Whither inclusiveness?

The Windrush scandal has raised questions on Britain’s attitude towards immigrants

In the 1960s, hundreds of immigrants reached the United Kingdom from the West Indies, on the ship, the Windrush. They came to provide an essential service. Sadly, they were not properly integrated into the U.K. and recently many of them have been sent ‘home’, because, it was claimed, they were not recorded as U.K. citizens.

This has become a major issue, and, fortunately, the British government has accepted that there is a problem, and that something must be done about it. That, though a good development, does not alter the problems, and the unhappiness, that many have suffered.

The Windrush problem provides a good reflection of a major issue — the attitude towards immigrants in the U.K.

Many of them are here because there is a need for the service which they provide. That is particularly true, for example, of the National Health Service, which depends greatly on people from overseas to fill many of its posts.

The major question, however, concerns the negative attitudes to people of different races which many — not, of course, all — people in the U.K. demonstrate. For those of us who believe that people should be treated properly and with respect, regardless of their race or ethnic origin, that is depressing.

Much of it, it must be said, derives from ignorance. In some parts of the country, there are very few people from different races, and the residents in those areas have no experience of them. The proportion of the population who are immigrants is in fact quite small — around 9% — but many people assume it is much greater, and therefore constitutes a threat. There is of course no excuse for that, but it goes some way to explain it.

What can, and should, we do about this? First and foremost, we should recognise, and accept, that people deserve to be treated equally and with respect, whatever their ethnic origin. As part of the way of achieving this, we should recognise that something needs to be done about the level of ignorance that exists. In short, we should take steps to ensure that people are well informed and become conscious of the nature of people of many different ethnic groups.

Much can, and should, be done in schools, but not only there. There is clearly a need for much wider efforts to ensure that people are properly informed. Politicians should play their part in this.

The Windrush scandal was a graphic reminder that things have gone badly wrong, and it should provide a strong incentive to ensure that nothing like it happens again. If we require proof of the importance of this, we need only note the huge problems that many people have faced because of the failure to ensure that their position in the U.K. was clear.

The writer is an Emeritus Fellow and former Vice President of Wolfson College, Cambridge University, U.K.

Source: The Hindu, 12/10/2018

The Rohingya Reversal

By allowing refugee deportation, judiciary has stepped back from its own principles

At the annual session of the executive committee of the UNHCR held in Geneva, India stated, “We are a responsible state with a functional democracy and rule of law.” On the same day, October 3, seven Rohingya men were being taken to the Indo-Myanmar border for a scheduled deportation. Ironically, they had no access to legal counsel, courts or the UNHCR, which is mandated by the government to conduct refugee status determination of Myanmar nationals.

The men had entered Assam in 2012 without documentation and were prosecuted for illegal entry under the Foreigners Act. At that time, the Rohingya were already fleeing Myanmar. After completing their three month-sentence, the men were moved to “administrative detention” in Silchar where they languished. State officials claim that in 2016 the men expressed the desire to return to their families. In mid-September, the local media reported that pursuant to negotiations with Myanmar, India would be deporting the men on October 4. The decision to deport was surprising given that a case challenging the government’s move to carry out en masse deportation of Rohingya refugees is still pending before the Supreme Court.

As the last resort, an intervention application was filed before the SC on September 29 seeking a stay order. Despite the stated urgency, the SC listed the matter for a hearing only on October 4. The government argued that the detainees had consented to return and that the Myanmar Embassy had confirmed that the men were “citizens”. When counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the detainees were “refugees” as they were at the risk of persecution, the matter was dismissed by the Bench noting that they were “illegal immigrants”.

In NHRC v. State of Arunachal, the Court extended protection under Article 14 and 21 to refugees. Further, various high courts have upheld the customary international law principle of non-refoulement in deportation cases and have referred the detainees to UNHCR. In view of these principles, the deportation of Rohingya refugees is in contravention of India’s obligations both under the Constitution and international law.

With regard to the argument that the men were “illegal immigrants”, it should be noted that, given the circumstances that cause them to flee, refugees often cross borders without prior planning or valid documentation. If anything, this should reinforce their status as “refugees”. In the present case, given the overwhelming evidence to show that the Rohingya deported to Myanmar are at risk of being tortured, indefinitely detained and even killed, the deportation potentially violates Article 21, and India’s international obligations.

The argument that the men are “citizens” and therefore not in need of protection is without legal basis. Refugees frequently, though not always, are citizens of the state they are fleeing from. What is also troubling is that the affidavit submitted in court by the government states that the men have been accepted as “citizens” by Myanmar. The root of the plight of the Rohingya is the denial of citizenship. In Myanmar, they are being issued the controversial National Verification Card which does not recognise their religion or ethnicity — and definitely does not confer citizenship.

In the absence of a domestic law for refugee protection, it has been up to the judiciary to extend minimum constitutional protection to refugees. By allowing this deportation, the SC has set a new precedent that is contrary to India’s core constitutional tenets. However, it is important to not overstate the implications of this order, which ultimately was based on the notion that the men had consented to return. In cases where there is no consent, this cannot apply as a precedent.

