2008 Global Refugee Survey by USCRI Focusing on India

Sahana Basavapatna

The US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) in its recent Global Refugee Survey for 2008 gave India a distinction that it would not be proud of. India, according to this survey, is one of the 10 worst violators of refugee rights in the world.

The note on India is interesting for a couple of reasons. For a country that has for long complimented itself on how generous it is in accepting and allowing refugees to live in India, this heavy criticism should bring into focus the real meaning of ad-hocism and the risks it brings to the lives of refugees. It is indeed one of the worst violators for not only the ambiguity in the refugee policy, but also for how this translates in reality. It is one thing to allow refugees to live in India, but altogether different to have the discretion to deport them at will without any explanation or information. Further, this unsavory distinction would hold true when one considers “protection” – a core function of UNHCR and the States- in reality - slum like conditions in which refugees more often find themselves in, lack of basic services such as water, electricity, space, privacy, education and health and the response of agencies such as UNHCR and its implementing partners.

However, a word of caution is also essential as the Survey’s argument that Chins are “the least favoured” among the refugees does not give a complete picture. The Survey should have taken into consideration other refugee groups such as Afghans, Somalis, and Palestinians and others, who undoubtedly have their own experiences to share about living as refugees in a democracy like India. So, while deportation and threats of deportation or lack of protection of Chins in Mizoram/New Delhi is real, it is, one can argue, worse for the Somalis and ethnic Afghans in New Delhi (and elsewhere). By that yardstick for example, the Somalis can be considered to be equally “least favoured”, evidenced by their determined struggle against suspension of registration of asylum seekers, the often long delay in decisions on applications and the deterioration of even basic standards of living in Delhi.

It can only be hoped against hope that there is some change from status quo given that the Government of India is believed to be working to table a refugee protection bill in the parliament.

Please read the full article: -

Five Asian Nations Branded 'Worst' Violators of Refugee Rights by P. Parameswaran

WASHINGTON, June 20, 2008 (AFP) - China, India, Malaysia, Thailand and Bangladesh have been identified as among the worst violators of refugees' rights in a global survey released ahead of Friday's World Refugees Day.

They joined Iraq, Kenya, Russia, Sudan and Europe as the 10 worst places for refugees last year, according to the World Refugee Survey 2008 released in Washington on Thursday.

The annual study, conducted by the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), a non-governmental group, also showed the total number of refugees growing to 14 million at the end of 2007, the largest it has been since 2001.

Driving the growth again were Iraqi refugees, with more than 550,000 fleeing their country. In all, more than two million refugees from the insurgency-wracked nation are awaiting an end to violence in their homeland.

The worst places for refugees list was based on violators turning refugees away to face further persecution, violence, and possibly death, or letting them enter a country and subjecting them to deprivation and stultifying limbo, USCRI said.

"We've tried to call attention to these countries because they have been particularly egregious in their treatment of refugees," USCRI president Lavinia Limon said.

"Some of them have forced refugees back into dangerous situations, some of them have warehoused refugees in camps for decades, and some of them have done their best to make sure refugees never enter their territory. Some of them have done all of the above," she said.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has made refugee protection the theme of this year's events marking World Refugee Day.

In a report card, where countries are graded from A to F and that formed the basis for the USCRI worst violators' list, China, Malaysia and Thailand received an F grade following a study on forcibly returning refugees to their homes and physical protection of refugees.

Some of the North Korean refugees repatriated by China have reportedly been executed.

Malaysia forcibly sent refugees from Myanmar to Thailand, where "some of them were sold into slavery -- men to fishing boats and women to brothels," said Merrill Smith, USCRI director of international planning and analysis.

Thailand also forced refugees to return to Myanmar and Laos, he said.

Malaysia and Thailand also got an F grade together with Bangladesh and China in a study on conditions in which refugees were detained and provided access to courts.

In the category where freedom of movement of refugees was gauged, Thailand and Bangladesh received the worst grade. "Thailand confined about 140,000 refugees in special refugee camps where they are not allowed to leave -- mostly those from Myanmar and Laos," Smith said.

Malaysia, Bangladesh and Nepal also received the worst grade in a study on whether governments allowed refugees to earn a livelihood.

One of the reasons that India was listed as among the worst places for refugees was because of its "radically discriminatory treatment of refugees," said Smith.

"They treat refugees depending on their nationality -- at the better end of the spectrum would be the Tibetan refugees, they are treated the best. Sri Lankans not so well but worst of all would be the Chin ethnic group from Myanmar," he said.

Smith pointed out that treating refugees well did not mean that they would remain permanently in their host countries, citing Malaysia as an example.

He said that Malaysia in 2005 issued documents to refugees from neighboring Indonesia's Aceh province allowing them to work and move about freely following the tsunami disaster that devastated the province.

Of the 32,000 Acehnese who received those documents, only 6,000 remained in Malaysia as of this year while the others returned home, Smith said.

"The interesting part about that is that treating refugees well does not cause them to stay," he said.

Western nations were also criticized in the report, including the United States and the European Union which received grades of F and D, respectively, for their poor physical protection of refugees including the forced repatriation of some asylum-seekers.

Human Rights Watch Reveals Disturbing Realities of Conflict-Induced Displacement in Chattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh

Ishita Dey

In a latest finding by Human Rights Watch, which is based on four weeks on-the-ground research in Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh in late 2007 and early 2008, including approximately 175 accounts from affected villagers, Salwa Judum leaders, government officials and police, and former Naxalites the group called for an end to all government support for unlawful activities by the Salwa Judum vigilantes, and urged affected state governments to take immediate measures to protect the tens of thousands of persons displaced. Human Rights Watch also called on Maoist rebels known as Naxalites to end attacks on civilians and other abuses.

The 182-page report, “‘Being Neutral is Our Biggest Crime’: Government, Vigilante, and Naxalite Abuses in India’s Chhattisgarh State,” documents human rights abuses against civilians, particularly indigenous tribal communities, caught in a deadly tug-of-war between government security forces and the vigilante Salwa Judum and Naxalites.

The report highlights the impact of this conflict on children’s lives. The Naxalites have long used children as young as 6 years old as informers and children from 12 years old in armed operations. The Chhattisgarh police have recruited and used children as special police officers to assist government security forces in the region, often deploying them in high-risk anti-Naxalite combing operations. While the Chhattisgarh police have acknowledged this as an error, the government is yet to devise a scheme for systematically identifying, demobilizing, and rehabilitating such underage special police officers.

