Introduction

A little more than a month ago, India celebrated her 70^th Independence Day. Whenever we talk of independence of India from British domination, we are reminded of the territorial division of British India into two independent nation states, India and Pakistan. Consequences of partition have been fundamental to the society, economy and polity of the subcontinent, so much so that Ranabir Samaddar has suggested “Partition lives on in post-colonial times to such an extent that we should truly prefer the phrase ‘partitioned times’ to the more common ‘post colonial times.’”[1] The riots that had happened in the subcontinent since 1947, the wars that India and Pakistan had fought and most importantly Kashmir remind us that we all live in the long shadows of partition.

     Nonetheless, in recent years we have witnessed increasingly “apolitical” initiatives to memorialize partition as an event of the past that primarily aim at recording as many eyewitness accounts of 1947 as possible in regions that were directly affected by partition (like West Bengal, Assam, Punjab of Pakistan and India). Such projects, important though for various reasons, iron out the ‘longness’ of partition, as Ravinder Kaur has mentioned in a recent article.[2] Moreover, the tendency is to perceive the interviewees as victims, denying their roles as agents who might have been the perpetrators of violence and most certainly had to negotiate with the governments, family, and locals as refugees or minorities. In the existing academic literature about ordinary peoples’ experiences of partition, the need to perceive the refugees as ‘agents’ was acknowledged quite a few years back. In the recent works on partition, we see more nuances being added as categories like class, region, gender, caste and age are being used to understand the varied experiences of partition. Once we bring in such categories to see how people were negotiating with the government and vice versa, we begin to get glimpses of the complexities of postcolonial governmentality.

     This issue brings together some of the young scholars working on partition now. All of them have primarily focused on the experiences of partition in West Bengal. One article complicates the idea of partition as longue durée, connecting it with the contemporary riots in various parts of India (a much needed addendum to the memorialization initiatives that we have just mentioned). Instead of treating refugees as a homogeneous mass of people, some of the articles in this issue point towards the varied experiences of ‘colony refugees’ and ‘camp refugees’ and relevance of caste and gender in studying partition. Partition studies in West Bengal have largely focused on the issues of rehabilitation, not giving enough importance to the conditions of the Muslims, the violence they faced after 1947, communal riots and their exodus. By describing the riots of 1950 in Howrah (West Bengal), one article reminds us of these little-discussed areas of partition studies.

---

[1] Ranabir Samaddar, ‘The Last Hurrah that Continues’ in Deschaumes and Ivekovic (Eds), Divided Countries, Separated Cities: The Modern Legacy of Partition, New Delhi, 2003, 21-35, 21.

[2] http://thewire.in/59146/how-not-to-remember-partition/ accessed on September 7, 2016.

The articles in this issue are as follow (click on the links below):

My Stray Thoughts on 1947

Settling the Bazaar : The Colony Market and the Refugees

The Fort of Freedom : A Study of 'Refugeehood' through the formation of 'Azadgarh Colony'

Outside the Pail : Refugees beyond Camp or Colony in Post-Partition Calcutta

A Critical Analysis of the Category of the 'Refugee - Woman' in post- Partition Studies

The Other Side of Partition Migration and Rehabilitation : Minority Displacement and Dispossession in Bengal

Introduction

Cartoons published in the infamous French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, brought the complexities of representation and politics to the fore, in the recent past. In the cartoon depicting a drowned immigrant figure next to a Jesus like figure walking on water, was also the legend, “Christians walk on water, Muslim children sink”. Yet another featured dead Aylan Kurdi’s figure, next to a McDonald type advertisement.

The detractors were quick to condemn Charlie Hebdo’s overtly racists and insensitive cartoons, while the magazine’s editors and several others pointed out at the satire inherent in their representational practices. They claim, the satire was not directed at the migrants themselves, but Europe’s response, inadequate, to the migrant crisis.This debate points at the complexities inherent in the ‘circuit of culture’, pointing at the tensions between signifying practices, modes of production, consumption, identities and regulations.

The current issue of Refugee Watch Online seeks to tease out the politics inherent in cultural representations of migration and forced migration, From the differential and evocative use of a term to the popular imaginary of a space definitively forming an identity and a desire in the universe of Malayalam cinema, to the imaginative use of borders and crossings in search of a supportive and irreverent Europe— this issue brings together a host of articles reflecting on the representations of migration across mediums, spaces and modes.

The articles in this issue are as follow (click on the links below):

The Gulf on the Malayali Big Screen: An outline history

IO STO CON LA SPOSA: A Video-Graphic Review

Migrations and Identities: A Study of Sea of Poppies

Harraga: Snapshot on A Migration and Its Representation

Fratricide: A Review.

Mein Hoon Yusuf Aur Yeh Mera Bhai: The Story of a Real People

Book Review: The Agartala Doctrine : A Proactive Northeast in Indian Foreign Policy, Subir Bhaumik

Samata Biswas (bsamata@gmail.com)

Introduction: The Boat People

"2016, the Mediterranean is a mass grave," Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). 

This calendar year has already been marked by serious refugee crisis all over the world. Large scale movement of people from different countries of Asia and the middle East, the knee-jerk reactions of most governments, the sympathy of some populations, the Pope's naming the displaced people "god's children", the linking of terrorism with migration in popular imagination, and the increasing awareness that one needs to view all migration as forced migration, 

Within this scenario, especially with respect to the Rohingyas and refugees from Syria, the boat, both as a metaphor for going from one country to another, and a a material facilitator of the same. From Aylan Kurdi's death by drowning, to the refusal to let the Rohingya boats dock, and the reported death of  400 Somali refugees trying to reach Europe by boat, this special issue of refugee watch online seeks to look at historical instances of large scale displacement via boat as well as the current crises. 

This issue also includes two field work based reports on urbanisation in Nepal and the Indian city, Guwahati, as well as a report on women uprooted by river erosion in Bengal. 

Samata Biswas (bsamata@gmail.com). 

Transitional Justice and Displacement: The Way Forward

Fathima Azmiya Badurdeen

Increasing efforts have been taken to incorporate displacement into the transitional justice agenda. It is an acknowledged fact that transitional justice measures can support durable solutions. Bradley (2012) highlights this link as follows:
‘Displacement is intrinsically linked to the abuses transitional justice processes seek to address. Crimes such as torture, rape and the killing of friends and family are almost invariably followed by survivors’ flight, whether for weeks, years or generations. In some cases, forcing people to flee their homes represents a grave violation in its own right. And yet, refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) have often been relegated to the sidelines in efforts to deal with past injustices through measures such as trials, truth commissions, and restitution and compensation programs. Scores have been denied the opportunity to participate in transitional justice mechanisms, while others have found these processes to be out of step with their most pressing concerns. In recent years, however, transitional justice processes have increasingly opened up to the involvement of displaced persons, and have taken steps to address the crime of forced migration and the injustices at its root. From restitution efforts in the former Yugoslavia and Tajikistan to truth commissions in Timor-Leste and trials in the Hague, it is becoming increasingly clear that transitional justice can make a modest, contingent, but nonetheless significant contribution to upholding accountability and providing redress for forced migration and advancing solutions to the displacement of refugees and IDPs’.

Increasingly, academic have been focusing there attention to the links between transitional justice and displacement. Famous initiative on exploring this link has been the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement. This has been a collaborative project between the International Center for Transitional Justice and Brookings-LSE Project. Organizations such as the Refugee Law Project at Makarere University in Kampala have been playing a leading role in investigating and advocating for the effective incorporation of displacement into transitional justice processes in Africa. Further, this has been an emerging topic at conferences such as the 15th IASFM Conference and the 25th IPRA Conference.