Source: Indian Express, 10/10/2018

No land’s people

Cooperation among governments and tolerance among citizens will help us find a solution to the refugee crisis

A large number of people in the world today are stateless and are thus deprived of the rights that the majority enjoy. This problem is particularly significant in the Indian context now — not only because of the Rohingya crisis that is unfolding in the subcontinent, but also because of the updating of the National Register of Citizens (NRC). It is worrying that over 40 lakh people in Assam have been left out of the draft NRC, and that many of them have reportedly not been given reasons for their omission. Even within families, some members have been recognised as citizens, while others have to refile their claim for citizenship. If rejected again, these people stand the risk of losing citizenship and even being deported. But where will they go?

ALSO READ

The imperative to offer refuge

 

The NRC situation sounds eerily similar to how the Rohingya Muslims were ousted from Myanmar. And the attitude of various governments towards stateless people is similar. Myanmar State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi has drawn a lot of criticism from the international community for the treatment of the Rohingya, so much so that she has been stripped of many prestigious international titles. India has argued that taking in the Rohingya would be a national security concern as well as a drain on its resources. These concerns trump the basic concern for the lives of these people.

Election promises

This pattern is repeated across the world. It is ironic that the U.S. has condemned the attacks on the Rohingya given its own “zero-tolerance” policy towards illegal immigrants. Recent reports of the U.S. separating children from their families and keeping them in enclosed quarters were reminiscent of the infamous political leadership of Germany in the 1930s and ’40s, and provoked former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to say that the U.S. can no longer be considered a champion of human rights. U.S. President Donald Trump promised during his campaign to get tough on illegal immigration, which helped him ride to Republican nomination and subsequently to the White House.

Similarly, the BJP promised during its campaign before the Assam Assembly elections to scrutinise citizenship in the State. This helped the party clinch the State. These examples seem to suggest that votes are being cast, among other things, on the promise of delivering results akin to ethnic cleansing.

In Germany, the influx of refugees nearly cost Chancellor Angela Merkel her office; in Britain, the refugee question was the key deciding factor in the Brexit referendum. The question is, even if the political leadership is willing to accept immigrants, would the general populace today accept them or has xenophobia swept over compassion? Disturbing images of families and even children being washed ashore seem to do little to affect the ethnocentrism of today.

No international cooperation

There seems to be no political consensus or international cooperation on refugee rehabilitation. This is a grave concern, because the fate of these people does not hang as an albatross around any country’s neck. The inability to take a stand will only worsen the situation, as has been the case in Palestine, where over a million people have been living in camps as refugees since the 1940s. Their descendants are also treated as refugees. These refugees have been without an identity for seven decades now, which shows how prolonged a migrant’s ordeal can be when no nation is willing to treat the problem as its own.

ALSO READ

In the city of refugees: Rohingya camps in Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar

 

Receiving little media attention is the fact that Africa is taking in a disproportionate number of refugees — currently 80% of the world’s refugee population, according to the UN. Developing countries have fewer resources, which is why it is heartening that countries like Ethiopia choose to value the lives of refugees over nationality, ethnicity and polity considerations.

The importance of protecting borders and containing threats to national security cannot be undermined. But the key factors that have led to the refugee crisis in some places seem to be the need to appease voters, and growing jingoism. The trends indicate that this is only set to rise, if it is not checked. Hegemonic countries cannot adopt isolationism in dealing with a situation that involves such a significant number of the world’s inhabitants. Cooperation among governments and tolerance among citizens will help us find a solution to this conflict.

Source: The Hindu, 18/09/2018

'India’s refugee policy is an example for the rest of the world to follow'

Antonio Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says India, which has opened its doors for refugees and asylum seekers has set an example for other countries to emulate. The former Prime Minister of Portugal who was in India recently, attended the fourth round of open-ended bilateral consultations in New Delhi and deliberated on the current policies and activities of UNHCR in several regions of the world as well as on South Asia-specific situations.

Q How does UNHCR view the situation of refugees, asylum-seekers, stateless persons and the displaced in India? What are your expectations from the Government of India?

AG: India with its history, culture, traditions, is today an example of generosity in the way it has opened its borders to all people who have come looking for safety and sanctuary. There are Tibetans, Afghans, Myanmarese in India and it has maintained an open door policy for all. India has a generous approach in relationship to all people and a proof of that is the granting of long term visas and work permits to refugees. We consider India a more reliable partner in the world to guarantee that people who need help will find a place. And more importantly at a time when there are so many closed borders in the world, and many people have been refused protection, India has been generous.

Q Can you tell us about the meeting that you had with government officials here and what was the outcome of those talks?

AG: We have had several meetings with top government officials, including the Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid and the Foreign Secretary. These were discussions, which are part of the bilateral consultations that take place every year. For us, it is important to have India’s contribution in finding ways along with the international community to improve protection of the people around the world.

