Thus, even a small area like Mizoram shows the need to develop what Ms Ogata described, namely ‘clear, recognized and practical mechanisms to separate those fleeing from persecution or conflict, and those seeking economic betterment . . .’4 The movement out of Bangladesh represents more of the latter, even though the outflow of religious minorities is also a factor.

Let us look here a bit more closely at what she has to say because it is a good summation of some of the points I have made earlier.

‘In much of the Asia region, and in South Asia in particular, the demarcation of the boundaries of newly independent nations, emerging from colonial rule, was often arbitary. The delineation of international borders by colonial powers, in many cases, took little account of the geographical and historical realities, of and past linkages of community and kinship between them. As a result, national borders have become porous in nature and difficult to secure. Morever, the ethnic, linguistic or religious affinity of communities has led to constant cross border movements of a significant scale. These include people migrating for economic reasons but also refugees and asylum seekers . . . Today . . . greater economic competition for limited resources is resulting in a hardening of social divisions. In many countries, this has been translated into an urge for a greater demarcation of communal or national boundaries, as each community and social group struggle to asset their access to resources and to defend their shrinking space.’5

Thus, the tolerance thresholds of host communities shrink as the space for accomodation is eroded, setting the stage for social conflagrations.

Of course, we have the doubters like Shekhar Aiyar, who wrote an edit page article in the Times of India, ‘Not numbers alone: enhancing quality of human capital.’6 Shekhar, who teaches at Brown University in the United States and was an outstanding scholar, at St Stephens’, Delhi, and then at Oxford University, debunks the Malthusian nightmare, declaring that the old man was wrong, just as all those who believe that larger, poorer populations are swamping other communities are shooting off the mark.

According to Shekhar, Thomas Malthus’ theory that ‘population growth would easily outrun the extra food available, leading to famine, mass deaths and a return to the original situation’ is erroneous. Today, Malthusian arguments usually bemoan the fact that as numbers grow ‘we will run out of something or the other—trees, coal or oil—and at that point we will face catastrophies of shortage and misery.’ But, this, says Shekhar, overlooks the ‘perennial inventiveness of humans’ and the fact that as a resource grows scarce, ‘its price rises quickly, leading to redoubled and invariably successful attempts to develop an alternative resource.’

Fair enough. But what is the alternative to land? As numbers grow, yes, we can improve food productivity, land use as well as distribution. But we cannot grow more land although that inestimable provider of joy and bounty, carrier of hope and tragedy, the Brahmaputra, and its numerous allies bring down silt and help ‘grow land’ in Assam and Bangladesh. Even these great friends have their limitations.