Initiative that intend to bride the relationship of transitional justice processes and displacement need to transform structural economic injustices with the consideration of the wider political, social, cultural, and judicial context. The success of such processes depends on the meaningful participation of refugees and IDPs—both men and women. Here the participation by the affected is needed to give a voice to the voiceless. This includes the various categories of the displaced which can effectively address structural injustices that lie at the core as a cause for their displacement. Hovil (2011) states as follows:
‘Neither transitional justice measures nor interventions to resolve displacement by themselves are likely to transform these structural injustices, but in addressing such issues they can a) avoid reinforcing them, b) contribute to long-term change, and c) draw attention to the need for broader reform efforts as well. In this regard, the resolution of displacement, particularly through return, presents both challenges and opportunities’. For example, ‘While women may become more vulnerable when they are forced to become heads of households in exile, it also provides opportunities for the redistribution of resources. A transitional justice framework might also facilitate a far more gender-aware and transformative approach to land restitution during reintegration’.

To sum up, it will be interesting to explore the link of transitional justice and displacement in terms of its space in research agendas. Bradley (2012) highlights, ‘To date, research at the crossroads of these fields has been characterized by remarkable collaboration across regions and disciplines, and between researchers and practitioners. As this agenda moves forward, it will be enriched by a continued commitment to this approach, and to the increased engagement of Southern scholars and critical voices in the debate, which can help ensure that the political interests and power dynamics that shape transitional justice processes are neither underestimated nor overlooked. Ultimately, the challenge is to ensure that the conceptual and empirical insights resulting from the continued evolution of this research agenda translate into the provision in practice of an increased measure of justice for the survivors of conflict and abuse, including those forced to flee their homes’.

References

Bradley, M. (2012). Critical Reflection: Forced Migration and Transitional Justice – Advancing the Research Agenda. Retrieved from Brookings Website
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/07/reflection-transitional-displacement-bradley
Hovil, L. (2013). The Nexus between Displacement and Transitional Justice: A Gender-Justice Dimension. Retrieved from
http://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Research-Brief-Displacement-Gender-Hovil.pdf

Statelessness in India

Shuvro Prosun Sarker

The principal objective behind any research on statelessness in India should be to find out the communities/groups within India who are lacking nationality, rather protection of nationality, and to find out the means and methods to cover them under state protection or international protection. However, there is possibility that, this kind of research may trace communities/groups from both ways that ‘do not have the nationality of any state legally’ or ‘do not count on their state for protection’. It is noteworthy for a country like India that the second category has emerged from neighbouring states in relation to episodes of irregular migration because of sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights towards some communities/groups by their own state/ majority community. The situation actually leaves the victims virtually unprotected by the agencies of the state. This category of persons indicates that effective statelessness may no longer reflect in the relationship between the state and the person concerned. In one side there is hope that the host state will play a compassionate role and in other side there are strict law of the land which is defining the nature of nationality. All these factors raised the question of protection for this vulnerable class which may be called on by advocating for a new international protocol or evocative acts or advocacy for regional pact or direct national legislation.

Though there are two UN conventions on statelessness, but these two can’t make India liable to go by their terms as India has not acceded/ ratified/ adopted/ signed the conventions. The limitation of these conventions to reduce statelessness for a country like India is a writ of bit large as there is a growing number of people who are stateless de facto. Their human rights are more vulnerable as they have left the state to which they have a formal connection and also do not get protection by the host state as doubtful citizens. The relationship between protection of these stateless persons and human rights is one of the primary issues in India. It is necessary to consider for alternative protection for these stateless persons under the two human rights covenants as the hierarchy of non-citizens in a state highlights the gap between protection and human rights. There is expansion of non-derogable rights and the concept of social, economic and cultural rights started in the twentieth century, along with international affirmation of universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of human rights. All these should come together to consider the identification of specific groups/ communities whose human rights require special protection.

With regard to customary practices of international law, non refoulment is the principle with regard to refugees and stateless-refugees which is non-derogable in nature. Apart from that there is a significant body of international law that has elaborated the principle of nondiscrimination as a non-derogable norm that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and related criteria. India’s acceding of ICCPR, ICESCR, CRC and ratification of ICERD and CEDAW have excelled the quantum of protection from the idea of compassion to rights. This development of a body of international law which triggered the prohibition of nationality based discrimination has been further encouraged by the advocacy efforts of international organizations, non-governmental actors, and particular states. Also the recent increase in public information and advocacy has served to remind international bodies and non-governmental organizations that the persistence of statelessness is a complex matter that underlines the centrality of effective protection. There is growing pressure from international NGOs, refugee organizations, and human rights monitoring bodies to provide protection to those who do not fall under either the refugee convention or the conventions on statelessness.

There is a specific case decided by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of chakmas from CHT, East Pakistan (presently Bangladesh) where the Court decided the case in favour of the chakmas with specific direction to process their citizenship application through the process established by law. It is mentionable here that a new public interest litigation, Swajan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr., is pending before the Supreme Court right now asking for specific direction to confer citizenship/ refugee status to the Bangladeshi minorities staying in the State of Assam and the Court has already issued notice to the respondents Union of India and State of Assam. So it is evident that the expansion of human rights regime of stateless persons of the second category has got a positive momentum in India along with the expansion of locus standi of foreigners staying in India. Now it’s time to see whether Supreme Court comes out with a decision based on human rights consideration or on the ground of internal security and economic constraint of India. Countless number of deemed stateless or deemed nationals are looking forward to get Justice!

Social Media and Humanitarian Disasters

Ishita Dey

It is important to highlight at the outset that social media is personal and public in nature. The personal status messages range from what one had for breakfast, to voicing opinions. The range is vast and it is this vastness that creates an ambiguity regarding social media as a platform. The ambiguity and shifting roles that one can adopt with little or no responsibility has been termed as “slacktivism” in social media. Though the term was originally coined by Dwight Ozard and Fred Clark at the Cornerstone Festival 1995 series it has come to represent the activism on social media particularly after Evgeny Morozove (2009) argued, “"Slacktivism" is an apt term to describe feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact. It gives those who participate in "slacktivist" campaigns an illusion of having a meaningful impact on the world without demanding anything more than joining a Facebook group. Remember that online petition that you signed and forwarded to your entire contacts list? That was probably an act of slacktivism...” (http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/19/the_brave_new_world_of_slacktivism)

“Slactivism” becomes a tool for analysing social media activism and it is against this backdrop that statements like “We are not people of comment and like” from Egyptian revolution needs to be understood. In one of the provocative articles, Shazia Islam (2013) mentions that such acts of slactivism do nothing beyond raising awareness. She writes, “There is absolutely nothing wrong in the advocacy of a worthy cause and standing up for what you believe in. But the effectiveness of doing so only behind the glow of a laptop monitor or cell phone screen is up for debate. History has always had its share of band-wagon fist-pumpers who stand in the background claiming, “Oh yeah. I’m in,” with cheeks stuffed with free food, and slacktivism is no different. There is little evidence that taking a couple of quick minutes to tweet, update a Facebook status, or fall in line with millions of others’ profile pictures will do anything more than satisfy the ego”(http://humberetc.com/2013/04/12/social-media-breeds-slactivism/).The personal nature of the social media platforms on one hand, and the ability with which a rather active facebook user, twitteratti can choose to remain silent or participate in the real life makes the role of social media arbitrary. The arbitrariness arises from the ambiguity that lies in “virtual action” of likes, comments and statuses and action on the field. Virtual discussions practices can be used to generate interest, increase awareness and act as a pressure group through online petitions, but the task of translating virtual action and interest through collective action in real world requires an understanding of how collective action is organised through change of roles. Post flash – floods in Uttarakhand, there were several “community pages” were created, particularly facebook. Three kinds of information were shared across facebook and twitter: available information on missing people, available information on rescued people and appeal to relief and rehabilitation. In some cases the social media pages also resorted to pressure making tactics regarding rescue efforts and creating pressures through online petitions. What remains to be seen is how “social” is the social media, the political rootedness of the social media social media and its actors, and access and reach of social media. While social media’s roots remain in the personal, the collective use of the social media platforms has increasingly been under surveillance and anonymous tweeps, bloggers have used the platforms to generate awareness campaigns. At this crossroad, lies the ways in which Information and Communication Technology intersects through Google Person Finder – a specially designed service which was used during Uttarakhand Relief work. Google Person Finder – web based application helped to track missing persons. Such applications were used widely post Katrina by IT professionals who worked on available maps, divided them into zones and developed web based application to track missing persons. Multiple websites were created instead of single integrated one and Google Person Finder is an open source application specifically used in disasters to track missing persons where any interested party can look up for information or update information about missing persons. The information is later deleted according to Google’s web portal. For instance, the person finder page in case of Uttarakhand is not available any more. Social media, and its uses are to be understood within the contexts in which it emerges, and the use of technology to address those issues.