We also used the occasion to not only discuss global refugee problems, but to also discuss regional crises, which are more relevant in today’s world, like the Syrian crisis or in countries that are closer to the Indian borders like Myanmar and Afghanistan. At the same time we have discussed how we [UNHCR] can be more useful [to the Indian government] in relation to the preparation or intensification of voluntary repatriation of refugees to their countries of origin.

The number of people going back to Sri Lanka has decreased substantially in the recent past. We need to look into what are the obstacles and how the two governments of India and Sri Lanka, working together can improve the conditions and create opportunities for the voluntary repatriation of the people. Voluntary is the key word here.

Q In your estimation is the Government of Sri Lanka doing enough to help the displaced people; are you satisfied with what it has done so far?

AG: More needs to be done by the governments of the country of origin, to create conditions for people to feel comfortable about considering the possibility of returning. It has to do with the living conditions, work, education, health, property and security; these are all key questions that need to be addressed for the voluntary repatriation of the people. It is very important that the governments of the country of origin do everything possible to re-establish the confidence of people. And I hope it will be also possible in the near future to intensify the voluntary repatriation of the Tamils into Sri Lanka.

The UNHCR has been running several welfare programmes to support the people that returned and the internally displaced people of Sri Lanka. We are already cooperating with India and ready to intensify our programme in order offer our contribution to the successful operation of people going back to their homes whenever possible with safety and dignity.

Q Could you update us on the situation of the Rohingya refugees fleeing Myanmar and a sense of the talks that have taken place, and are likely to take place in the future, with the governments of Myanmar, Bangladesh and India on the issue of the Rohingyas?

AG: It is a very serious question and it is very important that effective reconciliation between the communities is promoted inside Myanmar. It is important that the problems of citizenship are solved and the countries of the region follow the example of India that has opened its borders to the Rohingyas and granted them the same status as it has to the other refugees.

It is key to create conditions for effective reconciliation of different communities and to address the citizenship problems in order to ensure everybody enjoys the basic rights that people are entitled to enjoy. The revolution in Myanmar has given us hope, and many refugees of different minorities who are considered to be part of the Myanmarese State will be able to repatriate in the future. So, we are working with the government of Thailand to support the potential return in the future of refugees from the South. And there is a meaningful number of Chin refugees, we discussed the possibility of their future.

There has been resettlement of Myanmarese in Thailand, Australia, Canada and United States. But resettlement will never solve a refugee problem. It is essential that a political solution is found for their plight to end. In the case of Myanmar, we witness with satisfaction that the ceasefire agreements were made with the different rebel groups; we also hope the Rohingya problem that is of a different nature will also be faced positively by the Myanmarese authorities.

Q: Afghan refugees continue to arrive in India and there has been large scale displacement of people. Can you give us an update on what UNHCR is doing in Afghanistan?

AG: We have engaged actively with the governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran and a solution strategy for the Afghan refugees was agreed to between the three governments and the UNHRC was presented to the international community and was approved in Geneva recently.

We hope now, there will be able to support from the same international community in order to make this strategy become a reality. The strategy is based on attracting reintegration in 48 areas in Afghanistan that were found sufficiently conducive for the return of people. But it requires a lot of support in infrastructure and education, health and conditions for sustaining livelihoods. We are also hoping that there is support from the international community for Pakistan and Iran, and we hope this strategy will mobilise solidarity of the international community to contribute not only to the improvement of the living conditions of the Afghans but also to the broad solution for the problems of the country.

India is already running the biggest cooperation programme in Afghanistan. Indian involvement is an important factor in trying to create conditions for the country [Afghanistan] to have a sustainable development. Indian programme is the largest programme, and as a government has it own people and its own country to run, nobody can ask India to do more. What is important is that its example is followed by the international community.

Q: What is the situation in Syria and the status of UNHCR's humanitarian operations there?

AG: Unfortunately there has been a multiplication of new crises in Mali, Congo, Sudan and Syria along with the existing crisis in Afghanistan and Somalia that never seem to die. There is a dramatic situation in the world, with huge consequences and more and more people are being displaced.

But of all the crises in the world right now, Syria is indeed with one that worries us more, because of the extremely fragile situation prevailing in the country; it is extremely violent with dramatic consequences and the living conditions are deteriorating. Because of the terrible humanitarian situation we have now more than 500,00 Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries registered with the UNHCR not to mention the many others who have left the country and have other resources or support and do not need the UNHCR’s assistance.

To add to this, there is fragility of political situation in Lebanon, the fact that Iraq is still emerging from a very complex situation, the economic difficulties of Jordan and the Kurdish problem in the region. All these give us a clear idea of the enormous danger that the Syrian crisis presents to the global peace and serenity. It has helped that the neighbouring countries kept their borders open for the Syrian refugees. But the problem is the absence of the political solution that is driving the situation into a dramatic suffering of the populations involved. The international community has not shown the capacity to address the political problems and find a solution that might be able to stop this terrible violence.

Q: Are you satisfied with the mandate, operations and funding of UNHCR?

