Dear Xourov, Here are my comments on the last part of your longer mail.
You write: "i don't even have a problem with that. my problem is with the clandestine nature of this operation. i know you accept corruption as a means of overcoming regulated economies. but you ignore the fact that they are also a means of monopolizing the system. if there exists a demand for immigration, there exists a corresponding demand against it. this corruption denies the opposing voice any expression, and leaves the field open for the demand for immigration. a monopoly situation. flies at the principles of free market, unfortunately." First, I am not clear about this demand for immigration. * The demand FOR immigrants to be allowed to settle is a political demand, it is not an economic demand - it may be voiced by those who stand to gain from it as a class, some existing immigrants, some potential employers etc. This demand is voiced covertly or overtly through the political process. The demand against immigration is also voiced through the same process. * The demand FROM potential immigrants to be allowed in and from existing immigrants to be legitimized is also largely a political demand voiced through the political process through votes, lobbying and contributions. * The economic demand in the market place BY immigrants is a demand for access to collective (common property and state assets) - partly through the poiltical process and partly through the market for such assets. It is also a demand for private goods - food, land, clothing - that are traded in the regular marketplace. My question to you is where is the "monopoly" - or one sided market power that you see? If I take the liberty of second guessing you are probably talking about the fact that when potential immigrants bribe and manipulate the political & administrative system to their advantage, those who are going to be hurt by it (indegenous poor) cannot offer a counter-bribe or payment or measure. If this is what you are talking about, then I think you are focusing on an apparent symptom rather than the cause of the disease. In fact, this kind of market power is excercised by anyone who manipulates the state to his personal advantage and hence to the disadvantage of some others. You write: "i am not the first person asking this operation to be above board. sanjay hazarika made a case for work permits, etc, in his book "rites of passage...". in other words, he argues, let this entire operation be done in full view of everyone. based on policies that all of us agree on. currently, we don't know anything about this operation. leading to rhetoric, and a situation that is creating jingoism, chauvinism, and what not. have you been reading the aamsu and aasu threats and counter-threats in the last couple of days? unfortunately, that book by hazarika is not popular, and when the suggestion is made that we need to look at the networks on the indian side of the border it is so out of the blue people say "oh, you are looking for independence". duh! or in the spirit of things, doh!!" You suggest that perhaps the system can be made non-malipulable by making the process transparent. I have read about these kind of suggestions in the past and made some myself. I no longer believe in them. All such schemes require social engineering. The weakness of the state in Assam - one than cannot even run primary schools and health centers - dissuades me from believing that any such scheme will not degenerate into bureaucrats doling out papers for small money. The logic is simple - if they don't - the immigrants can still enter through existing means - illegally. They will simply not use these channels if it acts as an impediment to their free movement. And if they do, then the channel must have been compromised sufficiently. Transparency works only if the non-transparent channels are closed and the transparent channel is itself non-manipulable. The state in assam as it is and as it will be cannot deliver that. So these people who accuse you of political heresy might be clever enough to see it ...:-). Seriously, I think electrified high voltage barbed wire fences and no man's land across the border are going to be slightly more effective. But in the final analysis there is nothing to do but to try to affect the reasons immigrants find it to their advantage to enter and pay and fight to stay. You write: "> Migration should then cease after a period of time. from the look of it, this will not cease for a long time. the population density in bangladesh is in the 900s. it is in the 300s in assam. the situation in bangladesh countryside can only deteriorate, with decreasing land and increasing population, how long do you think it will take to catch up with the bangladeshi countryside?" I don't think the situation is that bleak. One must recognize that migrants from Bangladesh do not move to Assam because of higher wages - they are much better off going to urban informal sector in high growth cities of mainland India for that purpose. This is not the classical kind of migration - like Mexicans moving to the US. Most of them are no longer motivated by the desire to acquire private assets like privately owned land because they are often poor enough to not have the means to buy them in the open market in Assam (the richer ones don't need to move in the current economic climate in Bangladesh). The primary motivation for the extremely poor migrants to Assam is and has always been low cost access to non-private resources (owned by state or collectively). That resource base has dwindled and will disappear soon. On the other hand, demand for labor intensive manufacturing is going up sharply in Bangladesh (something that will never happen in Assam as mainland India will suck up such manufacturing). This is getting too long. So, I will stop for now. Best - Santanu-da. _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