To read the full article please click on the link given in the right column below: -

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/india0708/

A High Court Ruling in Bangladesh in July 2008 Declares 250,000 Biharis or “Stranded Pakistanis” as Citizens

Ishita Dey

On 26 November 2007, 11 members of the Stranded Pakistanis Youth Rehabilitation Movement (SPYRM), including its president, Sadakat Khan, filed a petition seeking High Court orders to register as voters Urdu-speaking people living in 70 camps across the country. In the ruling in July 2008, 250000 Biharis or stranded Pakistanis were declared as citizens. This judgment has drawn a mixed reaction from others in refugee camps of Dhaka and elsewhere. People who have migrated before Bangladesh was formed still feel that they had come to settle in Islamic Pakistan and not secular Bangladesh and some of them did want to go back to Pakistan after Bangladesh was formed. Unlike their parents, the younger generation of Biharis do not feel like aliens in Bangladesh. Most speak both Bangla and Urdu, go to Bangla-medium schools, have Bengalee friends and spouses. Many of them identify themselves as Bangladeshis rather than claiming to be “Biharis” or “stranded Pakistanis”, and are working for stronger integration.

Most of them feel while they have won the right to vote they still need to fight to reclaim their properties and want to enjoy the rights of a citizen of Bangladesh.

To read the full article please click on the link given below: -
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=79033

Revisiting the Structure of Refugee and IDP Camps

Ishita Dey

Jim Lewis in an article on refugee camps in New York Times Magazine analyses the possible reasons behind the basic structures of camps: tarp, tent, cluster, grid. He argues that one of the basic tenets behind this kind of camp architecture is based on an assumption that these structures are temporary and one of the ways to discourage people from settling there is to create such structures of discomfort. Though the official position is that repatriation is imminent, there are scores of instances to ponder and reflect on the fact that the refugee crisis in West Bank and Gaza, Northwestern Province of Pakistan and Kenya. It’s been sixty years of the Palestinian settlements in west Bank and Gaza. Thousands of Afghans are stranded in the Northwestern Province of Pakistan since Soviet invasion in 70s and Sudanese and Somalians have been forced to live in Kenya since 1992. To quote Jim Lewis, “In 1993, a refugee could expect to live in a camp for 9 years; by 2004, that had grown to 17 years — almost a year increase per year, which suggests that very few people are going home at all. As conflicts grow more protracted and complicated, quick and direct repatriation becomes a slimmer and slimmer thread to hang things on”. It is against this backdrop and context he feels that the humanitarian agencies should revisit the structure of the settlements along with other needs. The institutions responsible for the lives and movements of great number of people are organized along rectilinear lines like hospitals, prison and army barracks and so on. The author feels that the basic structure of the tarp is based on Western notions of family as a nuclear unit. Similarly the grid structure might not be acceptable for cultures that are organized along fluid lines. While the UN Refugee Commission does not lay down a template to follow; their basic idea is the safety of the refugees. After the basic settlement the camp dwellers are encouraged to modify these spaces. According to Lewis, Fred Cuny contributed to the practice of emergency aid in the late 60s and argued for the use of single-family tents arranged in an ersatz-village design that was more comfortable and more flexible. It was instrumental in reducing the spread of infectious diseases in camps. Cuny recommended single-family tents he assumed that most of the people were from the villages, whereas our experience of refugees in war in Iraq has led to refugees seeking urban refuge. Lewis believes that there is a new tide of urban migration and he sites the case of Manila where 80,000 people are living on a top of garbage dump. Lewis points out that there is a history of architects committed to the welfare of the people. Some of the renowned architects are “Hassan Fathy, a Cairene architect who, starting in the 1930s, trained the poor of Egypt to build homes from mud bricks; Buckminster Fuller, with his geodesic domes; and Habitat for Humanity. There are pockets of inspired practice, like Architecture for Humanity, a remarkable N.G.O. based in San Francisco that not only builds and consults but also acts as a sort of clearinghouse for open-source design. Along the Mexican-U.S. border, Teddy Cruz has fashioned fast, cheap and inventive housing out of salvaged materials. Jaime Lerner, a Brazilian architect who became mayor of Curitiba, helped transform it from a slum-infested metropolis of almost two million into a green and functioning model of urban planning”.

While most humanitarian agencies argue that the local community knowledge will play a key role in solving problems related to shelter, the urban planners need to address certain problems that the large body of UN might face. First and foremost cheap housing solutions, materials that easily available and transportable and durable to survive extreme weather conditions and easily reparable. In terms of security, water access, H.I.V./AIDS prevention, human rights issues make the problem more complex. Despite these problems, Lewis argues urban planners and humanitarian agencies should work on an alternative models of housing based on local knowledge.

To read the full article please click on the link given below: -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/magazine/08wwlnurbanismt.html?pagewanted=1_r=2&ref=world

Need for Fresh Look at 1951 Convention and Relevance of Post Colonial Experiences

K.M. Parivelan

The Refugee Convention, which was formally adopted on 28 July 1951, forms the foundation of the modern international legal system designed to protect people who have to flee their countries because of persecution or conflict. It is widely credited with saving countless lives and ensuring a means of escape for people facing imprisonment, torture, execution and other human rights abuses for reasons such as their political or religious beliefs, or membership in a particular ethnic or social group. It is the key legal instrument in defining who is a refugee, their rights and legal obligations of the State Parties. The 1967 Protocol removed geographical and temporal restriction from the Convention.

The Convention provides a universal definition of who exactly qualifies as a refugee. This definition has proved sufficiently flexible to encompass new types of refugees as they have emerged over the years. The Convention also established a framework of basic refugee rights - for example, the right to identity papers, access to courts and education - without which their lives in asylum countries would be quite a predicament for asylum seekers and refugees.
What are the positive influences of 1951 Convention?
1. It provided the basic and general definition for ‘refugee’
2. It facilitated the customary international law scope for promoting the principle of ‘non- refoulement’
3. It set the minimum standard of treatment for refugees and provisions for their legal status and welfare
4. It provides legal and political scope for States to co-operate with UNHCR in the exercise of its functions.

Post Colonial Influences

The conflicts that accompanied the end of the colonial era in Asia, Africa and Latin America led to a succession of large -scale refugee movements. These population displacements prompted the drafting and adoption of not only the 1967 Refugee Protocol but also several other regional initiatives.

The 1969 OAU Convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa, which came in to force in 1974. It went about expanding the definition of the term ‘refugee’ as well as principle of ‘non-refoulment’. The OAU Convention contextually elaborated on the 1951 Convention definition of refugee as: “any person compelled to leave his/her country because of “external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality.”. This means that persons fleeing civil disturbances, widespread violence and war are entitled to claim the status of refugee in States that are parties to this Convention regardless of whether they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Similarly in Latin America the initiative was taken by government representatives and distinguished Latin American jurists in 1984 to discuss the international protection of refugees in the region. This gathering adopted what became known as the Cartagena Declaration. The Declaration recommends the definition of a refugee used throughout the Latin American region should include the 1951 Refugee Convention definition and also persons who have fled their country “because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order.” Although the Declaration is not legally binding on States, most Latin American States apply the definition as a matter of practice; some have incorporated the definition into their own national legislation.

