LEGALLY SPEAKING - Refugees have a universal right to seek asylum
Dhananjay Mahapatra
|
In the aftermath of the terrible Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984, renowned photographer Raghu Rai's lens had captured the picture of a toddler's body buried neck deep in a half-filled pit. The photograph became the iconic picture of world's worst industrial disaster.It stirred human sensitivities. But the surge of emotions was momentary . It did not stir the emotions enough to stop irregular running of chemical plants like LEGALLY S Union Carbide or production of chemical weapons, which was used on the Kurds to deadly effect in 1988. A picture of a Syrian refugee's lifeless son was published recently in newspapers. A soldier watched from a distance the body of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi washed ashore at Turkish beach resort Bordum.
The heart-rending picture narrated the tragic story of refugees that has been told repeatedly over the decades by those who abandon their homes, leave behind their culture and are forced to flee to a foreign country to escape death.
World War II saw massive exodus of people from war-ravaged states to other countries. In 1948, countries signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 14(1) of the declaration guaran teed the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries. In July 1951, nations adopted the Convention in Geneva relat ing to the Status of Refugees, which was later amended by the 1967 Protocol.
Article 1(A)(2) of the 1951 convention defined a refugee as an individual who was outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence and unable or unwill ing to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, reli gion, nationality , political SPEAKING opinion or membership in a particular social group.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is now entrusted with the task of looking into refugee is sues, but countries also have a protecting role, even though their material inter ests are not engaged, and notwithstand ing their common reluctance.
India figures among the countries plagued with refugee problem. Right af ter partition, India saw a massive influx of refugees from across its eastern and western borders. Rehabilitating them was a gigantic task.
The rehabilitation of refugees echoed in the Supreme Court till 1970.
Rehabilitation is an intricate socio-eco nomic issue that invariably assumes po litical overtones. Carving out pieces of land for the refugees from the shrinking land bank evokes highly emotional reaction from local residents. It gets accentuated when the refugees compete for jobs and a slice of the economic benefits.
India had barely come out of the humongous task of settling partition refugees that it faced another massive influx from then East Pakistan. This became the justification for India's military intervention. Then PM Indira Gandhi spoke in Parliament in December 1971. “About three-and-a-half million people have come into India from Bangladesh during the last eight weeks... They are not refugees in the sense we have understood this word since partition. They are victims of war who have sought refuge from the military terror across our frontiers.“
She stressed the financial burden on the country from the massive influx of refugees. “On the present estimate, cost to the central exchequer on relief alone may exceed Rs 180 crore for a period of six months. All this has imposed an unexpected burden on us,“ she said.
The large-heartedness towards Bangladeshi refugees did not last long. Agitations erupted in north-eastern states over settlement of refugees, who had in a decade readied themselves to compete with the locals, creating social friction and employment insecurities.
The burden Indira Gandhi had talked about is enough in the present economic scenario to break the financial backbone of a developing country . Especially so, when refugee influx becomes massive and unending, as was experienced by Turkey and its neighbouring countries. It is one thing to accept refugees temporarily but quite another to recognize their rights. The Supreme Court has stood firm on this.
In Arunachal Pradesh vs Khudiram Chakma [1993 (3) SCR 401], the SC recognized the right to life of Chakma refugees who migrated to Assam from East Pakistan in 1964. In 1966, the Centre drew up a resettlement scheme and rehabilitated them in NEFA, now Arunachal Pradesh.
Later, the state received complaints about Chakmas encroaching on land and indulging in illegal collection of arms and ammunition in contact with militant groups. The state ordered Chakmas to vacate encroached land and move back to their earmarked area. It was challenged in the SC. The SC held that Chakmas had a right to rehabilitation under Article 21. But it said it could not scrutinize the government policy providing the procedure for their rehabilitation.
In National Human Rights Commission vs Arunachal Pradesh [1996 SCC (1) 742], the SC had sternly dealt with the ultimatum given by All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union to the Chakmas to either flee the state or face death.