Forced Migration and Images of State Failure

Priyanca Mathur Velath and Aparajita Das

While the world is reeling under the increasing burden of the Syrian refugees, there is need to draw attention to the fact that regions outside Europe also continue to face uncertainty and the fear of displacement in a recurring manner, due to reasons like civil war, genocide, ethnic conflict, riots and forced eviction. In this issue of Refugee Watch Online, weattempt to highlight incidents of forced migration that trigger flows of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in West Asia, South Asia, South East Asia and within India.

One cannot ignore Syria, which has exploded into the biggest humanitarian crisis in recent times. More than 2.2 million Syrians have fled their homeland and have taken refuge in five neighbouring countries viz., Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. So the first article by Aparajita Dastalks about the Syrian crisis which remains a continuing challenge for not just aid providers but also the international community on burden sharing.From Syria we move to Pakistan in South Asia, where Portia B. Conrad seeks to address the challenges of settlement and safety of thousands of people who have been displaced due to low intensity conflict caused by government crackdown on terror groups.Then, Ashwathy Vijayan, in her article on Sri Lankan Tamils revisits the myriad unresolved issues confronting those displaced in the civil war, which continues to attract sharply polarised reactions from across the globe.

Following this Kriti Chopra recounts the perilous journeys undertaken by the statelessRohingyasto resettle in countries such as Australia, and Thailand.Closer home in India in the state of Uttar Pradesh Umakantha V. draws attention to the incidents of communal riots in Muzzafarnagar which rendered the members of a minority community homeless and left them with an uncertain future without adequate state assistance in camps.Next Priyanca Mathur Velath deliberates on the outcomes of the sudden forced eviction in the Ejipura housing colony for the economically weaker sections of the society, in the IT hub of Bangalore.

We finally conclude with a note by Paula Banerjee on A Response from the Global South: On “Negotiations of Engaged Scholarship and Equity through a Global Network of Refugee Scholars”. We look forward to your valuable comments and feedback.

Introduction : First Edition of Refugee Watch Online, 2013

Ishita Dey

In this edition of Refugee Watch online, we want to move beyond the understanding of Partitioning of the Indian Sub of partitioning of the sub-continent of 1947 as a cartographic exercise. What is interesting is how “contested spaces” were recreated and reproduced in post-colonial South Asia as a result of the massive forced migration across 370,000 square miles of territory leading to the formation of two nation-states of India and Pakistan. Much of the contested spaces have to do with how people negotiated with the “borders” that forced them to migrate, as well as become subjects and agents of post-colonial statecraft.

Decades later, populations across various territorial entities continue to suffer the impacts of this cartographic exercise which was responsible for inter community clashes and riots. Most of the people who were forced to migrate thought it was a temporary move. They would be able to return. Anisuzzaman, Eminent Scholar and Professor Emeritus, Department of Bangla, Dhaka University in his account echoed a similar feeling. He said his father chose to migrate to Khulna from Kolkata because it was near to Kolkata. In this interesting panel “Partition Experiences in South Asia: Memory, Literature, Media” in the recently concluded 14th IASFM Conference hosted by CRG on “Contested spaces and cartographic challenges” the presenters shared the varied experiences of partition across India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. In Anisuzzaman’s account, one could also realise the complex picture produced by the Language Movement and the Liberation War. Similarly the feminist reading of partition historiography critically looked at nation-hood and the ways in which nationalist histories were written. Even in literature, both vernacular and in English, partition continues to be be introspected from various lenses- narratives of “home”, gendered experience of partition and struggles on arrival or departure. In other words, partition was as much a historical event that led to redrawing of “borders” at various time scapes but it also produced newer complexities with regard to citizenship rights, claim making and contestations.

In another panel “ Other Histories of Partition- Lives in transit”, there was an attempt to look into how social structures were reproduced and contested spaces were created by the population movements in the “Eastern” side of the border the refugees struggled and continue to do so to find a place in post-colonial statecraft. In this context it is important to understand that the post-colonial statecraft’s narrative of ‘care and protection’ towards “refugees” was embedded and continues to be influenced by the existing social structures of religion, caste and gender. These “lives in transit” is representative of the “other’ histories of partition of how partition produced the “other” and created contested spaces of the ways in which the “other” could be co-opted as the three studies in this panel will reveal.

In other words, the politics of post-partition are located in the policies and experiences of exclusion/inclusion of the people who were forced to cross borders and who continue to live in the liminal zones. Hence, the partition of the Indian –subcontinent in 1947 continues to produce lives in transit as evident in the contributions in this edition of Refugee Watch Online.

Anwesha Sengupta in her piece “Being Minority, Being Migrant: A Note on the Muslims of West Bengal, 1947-1950” discusses the forced migration of Muslims from West Bengal to East Pakistan. Atig Ghosh, in his article on “The Inhabitants of Bangladeshi Chhitmahals in India” takes a critical look at “the question whether there are tangible conditions which actually mark out life in an enclave or is it merely a stereotypical reification, imbibed over time and regurgitated conveniently.”

In the section on Reviews, Tista Das in her re-reading of a short story “ Jaiba” by Narendranath Mitra takes a critical look at the ways in which gendered narratives makes its space in literature on partition. Tista is interested in the gendered violence that Sudatta faces during partition, post partition and within the familial structures. Through Sudatta’s journey into motherhood, Tista reads this fascinating story against the context of how “honour” is constructed around “women” and how it continues to produce multiple layers of violence.

Sohini Majumdar in her review of Neeti Nair’s work Changing Homeland: Hindu Politics and the Partition of India, Harvard University Press 2011; presents to us come of the complexities what shaped partitioning of the sub continent. According to Sohini, “She argues that the historiography of partition have tended to view partition as a logical culmination of a process of communalism where the monolithic Hindu and Muslim community was posited against each other. Interrogating this widely accepted view, she focuses on the ‘reality’ of the conflicting and intersecting identities that came to dominate the various decisions the people of Punjab took at various historical conjunctures”.

We look forward to your comments and feedback.

Introduction for the III Edition, 2012

Anuradha Gunarathne

With the theme of 2012 “Refugees have no choice. You do” the World Refugee Day was celebrated in June by the UNHCR and most of the countries in the world honours the courage, strength and determination of women, men and children who are forced to flee their homeland under threat of persecution, conflict and violence. According to the estimate of the UNHCR more than 43 million people have been forcibly displaced worldwide.

In the official statement on the refugee day by UN Secretary - General Ban Ki-moon expressed that "We must work together to mobilize the political will and leadership to prevent and end the conflicts that trigger refugee flows. [...] Despite budget constraints everywhere, we must not turn away from those in need. Refugees leave because they have no choice. We must choose to help."

The third edition of RWO draws attention on refugee issues marking the refugee day 2012 and the task remains on UN refugee day. In the section of Perspective Arani Sanyal and Anwesha Sengupta write about famous Arul Varma’s judgment on Rights of Refugees; Emdadul Haque on Opinion of South Asian frame work of refugee protection and Srabani Mia on Bangladesh’s obligation for the protection of refugees.