In the context of Asia, distinct attempt was not made at convention or declaration level, but the principles adopted by the Asia Africa Legal Consultative Committee (AALCC) in 1966 is quite a contributory step. Even though non-binding in character, did influence the refugee policy in the region. Similarly a Group of Arab experts met in Cairo in November 1992 and adopted a non-binding Declaration on the protection of Refugees and displaced Persons in the Arab world.

In the recent years, however, the continuing validity of the 1951 Convention has been publicly questioned in some quarters. This has alarmed refugee protection activists, UN officials and aid agencies involved with refugees who feel that politics are being played at the expense of the Convention and, therefore, of the refugees it protects. The reasons behind these attacks on the Convention appear to be linked primarily to the rising number of asylum-seekers, the increase in people-smuggling networks, the perception that the majority of asylum-seekers are "bogus," and the high costs involved in maintaining asylum systems.

These concerns are understandable, but the critique of the Convention tends to ignore some vital basic factors, "Firstly, the main reason the numbers soared was that there were three major wars in Europe during the 1990s, in addition to numerous other conflicts around the world. "Secondly, the whole point of the Convention is precisely to make the distinction between those who need the international protection that official refugee status affords, and those who do not. Therefore, one set of argument is that it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the Convention per se. The Convention has also been wrongly blamed for a collective failure to manage the soaring numbers of would-be economic migrants. "The Convention was never intended to sort out all the world's migration problems. "The trouble is, with virtually no other migration path open from poor countries to rich ones, the Convention has been subjected to pressures which should be catered for by alternative migration management tools."

On the cost of managing asylum-systems, we need to look at some states having rigorous process of detaining every single asylum-seeker entering the country without proper documentation. "This is an extremely expensive way of dealing with asylum-seekers, as well as inhumane and, arguably, quite at odds with Article 31 of the Convention." Asylum systems in some countries are inefficient, sometimes taking years to reach a decision. "This means not only considerable extra costs in terms of social benefits, but it also makes such countries attractive to economic migrants, stimulating a “vicious circle of increased numbers, higher costs, and slower decisions”.

The most worrying trend is the growing number of states violating Article 33 of the Convention, which says, "No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened…" If refugees are sent straight back to danger - or are prevented from leaving their countries in the first place - then all the other measures designed to protect and assist them count for nothing. Under international law this should not happen, and blatantly ignoring international law is a dangerous path to tread." The 1951 Refugee Convention has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, with some governments questioning its continuing relevance. UNHCR has been paying special attention to the problem, analysing the extent of the practice in recent years in terms of the number of countries involved and the number of people affected. This is being done in the context of the "Global Consultations on International Protection", talks between UNHCR, governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and experts focusing on how States are interpreting and implementing the 1951 Refugee Convention and examining protection problems that are not fully covered by the treaty, so as to better protect refugees. Most notably the Executive Committee constituted is able to incorporate some of the non-signatory countries to voice their concerns and proactively contribute to the refugee protection regime.

Is Beijing’s Authoritarian Capitalism Face of the Future?

Ishita Dey

Slavoj Zivek in the Article ‘Who are the good guys?” in International Herald Tribune ( May 31-1 June 2008 ) reflects on the relations between China and Tibet. As China gears up for the Olympic Games 2008 the traditional torch relay in various parts of the world was subject to much protest because of the various human rights violation in Tibet by the People’s Republic of China. While the protesters against the Beijing Olympics feel that one world can have many dreams as opposed to “one world one dream” but Zivek raises a question about what definition of Tibetan dream are the protesters manufacturing. While much has been said and written about the plight of the Tibetans and we have raised our voices against the atrocities in Tibet; we cannot ignore certain facts that we need to ponder on as Zivek (ibid) points out. Some of the questions he raises are: Firstly, the history between China acting as the “protective overlord” to Tibet goes back as long as the “anti communist Kuomintang” who also “insisted on Chinese Sovereignty over Tibet”. Secondly, since the early 1950s there has been systematic and substantial involvement in stirring up anti-Chinese troubles in Tibet. Thirdly, the recent TV footages of angry Tibetan protesters burning, looting and killing Chinese immigrants and their stores should be treated on the same lines as we measure other violent protests. The protest movement is no more peaceful protest. Thirdly, we need to acknowledge that the Chinese have invested heavily in the region. Some parts of Tibet are better off than China’s own underdeveloped Western rural provinces. Lastly over the last years there has been a change in the Chinese strategy towards Tibet. “The Chinese rely more on ethnic and economic colonization, rapidly transforming Lhasa into a Chinese capitalist Wild West with karaoke bars and Disney like Buddhist theme park’ for Western tourists. Besides all these aspects; the brutal image of the Chinese soldiers and policemen terrorizing has another tale yet to be told. These images speak of a much more American style effective socioeconomic transformation that has gone beyond mcdonaldisation. Mcdonaldisation was one way to create an image of the global world. And post Den Xiaoping China has learnt the lesson and employing so that the Tibetans will be reduced to the status of Native Americans in the United States. Does this inherently imply that political democracy is the natural political accompaniment of capitalism?

To read the full article click on the link in the news section ->
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/30/opinion/edzizek.php

Reconstruction of New Orleans

Debdatta Chowdhury

The news piece ‘Drowning By Numbers, Or The Non-Reproduction Of New Orleans’ by Benedict Seymour (February, 2006) is an on-your-face report on the re-construction of New Orleans sans the black working class. Victimising the black working class through destruction of their housing and social networks, transfer of public assets into private ownership and gentrification of the already gentrified USA, had already set the ground for such blatant violation of human rights and dignity. What is witnessed in the wake of reconstruction post-Katrina, is only a newer version of ‘primitive accumulation’, with the state backing the transfer of property into private hands, creating a new class of proletariat workers divorced from their means of social reproduction. This is accompanied by an attack on the price of the labour-power, thus depriving the workers of their former means of subsistence and raising the real cost of living. Legal obstacles like petty but effective restriction (not allowing them to vote if one has lost his/her ID during the hurricane) or technical omissions, have been put to use to prevent the blacks from reconstructing their lives, post-Katrina. Every effort is being made on the part of the state to prevent the return of the black working class neighbourhoods to their society. Lowering of wages followed the eviction of the black working class from New Orleans that ensured the minimum return of these evicted people to their older settlements. Even if they did, they returned to a much worse situation of low wages, racism and hyper-exploitation. These returnees are used as low wage immigrant labours. Using low-or-no wage immigrant labour ensures absolute surplus value for their capitalist employers. This trend is the latest to be seen in the capitalist modus operandi, but in no way an exceptional scenario. Devalorisation of labour is not a new phenomenon. But earlier it was accompanied by improved standard of living, shorter workday, new infrastructure and institutions for the reproduction of labour-power like housing, hospitals, schools. The devalorisation process in New Orleans in the wake of the disaster was followed by depreciation of labour-power and the non-replacement of the means of social production. This version of primitive accumulation is the bitter culmination of US capital’s long-term strategy of devalorisation. The devastation of New Orleans is clearly a nail in the coffin of the myth of America’s post-industrial renaissance. Truly then, the relief process in New Orleans is being called the ‘second hurricane’

