importance of peace. Perhaps we are supposed to preserve it at all costs.

- Rahul Tiwary 

Problem with Historic India - Bangladesh Land Swap Deal

Today, India PM Narendra Modi is in Bangladesh and he will be freezing an agreement over resolving land disputes by exchanging land pockets (enclaves) with Bangladesh. It will be a historic decision which will indeed prevent infiltration, disputes and inconvenience to people from both sides. Despite being a Modi fan, ever since I learnt about this plan I have been a little disturbed about it. What is the cause of concern? Before I come to that, let us understand what are these "enclaves" which the two countries will be exchanging?

Enclaves are small pockets of land belonging to a country which are completely surrounded by land of another country. The most common enclave in a way is the Vatican City which is completely surrounded by Italy. India has about 106 enclaves inside Bangladesh while Bangladesh has 92 enclaves inside India. It results in infiltration and extreme inconvenience to the people living inside these enclaves. To make it more complex, 24 of these enclaves are actually "enclaves inside enclaves"! These enclaves came into being around 300 years ago during wars between the Mughals and the King of Cooch Behar. Mughals won over certain regions but could not defeat certain local Cooch Behar Jamindars from their lands; similarly Cooch Behar King defeated Mughal forces but could not evict their soldiers from certain pockets and hence by the time a treaty was made, these enclaves came into being. Later, since East Bangladesh went to Pakistan, there could be no solution to this problem because of India-Pakistan rivalry and wars. Now let us see my dilemma about the land-swap deal.

The problem with the land-swap deal is that India is giving away more land to Bangladesh than she is receiving in return! Although the land size India is losing is only around 40 square kms. But still, our "mother India" is going to become smaller and it is an emotional issue for the patriotic population.

If we think of pure economics, this decision does not make sense. Why would someone give you a land worth hundred million and ask for another piece of land worth ninety; unless one's life or something extremely critical depended on it? I am sure even in the stone-age human beings did not do "barters" in this manner. So why are we doing it now?

If we think of the two nations, Bangladesh being one of the most densely populated nations needs land more than a big nation like India does. So Bangladesh may be able to gain more than India does by swapping land.

In international politics, such land-swap deals are associated with "monetary compensations". If we have to give some land to Bangladesh in order to simplify matters; we could take compensation. Some news reports say that Bangladesh was ready to pay compensation for the extra land it has to receive, but India said she won't take any. It displays a kind of "Big Brother" approach India naturally plays in the region. Although, India seems to have been blind eye towards how Bangladeshi political parties use the same "Big Brother syndrome" to build a public anger against India (to garner votes)! India sees such large heart gestures as her natural role; but the same largess is seen with suspicion amidst conspiracy theories about India being a ‘hidden aggressor’! So far India's foreign policies have not done anything to quell these fears. India could have been less emotional and more economics driven in order to appear like a neutral force in the region. But maybe then India won’t be like India!

There is another concern about the deal according to which more than fifty thousand villagers from both sides will be given an option to choose nationalities. I guess logically more people will choose to become part of India (since it is more economically prosperous), resulting in increase in population which is undesirable. There should have been a better way to identify nationalities.

I know that we can't really blame PM Narendra Modi government for this decision. In the past many other PMs including Indira Gandhi tried to do the same deal with Bangladesh but failed. PM Modi in a way is exerting his "strong" image when he is solving a "300 years old problem" which all past governments failed to solve. Still, India giving away more land than it receives does not make sense to me. 

I also understand that Indian governments “gifting away” lands to other nations is not new. Way back in 1974, Indira Gandhi virtually gifted an island of Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka. In an article titled “Island Lost” (S. Raja, New Indian Express, 10 Sep, 2013) for example, the journalist writes that Indira Gandhi gifted away the island as if it were her “family silver”. So perhaps Bangladesh deal’s loss is not a first or nothing new; still I think it is not a rational decision. I call it a failure of India’s diplomacy rather than success of it. 

My solution is simple. If India accepts monetary compensation for the lost land, it will not be enough. It will appear like a nation is "selling" land for money. I think Bangladesh should make up for the loss India is incurring by exchanging enclaves. Give us another forty square kilometers anywhere along the border you find suitable. Is this too much to demand?

What do you think about it? Let me know through your comments.