The book ‘The Plight of the Stateless Rohingyas: Responses of the State: Society & the International Community’ published by University Press Limited, Dhaka, Bangladesh has been edited by Imtiaz Ahmed (co-written by Delwar Hossain, Shahab Enam Khan and Md. Faridul Alam) is reviewed by Priyanca Mathur Velath in the section of review.

In the news section, reports the Bangladesh rejection of international appeals of Rohingya Refugees and President Barack Obama’s administration announcement of policy directive to halt deportation of young immigrants. Finally the upcoming event section covers the information of 4th Asia Pacific Consultation on Refugee Rights to be held on 22-24 August, Seoul South Korea.

We welcome your comments and feedbacks.

Introduction to II Edition, 2012

Priyanca Mathur Velath

The current issue of RWO draws our attention to rights against exclusion and homelessness through the lens of Islamophobia, Statelessness and the Cessation Clause. In the first piece of the Perspectives Section Guillaume Cliche-Rivard urges further interrogation of the Cessation Clause for Rwandan refugees, followed by Anasua Basu Ray Chaudhury’s analysis of the unique position of those stateless in South Asia. Geetisha Dasgupta highlights the growing intolerance, racial hatred and xenophobia particularly in the United States.

Cliche-Rivard’s piece, titled ‘Pending questions: UNHCR Recommendations regarding the Cessation Clause for Rwandan refugees’ questions UNHCR’s invocation of Cessation Clause in the light of compelling evidence of continuing violations of civil and political rights in Rwanda. The arguments point to concerns regarding Kagame government’s claims of free and fair elections and substantive democratic reforms. “As the recommendation expresses that the Cessation is not going to be applied on Rwandans who escaped the country after 1998 or are still seeking asylum, it clearly indicates that fundamental, durable, and positive changes have not occurred in Rwanda.” It throws uncomfortable questions into the public domain - How could any host State and UNHCR justify the invocation of the Cessation Clause when these changes are not countrywide? What is driving UNHCR’s agenda? How was the decision to recommend the Cessation Clause for Rwandan refugees made? Understanding the current situation presented by Amnesty International and IDMC, why is cessation recommended at this time?

The condition of statelessness creates a condition where there is literally a complete absence of a right to a life of dignity for the nowhere people. Basu Ray Chaudhury’s article titled ‘People of Nowhere: Stateless in South Asia, points out how for the stateless it may not be possible to work legally, to get appropriate wages, to purchase property, to open a bank account, to attend school or university, to marry a person from other communities, to register births and deaths, to vote or access the national justice system. It succinctly notes that “suspicion has driven South Asian states to progressively tighten the strings on who may claim membership goods, thus creating growing pockets of statelessness at their cultural and geographical margins. Examining the changes that have been introduced to citizenship laws of South Asian states provides a clear narrative of how this tightening of strings has proceeded: largely by restricting the acquisition of citizenship by right in favour of granting citizenship at the government’s discretion.”

Dasgupta in her article titled ‘Law, Islamophobia and the United States of Exclusion’ empathically states that more than half of the United States’ population has spun on the axis of renewed racial hatred that found expression in xenophobic profiling of the other half that is creating a new category of stateless, that was founded on exclusion based on religious identity. “Despite loud and clear declarations at the administrative levels that the United States government will not support any activity in hatred towards the believers of Islam or of Arab origin, there have been steady repercussions from the agents of the state and the government on these lines, when it came to arresting people for suspicion of terrorist activities. As a result, there have been repeated strikes and counter strikes and all over the last twelve years during which a large group of people became homeless and stateless.” This demands urgent attention as it reflects a foreign policy and geopolitical status of a country that affirms its ability to reach anybody that it deems inimical to its own security. This was visible in not just an increase in hate crimes but also when students were picked up from rallies of the Occupation Movement in New York City or Boston, and detained in federal prisons for anything up to three months without questions being asked.

In the News Section, we report on the continuing protests of the Rohingya asylum seekers outside the UNHCR Delhi office and provide a link to the latest Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network Newsletter. Finally in the Events section there is information that the Legal Aid and Advocacy Working Group of APRRN proposes to hold a Legal Aid Training for the South Asia region from May 26 - 28, 2012 in Kathmandu, Nepal. Also enclosed is the Call for Papers for the 14th conference of the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration that will be held in Kolkata in January, 2013.

We look forward to your comments and feedback.
 

Introduction for the I Edition, 2012

Ishita Dey and Sahana Basavapatna

How does one assess the achievements of the last 60 years of the functioning of refugee protection regime? UNHCR celebrated 60 years of its functioning in December 2011, a year that was marked by a number of developments, including the financial crisis engulfing Europe and the Australia-Malaysia swap arrangement that virtually made a joke out of the international protection regime. From the perspective of a refugee or a stateless individual, the last few years and the years to come therefore have to be seen in context. As Luise Druke explains in a contribution made to the New Issues in Refugee Research, the challenges that have been identified in the past remain. These include the “mixed flows”, deteriorating quality of asylum world wide, disillusionment about the aspects of the 1951 Convention, serious gaps and strains in the protection system generally (p. 10).

The tasks therefore are cut out. Europe is still reeling under one of the worst economic crisis, West Asia plunged into political crisis that was waiting to happen and Asia and Africa have also not seen “stable democracies” given the last few years of political violence they have had to face. At the risk of repetition, the world, if at all, has not become any safe for refugees and if 80 per cent of refugees is said to be in the Asia and Africa without the burden being shared with the more industrialized nations, there is little to rejoice.

Thus, for us at Refugee Watch Online, the task remains the same. The task of documenting stories from the ground that would, it is believed, add to the knowledge of how refugees are cared for, how they use or escape the legal systems and how informal networks step in to “protect”. Refugees would continue to work the system in ensuring that they are recognized, and once they are recognized they are either able to return to their countries when the political situation allows or travel to more secure countries where they are assured of a future for themselves and their children.

Closer home, not much has changed in South Asia. The debate about who is a genuine refugee remains and perhaps this would be so as long as the nation building project finds relevance. What kind of protection refugees should be entitled to equally remains. All that can be hoped is that migration is understood and accepted not just as a “security” issue but as a more complex phenomen that is tied to the region's political history.

We have four contributions in this issue of Refugee Watch Online. In the section on Perspectives, Rohit Jain, the young photojounalist, shares with us yet another photo essay, focusing on the Somali refugees living in Delhi. Interestingly, the Somalis, want to return home, despite knowing fully well that they will not survive the political violence. The essay is a peep into the world of the Somalis as they try each day to survive against discrimination, racism and poverty. We thought it apt to include a link to the story on Somali refugees recently published in the Guardian in the section on News titled After the famine: Somalia's refugees ponder their future by Clar Ni Chonghaile dated January 30, 2012 who describes the life in Camps in Somalia after famine was declared last year. One needs to question why Somalis in India want to go back home when the situation is nowhere close to providing them a sense of security, that many would argue India provides, even at a minimum. Considering how little the lives of African refugees are studied in India, this calls for a closer investigation. The third contribution is an interview with R. Laldawnglians, Vice President and Bruno M, General Secretary of Mizoram Bru Displaced People’s Forum by one of the editorial board members, Ishita Dey conducted in December 2011 during the Ninth Winter Course on Forced Migration. The Bru “refugees” who have lived in South Mizoram have for long been caught between Tripura and Mizoram where the former does not want them to return and the latter wants them to leave the state. Lastly in the section on Reports we wish to highlight a recent report of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Committee titled “This is our land”: Ethnic violence and Internal displacement in north-east India” published in November 2011. It focuses on internal displacement in three contexts, in the states of Assam and Meghalaya in December 2010 and January 2011, in Western Assam during the 1990s and 2000s and from Mizoram to Tripura state in 1997 and 2009. While calling for a law that would address internal displacement that has now become commonplace in the context of the north east, the report observes, “The responses by government authorities, including state and central government agencies, to the different displacement situations caused by generalised violence in north-east India have been ad hoc, inconsistent and often inadequate. Generally, state-level responses have not been based on comprehensive assessments of the needs of either recent or longer-term IDPs, but on political factors including local demographics, the variable interests of the central government, and different levels of media attention. In all cases their decisions were dominated by short-term considerations rather than an emphasis on long-term solutions.”