For the detailed report, click on the url to the right:-
http://thelondonparticular.org/items/drowning.html

The Bombing of IOM Office in East Nepal Sheds New Light on Resettlement of Refugees in a Third Country

Ishita Dey

Right to return has been one of the pertinent questions raised by refugee activists for decades. The recent resettlement programme of Bhutanese refugees to countries such as USA, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand was the topic of much discussion with some activists arguing that this resettlement programme cannot be the durable solution. The explosion of two crude bombs in the office compounds of the IOM office, Damak, is seen by the Nepalse Police as an act of those who were opposed to the resettlement programme and have termed it as “human trafficking” in the past. Such attacks while reveal that despite 38,500 Bhutanese refugees registering for the resettlement programme there are concerns within the camps that need to be addressed. The Human Rights Organisation of Bhutan has considered this an unfortunate incident. It has urged every Bhutanese to restrain from any such violent activity. Meanwhile HUROB has also appealed that there should be proper dissemination of information, which still lacks and there should not be psychological compulsion or family and relatives follow up and binding. No one has objection to voluntary resettlement as is the individual rights. In its update HUROB appealed to the international community and Bhutan Government and Bhutanese parties to work on a peaceful and responsible path. It has specially urged the Bhutanese Parties, organizations and individual to refrain from all anti-social activities and respect individual rights and maintain refugee camps a peaceful place.

UPDATE: BOMBS HURLED ON IOM OFFICE


As reported some unidentified group of people hurled two improvised explosive device (IED) socket bombs in the premises of the International Office of the Migration at Damak yesterday at around 7.30pm(IOM) set up in October 2007 to resettle the Bhutanese refugees to USA. Since the US announced to resettle about 60000 Bhutanese refugees and few thousands by other core group countries for Bhutanese refugees as an effort to find comprehensive solution to 17 years old protracted problem, the IOM has been actively working on the process and till date about 1200 Bhutanese refugees have reached to the country of their destination in America, Australia, Norway, Netherlands, Canada and New Zealand. However, there has been from the very beginning, conflict, confusion and controversy over the only resettlement process as majority of the refugees would still like to go back to own home land in Bhutan and have been urging the International community particularly the Core Group for Bhutanese refugees to expedite all three options, repatriation, resettlement and local assimilation as principle of amicable and comprehensive solution justifiable to all the refugees. Despite the incessant concern of the refugees on all options of durable solutions, the core group has so far given importance only on resettlement which in actual repatriation should have been the priority and thus the apathetic stand on repatriation giving respite on the perpetrator, the Bhutan regime has angered most of the Bhutanese refugees, especially the youths. The youths who belong to revolutionary organizations have been vehemently opposing the resettlement process which preceded the repatriation, the first option of the refugees.

The undesirable activities of the revolutionary organizations are becoming gradually nuance in the camps disturbing peace and tranquility. Exactly no one is certain of their motive of action but the trend is unpleasant and there is violation of individual rights and insecurity persists. The attack on IOM yesterday evening is the third time. Before this, twice the IOM vehicle ferrying the refugees were attacked. The incidents are unfortunate and Human Rights Organization of Bhutan (HUROB) is very much concern and wish that every Bhutanese restrain from carrying out such activities.

While denouncing the action of whosoever and whatsoever the motive, HUROB would like to appeal all the concerns to delve deeply into the sentiments of the refugees and try to work out a congenial situation appreciable even by such revolutionary groups and avoid all untoward happenings. Mean while HUROB would like to take the opportunity to express its concern and also not liked by the revolutionary organizations as reported by the camp people and own feeling in the modus operandi of UNHCR and IOM particularly on the motivation of the refugees for resettlement. There should be proper dissemination of information which still lacks and there should not be psychological compulsion or family and relatives follow up and binding. No one has objection to voluntary resettlement as is the individual rights. At the same time the core country for Bhutanese refugees should in equal interest take up the repatriation issue and urge Bhutan government to accept back its people without delay in order to establish permanent peace and stability in the country. Lastly, appeal all the Bhutanese Parties, organizations and individual to refrain from all anti-social activities and respect individual rights and maintain refugee camps a peaceful place.
S.B.Subba

To read the news article click on the link in the news section ->

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/216038,international-migration-office-bombed-in-eastern-nepal.html

Amitendu Palit and Subhomoy Bhattacharjee 2007, Special Economic Zones in India – Myths and Realities. Delhi: Anthem South Asian Studies.198pp

Ishita Dey

The book explores as its title suggests some of the myths and realities of the economic prospect of SEZs in India. SEZs as we all know are an improved version of the existing EPZ to generate more export. The authors do not question the “export oriented” development but addresses whether the proposed SEZs would generate export and FDI flows with the existing infrastructure. The book begins with the argument that the creation of new economic spaces is not a new phenomenon. The geographically delimited “enclaves” has existed since the medieval ages. One of the first modern zones came up in Shanon International Airport at Ireland in 1956. Two types of zones dominate the modern economic spaces: - i) Export Processing zones (EPZ)/Free Trade Zones (FTZ) ii) SEZ. In most of the regions across the world there is a preference for EPZ/ FTZ. There are relatively more EPZs/ FTZs in North America (i.e., the U.S.) and Asia (South, East and South East). The authors argue that the developing countries across the world have adopted the policy of creating special economic enclaves. Drawing reference from the World Bank study, the book suggests that till 2007, approximately 3000 zone projects taking place in 120 countries across the world. Most of the developing countries have taken to these economic enclaves which carries the potential of creating more employment opportunities because of the of the fiscal incentives “in the form of low or zero taxes on income and export profits and duty-free imports” are essential to create more job opportunities and improving the quality of existing jobs”. One of the ways to increase the employment opportunity is to utilize the low skilled workforce. There is also a hint that the growth of SEZ will increase more work opportunities in the construction sector.