AG: We are overstretched, both financially and in relation to human capacity to respond to all the crises everywhere. We are grateful to the fact that the donor community has been providing us with meaningful resources and even increasing it in proportion to the last year, but even then there has been a multiplication of the new crises and the need to go on supporting. We are never satisfied with what we do. And unfortunately the problems of the people we care for are so big, that even if we were perfect, it would still not be enough. We are far from being perfect.

What we are witnessing in today’s world is the combination of two factors, the unpredictability of political crisis and the emergence of conflict. We never had a global governance system, but in the past few years our power relations also became unclear, so things tend to happen without anybody being able to control them.

Source: The Hindu, 3/01/2013

Being positive helps change attitudes

Information campaigns can reduce public opposition to immigration and motivate citizens to take action

Fears around immigration are not new and have been exacerbated by populist waves and the migrant crisis. India too is feeling the heat. In this context, a discussion paper titled ‘Countering Public Opposition to Immigration: The Impact of Information Campaigns’ from Europe’s Centre for Economic Policy Research is illuminating.

Giovanni Facchini, Yotam Margalit and Hiroyuki Nakata conducted a social experiment in Japan on the effect of exposure to positive information about immigration on attitudes towards immigrants. Japan was chosen for its rapidly ageing population, low birth rate, severe labour shortages in some sectors, and low levels of immigration due to public opposition. Subjects in the study were told that they were assessing texts as potential school curricular options (knowing the objective of the exercise could distort their responses).

All 9,000 participants were given a text on a Japanese painter, a subject unrelated to migration. The control group, comprising some of the 9,000 people, was given a second text, with information on Pluto, a topic again unrelated to migration. The remaining individuals, or the treatment group, were provided with one of several texts that contained a discussion of a demographic problem in Japan and how immigration could help alleviate it.

After exposure to the questions, respondents were asked three questions: whether they’d accept more immigrants, about temporary migration (a visa question), and on whether they would sign a petition for increasing the number of immigrants. In order to test the longevity of the informational effects, some respondents were asked these questions immediately and others after a gap of 10-12 days.

Respondents who were from groups exposed to positive information showed a 43-72% greater likelihood of supporting immigration and an 18-24% higher likelihood of supporting some form of temporary migration compared to their control group peers. Individuals were also more willing to sign a petition after being exposed to positive immigration information than in the absence of it.

The researchers also found that the positive impacts last over the delayed 10-12 day study period, but are diminished compared to the immediate studies.

Source: The Hindu, 21-02-2017

The economics of illegal immigration

It can contribute to the economy, but it disproportionately affects low-skilled native workers

US President Donald Trump’s first steps to tighten American border policy have, unsurprisingly, courted controversy. His executive order clamping down on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim nations is aimed at bolstering national security. The issue that had dominated his campaign trail and much of the first week of his presidency—stopping illegal immigration from Mexico—is a different matter. The driving impulse here, even if obfuscated by unfortunate rhetoric and a border wall solution that is essentially a boondoggle, is economic. That impulse is more complicated than it may initially seem.
The US state of Arizona makes a good starting point. A border state with a high number of illegal immigrants, it started cracking down in 2004. A study carried out by Moody’s Analytics for The Wall Street Journal, distinguishing between the effects of the recession following the financial crisis and that of the crackdown, estimated that the outflow of illegal immigrants from the state had lowered its gross domestic product by an average of 2% between 2008 and 2015.
While the lack of precise data and the consequent risk of confusing correlation with causation should be kept in mind, it isn’t too much of a stretch to say that the crackdown will eventually cost American workers as a lower growth trajectory results in fewer jobs. This is exacerbated by the fact that the replacement rate of American and legal immigrant workers in the jobs vacated by illegal immigrants is low—less than 10%, according to Moody’s. US Bureau of Labor Statistics seem to bear this out, showing a worker shortage as the Arizona economy recovered following the crisis.
Yet, it isn’t as cut and dried a case as these numbers suggest. Those bureau statistics show that wages for American low-skilled workers rose significantly between 2010 and 2014. In short, while clamping down on illegal immigration hurt overall growth and thus the employment prospects for American workers—and is likely to do so in the medium-to-long term too as employers go in for automation to deal with worker shortages and rising wages—it also had a redistributive effect.
Economist Gordon Hanson’s The Economic Logic Of Illegal Immigration highlights these trade-offs on a national scale. He contends, provocatively, that illegal immigration is more responsive to economic growth than legal immigration. The former exists outside the legal framework and can thus respond swiftly to business cycles. In contrast, the latter must be filtered through layers of bureaucracy and is thus relatively unresponsive to the economy’s immediate needs, lagging the business cycle by as much as two-three years. The compromise, as Harvard economist George Borjas has pointed out, is that low-skilled American workers are disproportionately affected when it comes to employment prospects and wage levels. And while the prices of labour-intensive goods also tend to drop because of the productivity yields of illegal immigration, nominal wage decreases will always be more politically visible than real wage decreases. The other trade-off, as Hanson notes, is that the strain illegal immigration places on the state and tax-paying citizens varies from region to region. It is dependent on a range of factors such as the size of the immigrant’s family and the social safety net the state provides. While the strain illegal immigrants place on the education, medical and law-enforcement systems might be balanced out by the taxes they pay and the value they bring to the economy on a national scale, there might be specific states such as New Jersey where they cause a net loss to the exchequer.
And there’s the main takeaway from the illegal immigration debate in the US. Its effect on the larger economy is a wash, according to most economists—neither beneficial, nor harmful to any significant degree—but it changes the proportion in which the pie is distributed. This effect is pronounced in states that have a lower proportion of highly educated people and thus more citizens competing for low-skill jobs with illegal immigrants. Witness India’s north-east and east, for instance. Bangladeshi immigrants have contributed to a rise in agricultural productivity—but the large section of the native population working in the informal economy and thus competing with them, as well as the state’s poor ability to collect taxes, means that they have imposed a considerable cost.
In a 2009 testimony before the Senate judiciary subcommittee on immigration, refugees and border security, Alan Greenspan said, “There is little doubt that… illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy… Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants… marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high-school diploma…. However, the estimated wage suppression and fiscal costs are relatively small, and economists generally view the overall economic benefits of this workforce as significantly outweighing the costs.”
This cavalier dismissal of the trade-offs and the costs imposed on citizens in lower socio-economic brackets—not to mention of noneconomic concerns such as cultural—is at the heart of the rise of populism and populist politicians, whether in the US or in Europe. The issue requires debate shorn of demagoguery from both left and right—a rare commodity in present political climes.