Refugees in Nepal: Challenges Ahead

Sahana Basavapatna and Ishita Dey

As we wind up 2011 edition of Refugee Watch Online (RWO), we at RWO realize that this year, like the years before this, has been instructive in more ways than one. While some developments, such as the Australia-Malaysia swap arrangement made us realize how precarious not only the lives of the refugees but also the laws that we dearly hold on to. Closer home, the challenges are equally intimidating; while mechanisms exist, its history, politics and society provide as much of a challenge as it may be conducive for a better deal for refugees in South Asia.

In this last edition of RWO, we want to bring to the forefront some of the challenges facing Nepal, a country that has witnessed prolonged internal conflict. Nepal, a non- signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Refugee Protocol has played the host and transit point to refugee groups, primarily Bhutanese and Tibetans. While the history of Bhutanese refugees in and Tibetans in Nepal is not unknown to us, the challenges these communities face needs some deeper introspection. After 27 years of living in camps in Nepal, the Bhutanese refugee crisis could not be resolved although this period witnessed fifteen rounds of ministerial-level negotiations between Bhutan and Nepal. Thus, finding themselves unwanted in Nepal and losing the right to return, the Bhutanese refugees were offered the Third Country Resettlement option. In 2006, the aggravating Bhutanese Refugee crisis suddenly saw an unexpected turn in the form of the United States of America offering to resettle 60,000 refugees. Similar promises followed from other countries such as Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – known as Core Working Group – to take a small share of refugees to their country. The resettlement process began in 2008. Sreeja Balarajan, in her article gives a critical insight to the life of Bhutanese refugees resettled in US. Is third country resettlement a viable solution to those who had dreamed of returning back to their homelands in Bhutan? What does it take to rebuild lives as younger generation gear up for the American dream and the older generation struggle to adapt themselves in a new environment where they find it difficult to adapt as they lack adequate communication skills?

One of the largest communities who have been forced to live a life of exile in South Asian states are the Tibetan refugees. Tibetans have lived in Nepal for decades while some transit through Nepal to travel further south towards India. In the recent times, there have been reports of closure of Reception Centre and Welfare Office of Tibetan refugees as well as arbitrary arrests of Tibetans. In a recent remark, Congressman Mr. Frank Wolf threatened to cut off aid to Nepal if it does not allow Tibetan Refugees to transit to safer places. Tashi Dhundup responds and cautions us that this statement presents Nepal the tough choice to either articulate an independent position on the Tibetan issue or succumb to the pressures of neighbours for other political reasons. Drawing from Nepal’s history of treating Tibetan refugees, it is evident that Nepal has been forced to resort to violent measures to safeguard its diplomatic position in the region.

Both these articles remind us of the challenges that confront of refugee rights practitioners. In what ways can we strengthen legal protection of refugees? While some have been advocating that South Asian states should sign the 1951 Refugee Convention; international and humanitarian agencies working in non-signatory states should also lobby for National legislation to protect and safeguard the rights of the refugees. The concern raised in both these articles need a deeper introspection on the way to respond to people affected by forced displacement in South Asia and beyond.

The editorial collective of 2011 has attempted to bring such concerns. We take this opportunity to thank our readers for their comments and look forward to more engaging contributions and comments from refugee activists, researchers and lawyers in the areas of forced migration in South Asia and beyond in 2012 as well. Please feel free to get in touch with us refugeewatchonline@gmail.com for any clarifications.

Reflections on Protection Strategies- South Asia and Beyond

Sahana Basavapatna and Ishita Dey

[Sahana Basavapatna is a lawyer, practicing in the Delhi High Court in the areas of intellectual property law and has been associated with the Calcutta Research Group for the last 3 years
Ishita Dey is a research Scholar of Department of Sociology, University of Delhi and Member, Calcutta Research Group]

This edition of Refugee Watch Online includes articles and contributions that indicate that the meta-narrative of migration can be written and re-written, especially in the South Asian context. These contributions, contrasting and located in its specificities indicate the various ways in which the “migrant” has been conceptualized and how these compartmentalizations affect the socio-juridical discourses in each specific context.

The various regimes of protection of migrant populations and/or refugees is central in understanding the way state and non-state actors have responded to situations of forced migration. On the one hand, the age old debate of whether or not the ratification of 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees will help resolve the arbitrariness of the state responses towards refugee crisis and on the other, the need for national legislations to ensure state responsibility towards migrant populations, are some of the key ways of looking at the protection and care of people in situations of forced migration. If this is the yardstick, then clearly the Australia-Malaysia Refugee Swap arrangement, concluded by the Australian and Malaysian governments – as this joint edition, among others, focuses on - is a clear indicator that ratification of the most important instrument of refugee protection is not a guarantee of protection.

On the other, the decision of the trial court in Delhi to turn down the Government of India's plea to deport a Tamil refugee who has been in India for the past twenty years reveals that the arbitrary nature of the host states towards refugee communities prevail and India is no exception. Thus, the conflation of a refugee/migrant in legal discourse becomes obvious when “refugee/s” issue/s in court of law have to be resolved through the Foreigner’s Act, 1946. Thus the case of the Sri Lankan refugee who the Government of India sought to deport on the ground that he did not carry valid travel documents is not uncommon, but the trial court's decision to disagree with the submissions of the Government in holding that a refugee should be protected precisely because he cannot be sent back to his native country where he is likely to face persecution is. Additionally, a significant point that the court has raised in its decision is the need to distinguish between a migrant and a refugee and the lack of any legal avenue for the refugees as the Refugees Asylum Seekers,(Protection) Bill 2006 is yet to see the light of the day.

In the section on News, we provide a brief summary of the court proceedings as reported by J. Venkatesan in an article titled “Magistrate: How Can court become party to persecution of refugee?”, The Hindu, dated 21 September 2011 followed by another news on the recent decision by the Indonesian government to regulate the migration of domestic workers to Saudi Arabia. This came in the heels of the beheading of a domestic worker of Indonesian nationality after the latter was convicted of murdering her employer because she was not allowed to return to her native land. Lastly, in the section on news is a report in the Guardian titled More than 30 million climate migrants in Asia in 2010, report finds by Fiona Harvey, its environment correspondent. According to the Asian Development Bank, as this Guardian article reports, more than 30 million people were said to have been displaced by environment and weather related disasters across Asia in 2010 and this is predicted to get worse in the years to come. This last article is yet another example of how the neat categories of displacement we are conversant with, need to be rethought and reframed.

In the section on Views, RWO brings an article by Savitri Taylor, on the Australia-Malaysia refugee swap arrangement. In recent times, several reports of refugees from Srilanka, Bangladesh and other countries in South and South East Asia taking to the high seas for passage to Australia and other European nations have been reported. These also included reports of the arbitrary manner in which the Australian Government responded to refugees who had taken to the high seas. It is a well known fact that Canary Islands, Malta and Christmas Islands continue to remain the transit points for the “boat people” who are often mixed. For instance they could be economic migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and trafficked victims as well.

In this background, it is worth recalling that the member states of the United Nations are expected to abide by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol, particularly the principle of non-refoulement and the right to seek asylum. Additionally, the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue also have to be taken into account by member states.