The book in a nutshell is an overview of the SEZ scenario in India- the trends and prospects. The reality it offers us is based on a comparative understanding of the existing enclaves across the World and with special reference to the Chinese model of SEZ. The study suggests that vision of SEZ as hinted by Late Murasoli Maran, the Union Minister in 2002 was supposed to have a minimum area of 10000 ha. “A Lot has changed since this”. The book precisely documents this shifts and changes in the SEZ policy since 2002 to 2005 when the SEZ act was constituted. This is evident in the chapterisation. The book introduces the backdrop against which the SEZ in India came into existence through an account of the existing economic enclaves across the world, the exports generated in these regions, the viability of the already existing Export Processing Zones in India and the increase in exports in the already functional SEZs in India. The following chapter on “The New SEZs: Where, What and Why?” is particularly interesting because it challenges a general perception that the states are trying to outdo each other to woo developers to invest in their states. Drawing from the total number of approvals granted till 18 June 2008 on the Govt of India’s website on SEZ; it shows that out of the 464 approved SEZs; the majority of SEZ are spread across five states; Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu followed by West Bengal and Gujarat. 353 SEZs belong to these seven states. The book raises a significant question “Will this distinctly unbalanced spatial distribution of SEZs influence the outlook for India’s future regional development?” The study predicts that in the case of China though on one hand, the coastal bias of the SEZ policy proved to be beneficial in terms of accessibility and other benefits there grew an economic chasm between the hinterland and coastal areas. Owing to our already existing regional disparities in other sectors due to disparities in per capita income between the states especially when the five states sharing the highest SEZ fall under higher per capita income category. This in a sense would be “circulation of capital and goods” rather than “distribution of goods and services”.

IT and IT related services dominate the number of industries that are going to come up in the approved areas. The study also predicts that the real estate developers are going to have a high stake in real estate business with all the country’s leading real estate developers filing in SEZ applications. Another viable issue that faces SEZ is whether the industrial units will be the answer to the rising unemployment figures. How effective are the training centres that are being set up in various zones to impart training to landless people ? Will this training be sufficient to create skilled labour force that these industries will require?

The issue of landless and the “right to life” are explored through a critique of the present Land Acquisition Act 1894. The regulatory and unchallenging characteristic of this act has been the subject of criticism and continues to remain even in 21 st century when tracts of land whatever the size may be are being acquired in the name of “public purpose”. The authors highlight that the amendment in 1984 to expand the definition of “public purpose” to acquire land by private developers or any other party. Secondly the seller cannot challenge in a court of law on why the government needed that piece of land, except to the level of compensation which immediately turns our attention to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy we have in place.

It is against this backdrop that the study suggests that the SEZs indeed have quite a bumpy road ahead considering the domestic banks are not keen on financing SEZ for fear of building up Non-performing assets. Apart from finding financial guarantors for the projects, the SEZ developers in certain places will have to develop linkage routes. The connectivity factor is going to be crucial in the success story of SEZ. Thus SEZs definitely will not aid industrially backward areas.

Why Bangladesh Needs Refugee Law?

Udatta Bikash

Bangladesh was born experiencing refugeehood. During our liberation war in 1971, an estimated 10 million people (one out of every seven of that time population) took refuge in neighbouring India. Bangladesh has been hosting thousands of Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic minority group from the northern Rakhine state of Myanmar as refugees for last 17 years.

Following the latest persecution generated by the military ruler in Myanmar during 1991-92, thousands of Rohingyas took refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh and other countries. About 258,000 Rohingyas were registered by the Government of Bangladesh and granted refugee status through an executive order.

In addition to that, thousands of Rohingyas continue to arrive here and mix with local population over the years. Some estimates suggest that there are now about 300,000 nationals of Myanmar (mostly Rohingyas) outside the official camps who are 'illegally' staying in the Cox's Bazaar, Bandarban and Chittagong districts. A section of them is active in all sorts of illegal activities. Apart from that an estimated 300,000 Rohingyas are reportedly now in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern counties holding Bangladeshi passports.

Bangladesh has been hosting refugees for a long time, however it is not a State party to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 or its Protocol of 1967 (However, Bangladesh is member to the Executive Committee of UNHCR- EXCOM). There is also no domestic legal framework to deal with the issue of asylum and refugees.

Although there are few provisions in the Constitution, which could be translated for the protection of refugees, there is a lack of common understanding on those.

In this backdrop, there is a point for Bangladesh for accession to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (the Convention hereafter) and/or adoption of a normative legal framework. Let us examine both the propositions.

The Refugee Convention was adopted at a special United Nations conference on 28 July 1951. The Convention is the basic instrument of Refugee Law that defines a refugee, and sets out the rights of them and the responsibilities of states that grant asylum. The Convention also sets out which people do not qualify as refugees, such as war criminals or having involved on serious non-political crimes among others.

Protection of refugees forms the core of all Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law. However, since its inception there have been many objections to the provisions of the Convention. It is said that the Convention mandates protection for those whose civil and political rights are violated. However, it does not protect persons whose socio-economic rights are at risk.

For example, the Convention is unable to cover the need of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) and the latest consequences of the global warming, the climate refugees.

The Convention is considered by experts like Dr. B. S. Chimni, a Professor of Jawharlal Nehru University in New Delhi as 'Euro-centric' and insensitive towards the internecine racial, ethnic and religious conflicts in the third world, which has resulted in the creation of refugees in large numbers.

Apart from that, the Convention seems dated and needs for further revisions due to increased complexities in the process of refugee generation, protection and due to advance in the field of refugee studies.

The Convention has been the point of contention for the developed and developing countries. While developed countries are bidding for a rights-based approach; developing countries on the other hand have been voicing their incomprehension as to why they would be expected to abide by the standards that the North no longer seems to accept. It is likely that now the Northern countries assume only a fraction of the responsibilities for refugees.

Experts like Mr. Patrick Hoenig of Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi finds four dilemmas in the Convention with regard to refugee: definition, material assistance, shared responsibilities, and unraveling consensus in observing standards of international law.

Given the post-9/11 scenario, most of the developed countries tighten their borders. By the end of 2004, only two out of top ten receiving countries were developed ones, according to a report of Calcatta Research Group who runs an internationally reputed course on Forced Migration. Developed countries have already developed and implemented the concept of 'third country protection' or 'offshore asylum system'. These types of initiatives are contradictory to the sprit of the Convention.

Even senior officials of the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) openly support modifications in the Convention. "… the Convention has to be looked into from different angles/perspectives considering the present scenario," says Ms. Carol Batchelor, Chief of Mission of UNHCR in India (former Head of agency's Stateless Unit in Geneva) in an international workshop on Forced Migration in Kolkaka, India last year (The writer was one of the participants of the workshop).

In this scenario, none of the South Asian states is a signatory to the Refugee Convention, few citing 'certain biases in the provisions of the Convention.'

Some scholars including Dr. B. S. Chimni feel that before acceding to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol, South Asian states should go ahead for adoption of a rights-based national legal framework to deal with asylum and refugee issues.

Enacting a comprehensive national legislation
From the above discussion, it is clear that given the drawbacks in the Convention, it is very unlikely that South Asian countries including Bangladesh will sign the instrument in near future.

Therefore, adoption of national legislation will be a more viable option for the countries including Bangladesh.

The benefits of national legislation are manifold. These include: dissolution of adoption of adhoc measures; permanent mechanisms for determination and treatment of refugees; ensuring judicious, fair and accountable procedures; enhancement of administrative control of the state; achieving concerted search for durable solution; co-ordination among concerned agencies; reducing frictions and conflicts among states.