Source: Mint epaper, 31-1-2017 

 

PRAVASI BHARATIYA DIVAS - 20% of Indian migrants reside in UAE: Report 

 

Indians World's Largest Diaspora

The migration of Indians from the country to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) formed the second largest corridor in terms of number of migrants in 2015, according to a report released by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The flow of migrants from India to the UAE between 1995 and 2015 stood at 28 lakh, making UAE the top destination country for Indian migrants (It ranked fourth place in 1995).
The corridor between Mexico and the United States remains the largest in terms of the volume of migrants. In 2015, the flow from Mexico to US stood at nearly 55 lakh. Migration flow between 1995 and 2015 has been computed by OECD by taking the difference between the number of migrants in each of these two years.
In 2015, Indians accounted for the largest diaspora in the world with 156 lakh migrants, according to OECD's report -`Perspectives on global development, 2017: International migration in a shifting world.' The report points out that 24.3 crore people were living outside their country of birth in 2015, accounting for 3.3% of the world's population. This was a significant increase over the past twenty years -in 1995 only 2.7% of the world's pop ulation comprised of diaspo ra. The move of migrants has increasingly been towards high income countries.
The number of migrants from India living in the UAE grew by 126% between 2005 and 2010, accounting for nearly 20% of the global Indian mi grant stock in 2015 (In 1995, this constituted just 9% of India's diaspora). Immigrants now account for almost 70% of the total population in Kuwait and more than 80% in Qatar and the UAE. Indians are the sec ond largest immigrant group in the US, after Mexicans ac counting for 4.7% of the 413 lakh foreign born population.
A significant portion of Indi an immigrants in the US AS are recent arrivals: 51% of the total Indian born population arrived during or after 2000, compared to 36% of the foreign born population as a whole.
As regards the future, OECD's report said increasing protectionist measures were being adopted by high income countries, which should see a shift in the migration trends.
`Convert PIO cards into OCI cards by June 30'
PM Modi urged people of Indian origin (PIOs) to convert their cards into Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cards, reiterating the government's decision to extend the deadline for these card conversions from December 31last year to June 30, without any penalty. “From January 1this year, beginning with Delhi and Bengaluru, we have set up special counters at immigration points for OCI cardholders. We want it to become a symbol of global migration, achievements and aspirations of the diaspora,“ he said. PTI

Source: Times of India, 9-01-2017

It is time for a uniform asylum law

The debate surrounding Brahamdagh Bugti’s request for asylum in India has largely focussed on the foreign policy implications. Numerous legal issues deserve consideration.

India stands poised to make one of the most critical decisions with respect to its refugee policy, but without a domestic asylum law and without having signed the UN Refugee Convention of 1951. This has left India without a structured and institutionalised framework for addressing refugee inflows. At the same time, however, the country is known to have a broadly humanitarian approach to asylum, and is bound by both its own constitutional principles and customary international law. As the Home Ministry examines Baloch leader Brahamdagh Bugti’s asylum claim, the debate has so far largely centred on the foreign policy implications. There remain, however, numerous legal issues which demand serious consideration.

Unanswered questions

First, the manner in which the current asylum claim has been made raises the question of whether a person can apply for asylum in India from outside the country. International refugee law only states that a person needs to be outside his/her own country to seek asylum; it is silent on whether the person needs to be physically present in the territory of the country where s/he hopes to receive asylum or whether s/he can make such an application from a third country. This is a much debated issue in international law and countries have adopted varying policies in this regard. Having allowed Mr. Bugti to seek asylum from Switzerland, it is unclear whether India has made an exception in this case or is now open to asylum applications without physical presence within its national borders. This question needs to be settled.

