Apala Kundu
(Apala is a student of the Department of English, M.A., at Presidency University, and can be reached at apalakundu28@gmail.com)
International
celebrity Priyanka Chopra’s appearance in an “insensitive” piece of attire- a
shirt that has the words “migrant”, “refugee” and “outsider” crossed out in red
while the word “traveller” stands out- on the cover of the October-November
2016 issue of Condé Nast Traveller India magazine, sparked widespread controversy
and furore on the social media platform, particularly on Twitter. Outraged
Twitter users lashed out at Chopra for what they considered an “offensive” and
“insensitive” act that sent out a “privileged” and “elitist” message, unheeding
of the actual plight of refugees. With
her act making international headlines and inviting scathing criticism from people
all over the world, Chopra has since issued a public apology through India’s
NDTV news channel stating that she was “really apologetic about the fact that
sentiments were hurt” (The Guardian
2016), claiming that the magazine’s campaign had been directed towards
addressing the issue of xenophobia. The magazine too came out in defence of its
cover, arguing that the intention of the photograph was to drive home its belief
in a world without borders. “Whether we are moving across oceans or just a few
kilometres, or in our mind's eye, into a completely different world, whether we
are doing so due to free will or circumstance - we are all travellers” (BBC News 2016). Indubitably, the content
of the cover is disturbing. But far more than insensitivity, the strand of
argument forwarded in its defence exposes the glaring ignorance and insouciance
that informs such ways of thinking.
Refugee
movements and flows constitute one of the most important and challenging
problems confronting the international community today in the post- Cold War
era. But the issue of refugee flows is more than just a humanitarian concern
and calls for more than just a humanitarian response. Refugee movements are
inextricably intertwined with political, economic, social and security issues
that are of immense concern to both “the sending and the receiving countries”
(Loescher 1993, 12). The prevention and solution of the refugee problem
therefore, “are not just matters of international charity or humanitarian
action by UNHCR [United Nations Refugee Agency] and other agencies; ultimately
they depend on wider political and diplomatic actions taken by regional and extra-regional
states and international organizations to manage regional and ethnic conflicts
and to initiate the reintegration of refugees and other displaced people”
(12).
The
1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defined refugees
as “any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group
or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable,
or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that
country.” This widely accepted definition of a refugee is deeply imbued with a
sense of compulsion, which stands in stark contrast to the notions of voluntary
choice, luxury and leisure that inform the idea of travel. Refugee flows should
be seen for what they are, that is, individual and collective acts of fleeing
across the physical borders of the homeland, motivated by a strong fear of
persecution or even at times, of death.
Publisher Arpita Das (2016), in her The
Huffington Post blog, puts it succinctly: “In our times, these words,
‘refugee’, ‘immigrant’ . . . are important markers of many identities which the
wearer of that label is not willing to eschew for something as privileged, as
generic as ‘traveller’. . . . The lack of choice in removing one's home and
hearth from the familiar to the alien is one fraught with heartbreak and the
feeling of being cornered.” The argument espoused by the magazine in its
defence is thus exposed as “the outcome of a privileged view of a global issue
that does not touch the holder of the view in the least, but is perceived as
something which ought to feature in their narrative because it is so ‘topical’”
(Das 2016).
Incidentally,
the topicality of this narrative serves to unmask yet another disquieting
dimension of the refugee crisis that confronts the world today. Priyanka
Chopra’s apology, Condé Nast’s defence statement, media coverage of the
controversy and the general public’s responses to the controversy on Twitter-
all of these make conspicuous the bias in the response of the international
community and international media to the global refugee crisis. For though
global in character the refugee crisis is, certain instances of it receive conscious
media focus and reportage, and involve greater participation from member states
of the international community, while others are kept out of the spotlight, and
consequently, outside public consciousness. This bias takes the form of a First
World-Third world binary, which is reflective of the neo-colonialist character
of the international community at present.