Conclusion
Like other South Asian countries, Bangladesh has a tradition of hosting a large number of refugees for a long period. Here, refugees are subjected to same laws as for foreigners. These hardly consider protection need of an individual, especially in case of women and children. Again, due to lack of any explicit legal regime, asylum seekers and refugees are dealt under adhoc administrative arrangements, which by their very nature could be arbitrary and discriminatory, and do not accord any right to the refugees.

On the other hand, in the absence of a legal framework and access to asylum procedure in Bangladesh, newly arrived Rohingyas are forced to stay illegally here and be prone to various vulnerabilities including engagement in illegal activities and even in terrorism.

Over the time, the Rohingya refugees have a significant impacts on the economic, social, cultural, environmental, and law and order situations in Bangladesh. At the latest, it has added to the security concern. It is reported that a section of the Rohingyas have link with domestic terrorist groups like JMB and guerilla group operative in Myanmar-India-Bangladesh borders who receive funds from abroad.

Therefore, the Government should be serious on the matter. It is a high time that Government of Bangladesh adopts a comprehensive policy on Rohingya refugee issues with a view to resolve the problem through bilateral and multi-lateral means. For this, pro-active diplomacy is required. A rights-based approach as to domestic legislation is to give "…weight within a framework that recognises the distinctive essence of humanitarian problems and gives legal recognition to the fact that every person, alien or national, is of equal moral worth, and worthy of treatment that does not violate his her dignity," as Dr. B. S. Chimni rightly points out.

The law should have provisions, among others, on the definition of refugees, asylum procedure, rights and obligation, status of mixed-mirages, cancellation and cessation processor of refugee status etc. The 'Model Refugee Law' drafted by the Eminent Persons' Group (EPG) in 1997 could be a benchmark for further movement in this regard.

The writer is freelance researcher and specialises on legal and human rights issues.

Blasts in Jaipur Results in Increased Patrolling at the Borders

Debdatta Chowdhury

The string of blasts that took place in Jaipur on 13 May 2008 is yet another manifestation of the extreme intolerance that India has witnessed in terms of communal, caste, class and gender violence in the last few years. While the Gujarat riots was a watershed in the history of India’s acts of intolerance, the Jaipur blasts were a brutal reminder that intolerance resulting in violence is but a regular menu in India’s plate of ‘diversity’. The Jaipur blasts, eight of them in a span of 12 minutes, claimed about 60 lives and injured many more. A Bangladeshi terrorist outfit has been accused for the blasts. This blast goes to show that small towns, and not just metros, are also being targeted for terrorist activities. Post-blast, issues like increased patrolling at the borders have started coming up, once again. While the Samjhota Express and such acts of co-operation are attempts to bridge the gap between the two lands, these acts of brutality are a worst kind of blows to these attempts at improving the relation. Stories of recovery of the survivors of the blast do not, in any way, sound like assurances that all is well. Rather they sound like the bells of death, awaiting yet another busy market, yet another city. It is just a matter of a few days.

For more detailed news click on the links on the news section
www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid
www.littleabout.com/2008/05/13/jaipur-blast-150-injured-60-dead
www.indianmuslims.info/news/2008/may/26/jaipur_blast_suspect_held_bharatpur.html
www.indiaenews.com/india/20080515/118198.htm

Gujjar Agitation is Likely to End?

Ishita Dey

Eighteen people were killed in police firing at Sikandra in Dausa district in Rajasthan on May 24, 2008 as Gujjars continued their agitation demanding Scheduled Tribe status. Gujjars have been given the status of STs in Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. In Rajasthan the Gujjar community has been declared as other backward castes and enjoys the benefit of reservation in state run institutions. One of the main reasons of Gujjar agitation as many would like to argue is the discriminatory position BJP led government in Rajasthan adopted way back in 1991 when they declared Jats who comprised 15% of the state population as STs

For detailed analysis on the ongoing Gujjar agitation and their demands read the links given on the news section
Why the Gujjars are so aggrieved ? by Jyotsna Singh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6705521.stm
Gujjar agitation continues, toll climbs to 18
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1100234

Are Agri Export Zones (AEZs) Better Than Special Economic Zones (SEZs)?

Ishita Dey

In an article by Ashok B Sharma in Financial Express (link provided) , he argues that Agri Export zones have the potential to boost exports which has been the sole objective of the SEZs and EPZs in India. While on hand, this kind of growth-oriented development activity has become the point of criticism, are AEZs the viable option? Ashok Sharma points out that in a recent study conducted by Agriculture and Processed Foods Export Development Authority (APEDA) states that AEZs are approaching the cumulative export target. While there might be alternative ways where more opportunities can be created by using the already existing infrastructure without disrupting the ecology in the already existing agrarian land one need to understand how the land and the existing infrastructure is being used. We invite your insights on AEZs

To read the full article please click on the link on the news section
(http://www.financialexpress.com/news/AEZ-exports-cross-Rs-10-000-cr-zeroing-in-on-target/317344/)

Situation of Xenophobic Violence in South Africa

Debdatta Chowdhury

Xenophobia or the ‘fear of foreigner’ has been a pressing issue globally and is manifest in the mass scale violence amounting to genocide. A number of communities, all over the world have been victims to such violence, South African blacks being one of the worst examples. The neo-liberal economic policies, in South Africa, are much to be blamed for this. Neo-liberal policies, in South Africa, both the ‘roll-back’ and ‘roll-out’ varieties, have greatly diminished the rights of ordinary citizens, particularly low-income people and other disadvantaged groups, such as immigrants, racial minorities, and single mothers. Privatization has undermined worker’s economic rights. South African black workers have to struggle hard for collective bargaining rights, civil and political rights. Despite the end of Apartheid rule, South Africa’s neo-liberal model of economic development frustrates black worker’s long-standing dream of substantive equality and social rights. The border policies in South Africa are a culmination of, or rather the failure of this neo-liberal policy. The border policies are based on certain myths, obviously regarding the migrants from the surrounding areas of South Africa, who ‘pour into’ South Africa. The myths that form the base of the border policy are:

·Every poor and desperate person on the African continent wants to get into South Africa
·People are jumping the borders in their millions using whatever means necessary to get into South Africa
·People from the region "flood" to South Africa to find work or to use health and other social services
·Cross-border migration has largely negative implications for the source country
·Governments and people in the region expect South Africa to throw opens its doors to whoever wants to enter
·Conditions in the region are only going to get worse and unless South Africa takes a tougher stand on immigration policy the country will continue to be inundated with "illegal aliens".