In its attempt to secure its maritime borders, the Australian Government entered into a swap deal with Malaysia on 25 July 2011, which has attracted severe criticism. Despite being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Australia has been facing severe criticism for the recent “interceptions” and controversies relating to the arbitrariness of asylum procedures. The main aim of the policy, in the words of the Prime Minister of Australia, Ms. Julia Gilliard, and reported in the news piece, “Australia firm on Refugee Swap deal” is ostensibly to “smash people smugglers’ business model…”, She continues by adding that, “…our aim is not to see people put themselves in boats and be at the risk of losing lives”. According to an article published in the Bangkok Post, “Australia plans to send up to 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia in return for accepting 4,000 registered refugees from that country over four years under a deal designed to stop boatpeople from landing in Australia”. Incidentally Malaysia is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Following this deal, on 31 August 2011, the High Court of Australia held invalid and unconstitutional the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's declaration of Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers who entered Australia at Christmas Island can be taken for processing of their asylum claims and also decided that any unaccompanied asylum seeker under 18 years of age cannot be taken from Australia without a written consent under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act, 1946. Subsequently, the High Court of Australia prevented the government from sending the first batch of asylum seekers. Though the present Government is adamant on resolving the plight of boat people through an amendment to the Migration Act, 1958 to go ahead with the transfers, they are yet to receive the opposition’s support to the amendments. In a joint media release, issued on 12 September 2011, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen and Prime Minister Julia Gillard have stated that amendments relating to third country provisions in the Migration Act, 1958 will ensure smooth transfers under the arrangement with Malaysia and Memorandum of Understanding with Papua New Guinea
(http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/cb/2011/cb171699.htm).

Dr. Savitri Taylor’s article in the section on views brings to the forefront the legal and human rights dimension of the Refugee Swap deal but as the recent statement noted above shows, we will need to wait and watch if at all the Australian Government manages succeed with the amendments.

We have three contributions in the section on Reports including a review of the Women's Refugee Commission's Report published in July 2011, following a fortnight long study of the livelihood issues and survival strategies of refugees living in Delhi, a photo-essay by a young photo-journalist, Rohit Jain, who has spent time with the Burmese refugees in West Delhi in order to understand the living conditions of the community and an in-depth report by Javed Khan on one of the flaming fields of battle within India and the rising IDPs in Khamman district of Andhra Pradesh.

To conclude, we have flagged issues concerning the mixed nature of migration through seemingly unrelated and apparently contrasting situations of migration/forced migration. In doing so, the aim is to identify and highlight the complexities inherent in freezing identities, providing convenient (legal) labels and in the ambivalent way of addressing forced migration in absence of a coherent framework that would make sense of the reality of migration in its various forms in South Asia.

References

“Australia firm on Malaysia Refugee Deal” in
http://www.bangkokpost.com/lite/breakingnews/250628/australia-firm-on-malaysia-refugee-deal; Accessed on 11 September 2011
“Australia’s Malaysia Refugee Swap under Fire” in
http://www.bangkokpost.com/lite/breakingnews/257035/australia-malaysia-refugee-swap-under-fire; Accessed on 15 September 2011
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2471121.ece; Accessed on 21 September 2011

July 2011
(This edition has been compiled by Anuradha Gunarathne)
Introduction

Ishita Dey

In the July edition of Refugee Watch Online we have tried to flag issues and concerns of the reconciliation and peace-building efforts in Sri Lanka. Studies have shown that in situations of protracted displacement, the vulnerable population (ie, women, children and youth) are the worst affected. Members of youth, in particular are not only participants of conflict by taking up arms for state or non-state but also victims of war. Their situation is much more complex, and the effects of witnessing war in the growing up years have psychological implications as well.

In other words, during peace-building efforts special attention should be given to address the members of the youth as the case study in Allaipiddy Village of Jaffna Peninsula shows. Allaipiddy in Velani DS Division in Jaffna is situated in the High Security Zone spreading across 144 sq.km. Considering its strategic location, villagers suffered multiple displacements which affected their livelihoods and also their children’s education. Now most of the younger members are unable to apply for jobs because they have not been able to complete their education. In this article, “Youth: Participants and Victims of War” Chulanee Attanayake brings to the forefront the issues and concerns of youth that need to be addressed in the peace-building efforts. While there have been various studies on the reconciliation efforts in SriLanka; Anuradha Gunarathne and Azmiya Badurdeen in the article “Internally Displaced Persons in the Process of Reconciliation: Implications for Durable Solutions” flags off the issues concerning internally displaced people. One of the important and pressing issues is how do you renew trust among returnees?

In the section on Reports we present to you one of the background papers commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011, “The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education”. J.R.A Williams(2010) in this extensive report on “The impact of conflict and displacement (2006-2010) in SriLanka” shows the various methods introduced during conflict and post conflict to improve educational standards. What is significant and commendable is the way in which this report includes both the state and non-state initiatives. For instance in camps, “donors funded learning and child-friendly spaces, and teachers were recruited from the inmates, but facilities were never adequate to provide for the numbers of displaced children, and there was no access for teacher training or monitoring”. Even during war times ceasefire was respected during “national exams”. Temporary learning spaces (TLS) with the help of humanitarian agencies have been successful in maintaining displaced families commitment to education. Even when people were on the move tractors with school material accompanied them. Post war, agencies like UNICEF, Plan International and Save the Children have been developing educational materials for catch up education programmes to reintegrate the war affected children with the mainstream education. Catch up programmes are common in North and East SriLanka and have been successful so far. Another initiative taken by UNICEF has been Child Friendly School (CFS) approaches. According to this report, “the critical need is for attention and resources to return to the development priorities, such as child-friendly schooling, vocational education, and national Early Childhood Education and Development (ECED) standards, which were overwhelmed by the emergency response”.

We have tried to bring to the forefront some of the issues that need special attention in the reconstruction efforts in SriLanka. We welcome your comments and suggestions on the same.

We also invite you to contribute articles for the upcoming editions of Refugeewatchonline

News: Brief Summaries (within 200 words) of news items concerning forced migration.
Views: Any original piece of article within 1500 words on refugees, IDPs in South Asia.
Reports: Reports of any study on forced migration (refuges and IDPs), conferences or any other. Review articles on reports, books are also welcome. (Word limit: 1000)
Please email your entries and queries to refugeewatchonline@gmail.com

In this issue of the Refugee Watch Online, we decided not to focus on the experience of any particular country. Instead, the accent in this issue is on mixed experiences of forced migration and several causative and resultant factors. We have two articles under the Perspective section. One concerns the environment and politics of displacement; the other displaced women’s adjustments to situations post return.

Dilip Gogoi in his article talks about the way construction of dams has been presented as the national development agendas despite the fact that such an agenda systematically excluded others who did not subscribe to the Nehruvian model. The he takes a glance at how big dams will have serious implication on the cultural bonds that the Arunachali tribes maintain. But, the challenge towards contesting such vehement resource use lies in understanding how marginal landscapes are integrated into a nationalist dream of integrating frontier space. The logic of resource exploration to propel the national economy is linked to the very process of the production of capital. Beyond the ecological consequences of mega projects, question of displacement of local communities, the cultural diversity of the local region presents unique challenge to the production of capital. Thus the latter would have a ruinous effect on the very societal bases of the region.

The second article, by Pakkeer Mohideen Mohamed Feroz, a human rights worker in Sri Lanka, talks about the post return challenges faced by women in the erstwhile conflict zones. The women who were living in camps or return areas, their position in Sri Lankan society is extremely vulnerable because they are dependent on the state and humanitarian agencies, with little ability to determine the course of their own lives. He lists all the different reasons due to which adjustment becomes difficult and shows that the root often lies in the reason of displacement itself. Each new causative factor shapes its victims in a way much different from other factors.

The News section has entries on HIV/AIDS, and armed non state actors in Burma and their roles in society. For the Reports section we have excerpts from reportage by Bhavani Fonseka and Mirak Rahim on settlement of the land question in the eastern province of Sri Lanka.

On our part, we hope the issue is worthwhile. We heartily welcome comments and suggestions.