Second, Mr. Bugti claimed in a recent interview that his asylum application to Switzerland was turned down on account of his party being put on a terror watch list by Pakistan. While this could be a politically motivated act by Pakistan, as per international refugee law, this does trigger the need for a prospective asylum country to examine whether Mr. Bugti has committed or been involved in activities referred to as crimes against humanity, war crimes, serious non-political crimes, and so on. A fundamental principle of international refugee law is to not grant asylum to such persons, as doing so would go against the humanitarian spirit of refugee protection. The civilian character of a refugee populace is paramount, and active combatants are excluded from the same. Therefore, Mr. Bugti’s activities as a Baloch leader need to be thoroughly examined.

Third, India’s approach towards the larger Baloch refugee community in the future is yet to be addressed. Does India intend to grant asylum to Mr. Bugti alone, or to other Baloch asylum-seekers as well, or on a case-by-case basis? Irrespective of the modality it chooses, the Indian state will have to invest in setting up both a policy mechanism as well as the physical infrastructure for management of this group.

Legal rights

Finally, if Mr. Bugti is granted asylum in India, what will his legal rights be? Since Indian law does not even mention the term ‘refugee’, there are no clearly defined rights and duties for refugees. In practice, there are multiple approaches towards the different refugee communities, so much so that there isn’t even a common form of documentation that is issued to them. The outcome of this is that they have widely disparate access to basic rights. For example, while Sri Lankans and Tibetans have government-issued IDs, the vast majority of Afghan and Burmese refugees have only the documentation given to them by the UN, which is not widely recognised. There is still no clarity in this regard, and the Baloch would be yet another group of refugees for whom a separate policy would have to be created.

The most pragmatic way to address these legal issues would be for India to adopt a uniform asylum law for all refugee communities. It would allow for the codification of India’s best practices with respect to asylum, which would, at the very least, eliminate the need to revisit its historical policies each time it faces a new question of refugee protection. A national asylum law would also reduce the need for parallel mechanisms, and put in place a structured system for asylum management in the future.

Roshni Shanker and Vasudha Reddy run the Ara Trust, a centre for refugee law and forced migration studies, based in New Delhi.

Keywords: uniform asylum law, refugee policy, Brahamdagh Bugti’s asylum claim

Source: The Hindu, 29-09-2016

We can change this’: World leaders at UN approve plan for refugee crisis

With more people forced to flee their homes than at any time since World War II, global leaders on Monday approved a declaration aimed at providing a more coordinated and humane response to the refugee crisis that has strained resources and stoked divisions from Africa to Europe.

The issue of what to do about the world’s 65.3 million displaced people took centre stage at the UN General Assembly with leaders from the 193 member states converging on New York for the first-ever summit on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants.

“The bitter truth is this summit was called because we have been largely failing. Failing the long-suffering people of Syria, in not ending the war in its infancy. Failing others in now chronic conflict zones, for the same reason. Failing millions of migrants who deserve far more than lives marked by cradle-to-grave indignity and desperation,” said Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the UN high commissioner for human rights.

Zeid praised the political consensus reached in approving the New York Declaration on Migrants and Refugees, but warned against complacency and self-congratulation.

He said xenophobia is a major factor contributing to failure thus far.

“We can change this ... but not when the defenders of what is right and good are being outflanked in too many countries by race-baiting bigots, who seek to gain, or retain, power by wielding prejudice and deceit, at the expense of those most vulnerable,” Zeid said.

The declaration no concrete commitments and is not legally binding but rather calls on countries to protect refugees’ human rights, boost humanitarian aid and increase resettlement of refugees.

“Today’s summit represents a breakthrough in our collective efforts to address the challenges of human mobility,” said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, adding that the declaration will mean “more children can attend school; more workers can securely seek jobs abroad, instead of being at the mercy criminal smugglers, and more people will have real choices about whether to move once we end conflict.”

The document seeks to standardise responses to refugee situations and provide better education and jobs to refugees. It also encourages resettlement and includes plans for a campaign to combat xenophobia.

That may prove an uphill struggle as the declaration comes at a time that refugees and migrants have become a divisive issue in Europe and the United States.A number of countries rejected an earlier draft of the agreement that called on nations to resettle 10 percent of the refugee population each year, something that has led several human rights groups to criticize the document as a missed opportunity. The US and a number of other countries also objected to language in the original draft that said children should never be detained, so the agreement now says children should seldom, if ever, be detained.

The declaration paves the way for negotiations on a pair of global compacts, one providing guidelines on the treatment of migrants in vulnerable situations and another on seeking more equitable burden sharing in support of the world’s refugees.

According to the UN Refugee Agency, refugees are people forced to flee due to armed conflict or persecution, while migrants choose to move in search of a better life. Around the world, there are currently about 21.3 million refugees, 3.2 million asylum seekers, and 40.8 million migrants.

More concrete progress is expected at a follow-up summit on Tuesday called by President Barack Obama, where at least 45 countries are expected to make pledges that are in line with US goals of increasing humanitarian aid by $3 billion, doubling resettlement and increasing access to education for 1 million youngsters and access to employment for another million of the displaced.