Border policies founded on myths are bound to be disadvantageous to one or the other communities, in South Africa’s case the victimized community being the ‘blacks’. The attempt at compensating for the failure of the much-hyped neo-liberal economic policies in South Africa manifested itself in the shift of focus from the failed economy to a ‘structured’ border-crisis. And who else, but the ‘blacks’ were the tailor-made victims. It is not to say that border crisis is a non-existent problem. But border-control is not the solution, least the sole one, for curbing the racial violence that is a regular affair in South Africa. Equality—social, political, economic and cultural, is the biggest absence as well the need of the hour. At a time when international laws on human rights and anti-racist movements are being hailed as the scepters of the rule of humanity, it is a matter of utter shame that incidents of xenophobic violence, resulting from failing policies, still manage to occupy newspaper columns almost everyday. As an institute working on issues as xenophobia, racism, forced migration and international laws on refugees and human rights, we at CRG thought it necessary to post this review followed by the press release of the situation of xenophobic violence in South Africa, albeit with its biases. Your comments are welcome.

Press Release

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA

Thursday, 22 May 2008 – South Africa is currently experiencing xenophobic violence on an unprecedented scale. Today’s Presidential decision to call on the armed forces shows that these events will lead to dramatic changes in South Africa’s social and political landscape. In this context, it is vital that we base policy discussion on fact, and sound research, not speculation and myth.

‘Totally Unexpected Attacks’

Various commentators have reacted to the recent high intensity attacks on non-nationals as if they were a new and surprising phenomenon. This view is epitomized by Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad’s statement that ‘I believe it is a matter of record that the police, and reservists, in very difficult circumstances have attempted to do their best in dealing with what has been a totally unexpected phenomenon in our country.’

These remarks should be questioned in light of the well documented national trend towards organized, mass violence against foreigners in townships and informal settlements. The media has consistently drawn our attention to this ongoing problem. Organizations such as the Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa have long called on government to adopt a more pro-active response. It is not the time for ‘I told you so’ accusations. Nevertheless, it is misleading and unhelpful to represent the current violence in Gauteng as isolated and unexpected. These statements divert our attention from the failure of government to respond to long-standing and clear indications of a serious problem.

‘The Third Force’

The shocking nature and scale of recent violence have given rise to widespread speculation about the involvement of a so-called ‘Third Force’. This reference to clandestine and counter-revolutionary militias of the Apartheid era has been used to suggest significant levels of coordination and orchestration behind the attacks. Such claims have been attributed to members of the NEC, Cabinet and local government.

These discussions cloud and sensationalize the true nature of recent violence. Violence against foreigners has usually been orchestrated locally by groups and individuals seeking to capitalize on residents’ fears and suspicions. SAHRC’s contention is that there is a ‘copy-cat‘ dynamic at play, where groups and individuals mimic counterparts in other areas of the province or country. Subsequent investigations may reveal instances of co-operation and co-ordination between the various sites where violence has occurred. However, if there is evidence to date that these events were planned and orchestrated by a single organization or individual, they need to be substantiated and made public. If not, the ‘Third Force’ reference simply detracts our attention from the serious inter-ethnic and inter-communal animosities and grievances that have caused violence across the country.

‘Border Control is the Solution’

Many of the perpetrators of the violence have explained their actions as attempts to compensate for the lack of border control. Some commentators have picked up on this concern to suggest that incompetent border management has encouraged recent violence. For example, the Institute of Race Relations argues: ‘Poor policy decisions and simple incompetence in border policing…contributed directly to the presence of a large illegal population in South Africa. Without adequate legal standing in the community, these people became easy or soft targets for mob violence.’

This claim, which is supported by a call for additional border controls, papers over the fact that South Africa has been pouring huge amounts of additional resources into border control over the past few years, particularly on the Limpopo River. In 2006 [the latest figures] South Africa deported over a quarter of a million people, a hike of more than 56,000 on the previous year. This costs taxpayers a lot of money. And yet, there are large numbers of people classified as illegal living in South Africa. The problem is not that South Africa has not been patrolling borders and arresting ‘illegals’; it is that these sorts of policy responses just don’t work. Instead, what should be attempted is to integrate non-nationals into South Africa, beginning with the idea of providing some form of temporary protection to Zimbabwean nationals fleeing the crisis in their country.

‘Helping the South Africans’

Many people have argued that the reason why we have to end xenophobic violence has to do with the repayment for debts incurred to frontline states during the Apartheid era.

While it is true that South Africa owes much to its neighbours, the logic of this argument tacitly endorses xenophobia against those who do not come from Southern Africa. Although many of the recent attacks have targeted Zimbabweans and Mozambicans, previous violence have claimed victims from Somalia, Pakistan, China, and elsewhere in the world. The why they should be attacked is not because they once helped South Africa. Rather, it is because they are part of the same society and that constitutional and moral commitments have been made to protect the rights of all who live in South Africa regardless of race, religion, or nationality.

New Economic Spaces, Displacement and Right to Life

Ishita Dey

Studies on SEZ have focused on the social conflict, discourses of development paradigm but rarely have tried to understand the recent resistance movements against SEZ in Nandigram in Midnapur District of West Bengal in the context of de- peasantisation and re- industrialisation. The age-old conflict of modernization through industrialisation has been debated widely across social science. While studies have managed to capture the dilemma of development discourse; there has been little emphasis on the how under the various schemes of urbanization fails to address the social tensions that have emerged and continues to emerge in case of land acquisition in West Bengal. These “modernization” processes have contributed to the shifting patterns of global labour but failed to address how female labour fails to capture the attention of policy makers in the innumerable rehabilitation policies that the Indian state has framed.

The fact sheet on SEZs in http://sezindia.nic.in/HTMLS/Factsheet-on-SEZs.pdf states that of the total land in India which is about 2973190 sq km; 54.5% (1620388 sq km) land mass could be used for agricultural purpose. The quantification of landmass available for agricultural activities leaves no room for the people who will be displaced. The new “technology of governmentality through its policy exercise has created an avenue of Resettlement and rehabilitation policy 2007 where it has been suggested that it is important to “manufacture consent” for development. The ways and tools of manufacturing consent have taken violent forms in the recent times.

The notion of SEZ needs to be contextualised within the broader understanding of the global economic restructuring of the world in general and post liberalization of the Indian economy in particular. While governance and policy exercises since independence is inclined towards industrialization; recent policy exercises is an attempt to re- industrialise to facilitate “transnational production networks” through cooption and manufacturing of consent among the agrarian workforce to create new segregated economic spaces which will be autonomous self sufficient not only in its “economic sense” but also in its civic and political sense. The legal provisions of the SEZs as some argue is a way to create “sovereign city states” ruled by corporates. It is against this background that we need to understand that the process of selective “governance” mechanisms has created and produced “social conflict” and often a never-ending one between the people and state has been the case in Nandigram.In the case of Nandigram, though the government has constantly assured the local population that it will not acquire land, the place has been transformed into a violent site of contestation between the CPI (M) supporters and the Bhumi Uchched Pratirodh Committee. The task of reclaiming territorial authority on certain areas has produced social tensions that are never ending. The horrific images of neo- colonial ways of land grabbing the country witnessed on March 14 2008 reflect the contradictory ways of “modern governance”.