Sahana Basavapatna

[Lawyer, New Delhi]

The question of a legal framework for refugee care in South Asia has long occupied academics, activists and lawyers in the South Asian sub-continent. While the discussion and debates in the highest circles have lead to very little in terms of a tangible legal framework, a number of developments, within the South Asian sub-continent have equally lead to or is very likely to lead to far reaching changes in the way refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons and “illegal” immigrants are viewed, cared for and managed. Some of these include the UNHCR’s Urban Refugee Policy of 2009 that will have far reaching implications in the possibilities it offers and the limitations in its application in countries in South Asia, the Unique Identity Project, now renamed as “Aadhar” in India, and some other lesser known executive orders that impact refugees on a daily basis.

Yet, the combination of the absence of refugee law, ad-hoc administrative policies and diversity among refugees provides a veritable landscape to understand why such a law is yet to be passed by Parliaments in South Asia, what dictates such an ad-hoc policy, the space available for refugee groups protect themselves by remaining “illegal” and yet deal on a constant basis with the inadequacies in the law.

Towards this end, this edition of Refugee Watch Online brings together diverse contributions, significant news articles and legal developments which reflect the complexities of forced migration in South Asia.

While 2011 was marked by commemorating the 60th anniversary of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (July 28) and the 50th anniversary of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (August 30), as the contributions in the May edition of Refugee Watch Online show, there was not much by the way to celebrate for refugees. While one appreciates that the international refugee protection regime has withstood the test of time, politics and contexts, for a large number of people on the run, these instruments of protection have not alleviated their situation.

The first contribution in the May edition is a short note written by Somali refugees protesting before UNHCR in Delhi in the second week of May 2011, reiterating their concerns that for a large number of Somalis in India, much has remained the same, in terms of protection. Pertinent to mention in this context, is that the demands of the Somalis is unfortunately not new. The Somali refugees in Delhi continue to face insecurity and lack of protection, despite some of them living in India for over a decade. This protest is yet another reminder that Somalis, like the African refugee community, remains a forgotten people, in India.

The second contribution is an article titled “Untangling Nepal-China ties: The politics of Tibetan refugees in Nepal” written by Boris Markhampa and Susan Appleyard and is an analysis of the treatment of Tibetan nationals seeking asylum in Nepal in the context of Nepal – China relationship. It seeks to show how the Tibetan community in exile in Nepal has been used as a bargaining chip in Nepal’s relations with China and what the ramification of this unstated policy for Tibetan nationals have been.

The third article is a contribution by Prof. Tricia Redeker Hepner, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Tennesee that focuses on how migration from Eritrea in contemporary times needs to be understood in the context of the existing regime of refugee protection. In making clear links between the political situation in Eritria and the exodus of a large number of people who see migration to the “West” as the only way to find a way out of the political turmoil, Prof. Redeker Hepner calls into question the effectiveness of the refugee protection mechanism. RWO has taken permission to re-publish this article, which was initially published in Counter Punch on April 22, 2011. This seemed to us to be an apt article for this edition, given that it makes very pertinent observations about the forced migration policy and its inability to deal with questions relating to protection of refugees. Prof. Redeker Hepner notes in conclusion that through the Eritrean example, she seeks to “illustrate the complexity and global scope of human rights dilemmas that structure refugees’ lives, and the failures of institutions, policies and laws designed to manage them as technical problems rather than protect them as human beings”. It cannot be gainsaid that South Asia offers adequate examples of this complexity and therefore the uniqueness of forced migration in the sub-continent needs to be studied for the answers it may provide for better understanding of the phenomenon.

Followers of developments in forced migration in South Asia would be aware of around 64 Pakistani citizens who protested in Jantar Mantar, in New Delhi in 2008 by burning their passports and claimed refugee status in India for fear of persecution on religious grounds. The Pakistani nationals belong to the Mehdi Foundation International, the followers of which have reportedly been persecuted for their religious beliefs. The Pakistani nationals approached the judicial system in India and filed a Writ Petition seeking directions from the Delhi High Court that their application for asylum be taken up by the Government of India. In November 2009/January 2010, the Government of India rejected their application for refugee status and by an order dated December 2010, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice Deepak Mishra directed that UNHCR process the applications and until the UNHCR decides the applications, none of the asylum seekers be deported. The Order of the Delhi High Court dated December 2, 2010 is reproduced in this edition and a few remarks may be made in giving a context to this case. The December 2010 order is illustrative of the number of aspects of refugee protection and processes that is significant to India. This case follows many others decisions where the Judiciary has shown consideration to refugees arriving in India, in the absence of which, refugees normally find themselves confronting the government which oftentimes makes arbitrary and ad-hoc decisions. Having been rejected refugee status by the Government of India in November 2009, the Pakistani Nationals sought directions that they be allowed to apply to UNHCR for refugee status. The Court observed that this should be allowed, given that the Government of India rejected refugee status by a non-speaking and general order “passed in violation of principles of natural justice”. Applications were subsequently made to UNHCR, who has granted them refugee status. However, the 64 Pakistani nationals will be resettled in the next three months as they do not have the right to live in India as refugees. While the settlement to a third country is processed, RWO is informed that any assistance for the 19 women, 11 children and the elderly among the 64 individuals would be appreciated.

In the section on News, two news articles are reproduced in keeping with the theme of this edition. The first news clipping is about Assamese of Chinese origin, who face a unique situation in India. Chinese nationals who originally were brought to work in the tea plantations in Assam at the beginning of the 18th century eventually settled down in Assam and married local Assamese residents. The Sino-Indian war of 1962 lead to a large number of these people were arrested and sent off to a camp in Deoli, Rajasthan, from where they were eventually deported to China. One of the few people who has conducted extensive research on this issue is Dr. Rita Chowdhury, an Assamese author and the recipient of the Sahitya Academy Award. RWO intends to follow up on this issue in the forthcoming editions of RWO.

The second news article, in contrast to the first, information that is now too common in the mainstream media and yet, in the context of the law – or the lack of it and the historical connections of India with its neighbours, telling of how borders make people with an identity in law. This news article talks about Ramesh Gayen and many others like him, who “don’t have any sort of recognition even after living in a country for over 40 years are not “qualified enough” to discuss politics”. The context for this news article is the recently concluded Assembly elections in West Bengal. The article states that people like Gayen who migrated from Bangladesh in the 1970s are “yet to be recognized as refugees or granted citizenship”. That India’s obsession with the Bangladeshi immigration and “infiltration” is alive is reflected yet again in the experiences of people like Gayen who continue to be non-citizens in the nations imagination.

The section on Reports includes a summary report of a workshop and a conference held in March 2011.

A workshop on Borders and Forced Migration was jointly organized by the Centre for Refugee Studies, Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University and the Calcutta Research Group on March 29, 2011 and focused on statelessness, migration due to resource crisis and the ramifications of forced migration on women. A conference titled “Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons in India and her Neighbours” was organized by The Other Media in Delhi on March 30th and 31st 2011. It sought to examine the status of refugees in India in the context of the existing legal regime – both national and international. Both the forums, interestingly, focused, among other issues, on the question of statelessness and the risks, dangers and dilemmas that people face in falling under the category of “stateless” in India.

The May edition of RWO ends with an announcement of the Koshish contest, currently being organized by UNHCR in Delhi, under the “Do 1 thing for Refugees” as part of the commemoration of World Refugee Day, in June 2011.

We hope you enjoy reading this edition of RWO. Please feel free to send us comments, critiques or get in touch at refugeewatchonline@gmail.com

Bangladesh in Point of View

Geetisha Dasgupta

[is a graduate student at the SUNY, Binghamton]

A researcher of forced migration is continually plagued by concerns like tracing the roots of people, revisiting their origins through documents, narratives, interviews and lived experiences. We try to go back in history and situate people, persons in a particular cross section of time and space which we would coin as his/her home. Thus we try to initiate a homecoming of all those who have been ousted out, forced to move and move on. This continual struggle to transfix the moment called home often faces a crisis, where the researcher is single handedly constructing the past out of the remains, while forgetting that, it might be a ‘normalizing’ act, taking for granted that the past would be equally re-constructible for everyone. We forget that not everyone would like to visit their ‘roots’ on behalf of others.