“You hear all around the world the UN hasn’t handled the refugee crisis. The way the UN will handle the refugee crisis is if all of us countries within the UN step up and dig deep and face those political headwinds that we all face, to do more, to give more, to take on a greater share of the resettlement challenge,” said Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN.

Prior to the pledging summit with world leaders, Obama will host a meeting with top executives from 50 companies to discuss what the private sector can do to help address the problem, Power said.

Source: Hindustan Times, 20-09-2016

United Nations holds first-ever summit on refugees and migrants

The issue of what to do about the world’s 65.3 million displaced people takes center stage at the United Nations General Assembly Monday when leaders from around the globe converge on New York for the first-ever summit on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants.

With more people forced to flee their homes than at any time since World War II, leaders and diplomats are expected to approve a document aimed at unifying the UN’s 193 member states behind a more coordinated approach that protects the human rights of refugees and migrants.

“It’s very interesting because if we are able to translate that paper into a response in which many actors are going to participate, we will solve a lot of problems in emergency responses and in long-term refugee situations like the Syrian situation,” Fillipo Grandi, the UN’s high commissioner for refugees told The Associated Press.

That may prove an uphill struggle, however, as the document is not legally binding and comes at a time that refugees and migrants have become a divisive issue in Europe and the United States.

A number of countries rejected an earlier draft of the agreement that called on nations to resettle 10% of the refugee population each year, something that has led a number of human rights groups to criticize the document as a missed opportunity. The US and a number of other countries also objected to language in the original draft that said children should never be detained, so the agreement now says children should seldom, if ever, be detained.

“Instead of sharing responsibility, world leaders shirked it. The UN summit has been sabotaged by states acting in self-interest, leaving millions of refugees in dire situations around the world on the edge of a precipice,” Amnesty International secretary general Salil Shetty said in a statement.

Shetty said the agreement merely kicks the can down the road by calling for separate global compacts for refugees and migrants to be adopted within two years.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, whose report on refugees and migrants laid the basis for the summit document, said he was aware of the criticism from non-governmental groups.

“While we all wish it could be a stronger outcome document ... all 193 member states had to agree on their commitment. As you will see, my report was a strong one,” Ban said. “I hope that, as the two compacts are adopted over the coming year and a half, some stronger language and commitment and elements from the report will reappear in the course of this negotiation.”

More concrete progress is expected at a follow-up summit on Tuesday called by President Barack Obama, where at least 45 countries are expected to make pledges that are in line with US goals of increasing humanitarian aid by $3 billion, doubling resettlement and increasing access to education for one million youngsters and access to employment for another million of the displaced.

“You hear all around the world the UN hasn’t handled the refugee crisis. The way the UN will handle the refugee crisis is if all of us countries within the UN step up and dig deep and face those political headwinds that we all face, to do more, to give more, to take on a greater share of the resettlement challenge,” said Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN.

Power said prior to the pledging summit with world leaders, Obama will host a meeting with top executives from 50 companies to discuss what the private sector can do to help address the problem.

According to the Office of the UN high commissioner for refugees, an “unprecedented” 65.3 million people were displaced at the end of 2015, an increase of more than 5 million from a year earlier. They include 21.3 million refugees, 3.2 million asylum seekers, and 40.8 million migrants.

According to the UN Refugee Agency, refugees are people forced to flee due to armed conflict or persecution, while migrants chose to move in search of a better life.

Source: Hindustan Times, 19-09-2016

Citizenship without bias

The new citizenship legislation should include refugees from persecuted minorities of all denominations who have made India their home

On July 19, 2016, the government introduced a Bill to amend certain provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Bill has now been referred to the joint select committee of Parliament. The object of the proposed Bill is to enable Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who have fled to India from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh without valid travel documents, or those whose valid documents have expired in recent years, to acquire Indian citizenship by the process of naturalisation. Under the Bill, such persons shall not be treated as illegal immigrants for the purpose of the Citizenship Act. In another amendment, the aggregate period of residential qualification for the process of citizenship by naturalisation of such persons is proposed to be reduced from 11 years to six years. A large number of people who would otherwise be illegal immigrants can now heave a sigh of relief if the Bill goes through as they would be eligible to become citizens of the country.

Not inclusive enough

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, owes its genesis to the assurance given by the Prime Minister that Hindus from these three countries who have sought asylum in India would be conferred Indian citizenship. But since singling out Hindus alone could be discriminatory, the Bill has extended the right to acquire citizenship to other religious minorities living in the three countries.

V. Suryanarayan, Geeta Ramaseshan

The Bill, when passed, would be of immense benefit to the Chakmas and Hajongs of Bangladesh displaced because of the construction of the Kaptai Dam who have been refugees for nearly 65 years. The Supreme Court in Committee for C.R. of C.A.P. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh directed the Government of India and Arunachal Pradesh to grant citizenship to eligible persons from these communities and to protect their life and liberty and further prohibited discrimination against them.