The SC warned against any threat to life of Chakmas and told Arunachal Pradesh that it was the state's duty and obligation to protect “life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit anybody or group of persons, like the AAPSU, to threaten Chakmas to leave the state“.
Will the top courts of other countries emulate our Supreme Court in giving refugees a dignified existence that will help toddlers like Aylan Kurdi dream of a better future?
The heart-rending picture narrated the tragic story of refugees that has been told repeatedly over the decades by those who abandon their homes, leave behind their culture and are forced to flee to a foreign country to escape death.
World War II saw massive exodus of people from war-ravaged states to other countries. In 1948, countries signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 14(1) of the declaration guaran teed the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries. In July 1951, nations adopted the Convention in Geneva relat ing to the Status of Refugees, which was later amended by the 1967 Protocol.
Article 1(A)(2) of the 1951 convention defined a refugee as an individual who was outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence and unable or unwill ing to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, reli gion, nationality , political SPEAKING opinion or membership in a particular social group.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is now entrusted with the task of looking into refugee is sues, but countries also have a protecting role, even though their material inter ests are not engaged, and notwithstand ing their common reluctance.
India figures among the countries plagued with refugee problem. Right af ter partition, India saw a massive influx of refugees from across its eastern and western borders. Rehabilitating them was a gigantic task.
The rehabilitation of refugees echoed in the Supreme Court till 1970.
Rehabilitation is an intricate socio-eco nomic issue that invariably assumes po litical overtones. Carving out pieces of land for the refugees from the shrinking land bank evokes highly emotional reaction from local residents. It gets accentuated when the refugees compete for jobs and a slice of the economic benefits.
India had barely come out of the humongous task of settling partition refugees that it faced another massive influx from then East Pakistan. This became the justification for India's military intervention. Then PM Indira Gandhi spoke in Parliament in December 1971. “About three-and-a-half million people have come into India from Bangladesh during the last eight weeks... They are not refugees in the sense we have understood this word since partition. They are victims of war who have sought refuge from the military terror across our frontiers.“
She stressed the financial burden on the country from the massive influx of refugees. “On the present estimate, cost to the central exchequer on relief alone may exceed Rs 180 crore for a period of six months. All this has imposed an unexpected burden on us,“ she said.
The large-heartedness towards Bangladeshi refugees did not last long. Agitations erupted in north-eastern states over settlement of refugees, who had in a decade readied themselves to compete with the locals, creating social friction and employment insecurities.
The burden Indira Gandhi had talked about is enough in the present economic scenario to break the financial backbone of a developing country . Especially so, when refugee influx becomes massive and unending, as was experienced by Turkey and its neighbouring countries. It is one thing to accept refugees temporarily but quite another to recognize their rights. The Supreme Court has stood firm on this.
In Arunachal Pradesh vs Khudiram Chakma [1993 (3) SCR 401], the SC recognized the right to life of Chakma refugees who migrated to Assam from East Pakistan in 1964. In 1966, the Centre drew up a resettlement scheme and rehabilitated them in NEFA, now Arunachal Pradesh.
Later, the state received complaints about Chakmas encroaching on land and indulging in illegal collection of arms and ammunition in contact with militant groups. The state ordered Chakmas to vacate encroached land and move back to their earmarked area. It was challenged in the SC. The SC held that Chakmas had a right to rehabilitation under Article 21. But it said it could not scrutinize the government policy providing the procedure for their rehabilitation.
In National Human Rights Commission vs Arunachal Pradesh [1996 SCC (1) 742], the SC had sternly dealt with the ultimatum given by All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union to the Chakmas to either flee the state or face death.
The SC warned against any threat to life of Chakmas and told Arunachal Pradesh that it was the state's duty and obligation to protect “life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit anybody or group of persons, like the AAPSU, to threaten Chakmas to leave the state“.
Will the top courts of other countries emulate our Supreme Court in giving refugees a dignified existence that will help toddlers like Aylan Kurdi dream of a better future?