From this again follows a second premise which shows that people have often ignored the margins drawn by regulatory forces and thereby taking it on history itself. The idea of nation has been challenged through maintaining porosity of borders on the levels of the community; therefore lending more weight to that level of existence which allows them the necessary freedom to subsist. Thus looking at the forced migration situation of India or Bangladesh can never be completed on an India OR Bangladesh OR Pakistan basis. One has to look at it on a holistic basis, keeping in mind the chain of events, the thread that connects all. This edition of our e journal is committed towards taking a look at forced migration situation of Bangladesh. But as will be evident from each of the articles, this is a forced migration situation of Bangladesh vis a vis India.

Priyanca Mathur Velath and Saba Hussain, in their article write about the informal Bangladeshi workers in and around the suburbs of Delhi. These are often undocumented people about whom there is a silence in the administrative structures of both the States as long as their independent histories go. Thus, people that provide the much needed links in the informal economy are termed as ‘illegal’, ‘poor’ and even ‘terrorists’. From there on, it goes deeper to talk about the problems in such situation of ‘silence’ and invisibility which generates a field work anxiety that a researcher faces in mining out the data base as well as the real people that contribute towards it.

Banjan’s article looks at the other side of the same coin, the influx of illegal immigrants especially from Bangladesh. The economic and environmental problems in their home country propel these migrants to explore the opportunities and resources in India and share the benefits of their labour with their families. Many of them receive patronage from political parties who want to accumulate them as vote banks. Despite the media hype and mass movement against immigration there are no figures available with the Government or any other agencies on the exact number of Bangladeshi migrants in India. This ambiguity in identifying the migrants weakens the government’s position in tackling the issue. She looks into the history that brought about the events like formation of separate nation states in the subcontinent and points out that the abnormality lies there itself. It was not nationalism that brought nation state here but quite the reverse.

Naser’s article talks about climate change and displacement, which we will read in the context of massive and sustained population outflows in the recent past out of Bangladesh due to environmental atrocities. He presents the picture rendered imperfect due to the lack of binding international protocols on controlling assaults on the environment and the debates that lead to inconclusive nature of national rules to govern the same.

Protection and Prevention – of the Community & Child Migrants

Priyanca Mathur Velath

[a member of APRRN, IASFM and an alumni of the CRG Winter Course on Forced Migration, Velath is currently completing her doctoral thesis on the rights of development-induced displaced persons in India at CSLG/J.N.U, New Delhi]

The dilemma in forced migration studies, of whether refugees and IDPs are distinct and if the former is ‘more’ in need of protection, is perhaps jinxed to remain unresolved. But growing out of it are equally, if not more, pressing concerns like what is protection and who needs it. Who needs it most and who slips through the gaps? Can’t protection needs be minimised through preventive mechanisms? Can a community approach address refugee needs better? While refugees are entitled to rights as they ‘vote through their feet’ and flee into a country outside that of their nationality, IDPs continue to crave for rights within the borders of their own country. While their protection needs may get highlighted, often the R&R needs of those internally displaced by ‘developmental’ projects get neglected. Thus this issue of RWO tries to sew together a tapestry of four diverse key concepts - ‘child migrants’, ‘preventive mechanism’, ‘IDP policy’ and ‘community approach’.

Glebova’s article draws attention to the unfortunate plight of child migrants in the Caribbean who slip through the gaps in the legal protection framework and become ‘invisible’ to rights. They become doubly neglected as they reside in a region where low asylum numbers makes migration an issue of lesser national importance. She rightly highlights that “there is still very little research on measuring the impact of migration on families and their children, whether in the Caribbean or worldwide.” The tragic irony is that all Caribbean states have ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) making it legally binding on their territory but its effective implementation is lagging behind. Issues crucial to these migrant children are access to education and health care, particularly the unaccompanied ones who are not just denied access to legal and practical assistance, but also at times detained in places of institutional care. What is of particular concern is that “unaccompanied children can be wrongly considered to be adult undocumented migrants, and deported without exercising their right to seek asylum, and without regard for the rights of the child”.

Jeyaprakash revives the importance of stressing on the preventive mechanism in displacement dynamics. Today when the world around us erupts sporadically with ‘new’ refugee situations like that arising out of Libya, Jeyaprakash’s attempt to push our attention to the need to look at ‘prevention’ has value in making us question if these conditions could have been averted. Despite the fact that recent research, as he notes, has shown that “conceptual fragility” and “internal inconsistencies” continues to plague the concept of prevention, leading it to even being termed as an “impractical idea”. He argues that the rise in the refugee trend and a worst voluntary repatriation scenario stress clearly the need and the importance of prevention policies. “We cannot deny the need for including prevention concerns in displacement dialectics because of the fact that each and every reality has an assignable cause. This causal knowledge leads to prevention.”

Dahal’s article revives the old argument that even though estimates of the number of IDPs are said to be controversial due to debates over definitions as well as methodological and practical problems in counting, it is widely held that because of new forms of conflict, among other reasons, estimates of IDPs are now greater than those associated with refugees. He focuses on the famous Deng UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and through that lens examines the IDP policy of the Himalayan state of Nepal, where conflict-induced displacement is relatively a new phenomenon. Quoting the UN, Dahal points out that human rights problems and violations faced by IDPs in Nepal are related to a number of factors, including poor security and protection; discrimination; inadequate food, shelter, health care or access to education for children; a lack of personal and property identification documents; and gender-based violence, sexual abuse and increased domestic violence. He also notes the deleterious impact such forced migration has on children in Nepal. Besides, crucial observations that emerge from his piece are that in Nepal the legal identity of every IDP and the integrated rehabilitation programs has not yet been specified. Moreover, displaced persons fear to go back to their place of origin without any guarantee of life or the ability to make a living. According to various sources, up to 70,000 IDPs in Nepal do not want to return to their native areas due to fears about security and discrimination as well as housing, land and property restitution. “This is a problem because IDP National Policy only provides support to those IDPs who are willing to return”.

The article sent by the UNHCR Office discusses the community based approach to refugee protection adopted by them in Delhi, one that is based on the principle of ‘helping refugees to help themselves’. Community building between refugees and the host population in the long run also encourages local integration as a possible durable solution. Such an approach supports refugees and asylum seekers in re-establishing familiar cultural patterns and support structures to work together in exercising and enjoying their human rights. (UNHCR: 2008) In fact the UNHCR’s 2009 policy on refugee protection and solutions in urban areas emphasises on community orientation as one of the key principles. “To ensure the best possible use of its limited resources, UNHCR has gradually shifted away from an individual assistance to a community based approach by targeting assistance to those refugees and asylum seekers most in need, including unaccompanied and separated children, single women, female headed households, the elderly, the infirm and persons with disabilities.” One does hope that in the end such a participatory model of refugee protection helps to build and restore a sense of ‘community’ among otherwise dispersed refugee groups in a complex urban setting like New Delhi.

Finally in our section on Reports, Nandakishor critically analyses the proceedings of a recently held conference on ‘Displacement and Rehabilitation: Solutions for the Future’. He puts forth the key discussion points that emerged on sessions that were held on varied issues like Displacement and Livelihood’, ‘Gender, Ethnicity Indigenous Communities and R& R issues’, ‘Rehabilitation Policy and Implementation Issues’,‘ Civil Society and Corporate Bodies’, and ‘Displacement and People’s Response’. Some commendable suggestions are that displaced families be resettled in the spirit of ‘community transplanted’ so that the displaced will fell less culturally alienated; wider dissemination of the land acquisition notices; formation of evaluation committees that should comprise of stakeholders, academia, civil society and government representatives; consultation and participation of affected groups/individuals; resettlement sites to be fully developed prior to relocation; compulsory employment for one member of every displaced family; and efforts to address ‘psychological’ trauma associated with displacement etc.

We shall look forward to your responses and further contributions.