Though India has not enacted a national refugee law, the three principles underlying India’s treatment of refugees was spelt out in Parliament by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1959 with reference to Tibetan refugees. They include: refugees will be accorded a humane welcome; the refugee issue is a bilateral issue; and the refugees should return to their homeland once normalcy returns there.

The proposed Bill recognises and protects the rights of refugees and represents a welcome change in India’s refugee policy. But it would have been appropriate if the Bill had used the term “persecuted minorities” instead of listing out non-Muslim minorities in three countries. To give an example, the Ahmadiyyas are not considered Muslims in Pakistan and are subject to many acts of discrimination. Other groups include members of the Rohingyas, who being Muslims are subjected to discrimination in Myanmar and have fled to India. Such a gesture would also have been in conformity with the spirit of religious and linguistic rights of minorities guaranteed under our Constitution. Unfortunately the Bill does not take note of the refugees in India from among the Muslim community who have fled due to persecution and singles them out on the basis of religion, thereby being discriminatory.

The case of the Malaiha Tamils

Yet another disappointing feature of the Bill is that it does not provide citizenship to the people of Indian origin from Sri Lanka who fled to Tamil Nadu as refugees following the communal holocaust in July 1983. The Indian Tamils, or Malaiha (hill country) Tamils as they like to be called, are descendants of indentured workers who were taken by the British colonialists in the 19th and 20th centuries to provide the much-needed labour for the development of tea plantations. The British gave an assurance that the Indian workers would enjoy the same rights and privileges accorded to the Sinhalese and the Sri Lankan Tamils. But soon after independence, by a legislative enactment the Indian Tamils were discriminated and rendered stateless. In the protracted negotiations that took place between New Delhi and Colombo on the thorny issue of stateless people, Nehru maintained that except for those who voluntarily opted for Indian citizenship, the rest were the responsibility of Sri Lanka (then Ceylon). Sri Lanka, on the other hand, argued that only those who fulfilled the strict qualifications prescribed for citizenship would be conferred citizenship, and the rest were India’s responsibility.

Nehru’s principled stance was abandoned by Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi when they entered into two agreements with Colombo in 1964 and 1974, respectively. New Delhi agreed to take back 6,00,000 people of Indian origin with their natural increase as Indian citizens, while Sri Lanka agreed to give citizenship to 3,75,000 with their natural increase. The wishes of the Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka were not ascertained. To the ruling elite in Colombo and New Delhi the people of Indian origin became an embarrassing set of statistics. Important national leaders — C. Rajagopalachari, K. Kamaraj, V.K. Krishna Menon, P. Ramamurthy and C.N. Annadurai — opposed the agreement as inhuman, but their views were brushed aside by the Central government in order to befriend the Government of Sri Lanka.

The ethnic fratricide in 1977, 1981 and 1983, which affected the plantation areas, convinced many people of Indian origin that they could not live amicably with the Sinhalese. They never subscribed to the demand for a separate state of Tamil Eelam; in fact, the hill country was relatively tranquil during the protracted ethnic conflict. Even then, they were subjected to vicious attacks by some lumpen sections of the Sinhalese population. They sold all their belongings, came to India as refugees, with the hope of acquiring Indian citizenship and permanently settling down here.

A point of no return

According to informed sources, there are nearly 30,000 Malaiha Tamils in the refugee camps scattered throughout Tamil Nadu. They have absolutely no moorings in Sri Lanka. Their children have intermarried with the local people and are well integrated into Tamil society. The young have availed of educational facilities, but are unable to get jobs commensurate to their qualifications because they are not Indian citizens. The refugees in Kottapattu camp, near Tiruchi, with whom we interacted, told us: “Come what may, we will not go back to Sri Lanka.”

All these refugees qualify for Indian citizenship by registration under Article 5 of the Citizenship Act of 1955. However their plea for citizenship has been negated citing a Central government circular that Sri Lankan refugees are not entitled for Indian citizenship. In a communication dated November 21, 2007 to the Special Commissioner for Rehabilitation, the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu mentioned that there are strict instructions from the Government of India “not to entertain applications of Sri Lankan refugees for the grant of Indian citizenship”. We submit, in the light of recent developments, the above-mentioned circular of the Central government must be immediately withdrawn.

The tragedy of the Malaiha Tamils, a majority of whom are Dalits, must be underlined.

Immigrants, even those who are termed illegal, are entitled to equal protection before the law and the various rights that flow from Article 21. This was stressed by the Supreme Court in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh while addressing the rights of Chakma refugees. If such immigrants are granted citizenship, the natural progression would mean that they enjoy the benefits of rights guaranteed under Article 19 besides others such as access to the public distribution system, right to participate in the political process, right to secure employment and other rights all of which currently are inaccessible to them. The Bill recognises this in its objects and reasons by referring to the denial of opportunities and advantages to such persons. The Bill therefore should not restrict itself to minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh but should include refugees from persecuted minorities of all denominations who have made India their home.

V. Suryanarayan is founding Director and former Senior Professor, Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Madras; Geeta Ramaseshan is an advocate at the Madras High Court.

Keywords: citizenship legislation, Indian citizens, illegal immigrants, refugees

Source: The Hindu, 27/08/2016