While on one side, the new governance mechanisms are bound to create quasi-sovereign city-states with its own governance strategies, these zones will also be responsible for changing landscapes which will affect the livelihood of people and eco diversity of the area. As some argue the SEZ will pave the way of privation of governance with the Development Commissioner, three officers of the Central government and two representatives of the private development. The rationale of such a governing body within an “electoral democratic space” needs special attention. Any economic activity within the jurisdiction of the SEZ will be exempted from tax; under the garb of “public utility services”; while a similar infrastructure will be regulated through the laws of the electoral democracy in a different topographical context. These divisive measures will re-produce satellite towns which will be in constant conflict with the already existing juridical spaces of satellite – periphery of the city.

While SEZs on one hand is paving way for building alternative forms of governance the very selective methods it is deploying is reminiscent of a welfare politics of the state that is bound to create a divisive “politics of citizenship”. The state through its discriminatory measures is creating “citizens of exception” and the lives of the people are being promised to be safeguarded through a single dictum of National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2007. India has a long drawn history of policy exercises as one of the modes of governance to combat the claim making processes that the displaced have long demanded. As we all know “policies” suffer from the limitation of going unchallenged in any court of law. Thus the efficacy of such policy exercises is farcical to some extent.

Secondly, with the number of SEZ on the rise we need to give legal recognition to the Internally displaced person. Our experiences with Indian modernity, be it the Bhakra Nangal Project, Narmada or even the SEZ resistance movements have been responsible and continues to be responsible for creating rising figures internally displaced persons. When one tries to delineate “justification of displacement” as Peter Penz in his essay “Development, Displacement and international Ethics” points out, displacement is seen as inevitable and it is there the dialectical nature of displacement and development regarding its ethical character gets far more explicit. The three perspectives are public- interest perspective, self -determination perspective which treats freedom and choice as central and equal-sharing perspective which sees development as reducing inequalities. Self -determination perspective and equal-sharing perspective treats the rights of individual and community as central and it is this prioritization that creates a unique approach to development which will minimize displacement and provide adequate resettlement and rehabilitation to those displaced.

Those displaced due to construction of Bhakra Nangal dam have been forced to resettle in areas where they do not enjoy basic drinking water facility. Bhakra is one of the many cases in a country which has been witness to many a policy exercises of resettlement and rehabilitation. The recent NRP 2007 which primarily addresses the issue of development induced displacement speaks of people’s involvement in the R&R process post land acquisition and not when the land is been acquired which reflects the accountability of the state. It is only when the state will be accountable towards its citizens can we talk of the “moral responsibility” of the foreign business houses as Penz proposes. In case of resistance movements against the recent move to acquire land for SEZ in Bengal, Maharashtra and Orissa one of the primary concerns of the protesters was the question of alternative livelihood, home and land. In case of mining projects it is the tribals who are the worst affected. Kudremukh Mining project made it to the news when the Government decided to extend the lease to KIOCL despite the repeated protests by the environmental groups and locals. The tribals are reportedly being killed under the garb of the Naxalites. These instances are some food for thought to reflect on whether or not it is ethical to displace people for reasons of development. Most of the cases of recently proposed land acquisitions in Orissa be it by POSCO or Vedanta the nation- state to attract FDI has chosen to take sides of the foreign actors. Under such conditions one is quite skeptical regarding the “cosmopolitan approach” as it is finally through the “language of rights” that one can “empower the local/ host communities” to redefine their nature of “hospitality and shelter” which opens up another dimension as far as the “ethics” of moral responsibility is concerned. The “ethics” of “moral responsibility” is best put into practice when the concerns of those displaced are seen within the purview of the “language of rights” or “right to life” rather than as a notion of “moral responsibility” without any legal binding.

What we legally owe to those affected should be decided by the “language of rights” as our experience with the past and the resistance movements against proposed land acquisitions for development in West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh have shown.

Riverbank Erosion and Displacement of Women in West Bengal

Debdatta Chowdhury

The report on the hearing of thousands of erosion victim’s cases in a single day, in The Telegraph (Monday 31 March 2008) was definitely assuring, of a legal system that is often accused of being ill-equipped to handle the rights of the people, specially the poor and the vulnerable. Thousands of people who lost their lands and livelihood to erosion, caused by River Ganga in the past two decades had their cases heard at Malda College acting as the venue for the Lok Adalat. This surely goes to show that dispensation of justice is, after all, not as difficult as is often made out to be by the legal system.

Not that this event comes without its share of dialogues and campaigns. Calcutta Research Group has been one of the most important dialogue bodies working towards the rights of the erosion victims. Through its numerous conferences and workshops on the causes and consequences of river erosion and ways to resettle and render justice to the erosion-victims and through the field studies of the erosion-prone river banks of Malda, CRG has been an active platform for the vulnerable lot.

Though this event of justice dispersion goes to the credit of the legal system and the ministry in-charge of land rights, organizations like CRG deserve their share of appreciation for at least keeping these neglected yet pressing issues active and ‘in discussion’.

Infantilising Refugees Amidst Manufactured Multiculturalism

Debdatta Chowdhury

Oishik Sarkar’s article on ‘Infantilising Refugees Amidst Manufactured Multiculturalism’ is his take on the lack of a cohesive refugee policy, regionally or nationally, that only means derogatory stereotyping of not just the refugees themselves but also their home countries. Movement from one country to another, either voluntarily or forcefully, forces a person into loss of citizenship and refugeehood. In the process of forming a nation-state, the state excludes a chunk of its population on the basis of caste, class, gender, ethnicity, language and other such features that a person cannot help identifying himself/herself with. Those who cannot fit themselves into the uniformity imposed on them by the state are forced to leave. The Chakmas in Bangladesh, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Muslims in India, Rohingyas in Burma are some examples of such forced migration. Oishik deals with the causes and consequences of these refugees in some details. Though not entirely fresh in his thought, Oishik presents a comprehensive picture of what goes to make a refugee out of a person and what are the general consequences they face once they loose their land and are forced into a completely new set-up to fend for themselves. The second part, ‘Limiting Legalities’ is also something widely discussed and debated in studying the refugee situation around the world. It deals with the laws regarding refugees, which makes a complete destitute out of those people who attain the status of a refugee. With no binding principles on the host countries, the host countries are free to deal with the refugees according to their own sweet will. Most of the countries, including India, not being signatories to 1951 Convention, are left to handle the refugees the way they find suitable. That the legalities associated with the refugee crisis are limiting by their very characteristic of not being binding or even being modifiable, form the crux of Oishik’s argument in this part. The third part, dealing with ‘Notion of Nation’ throws light on the way the refugees’ home countries are derogated as places of threat. The worser the situation in the home countries are, the better is the possibility of the migrating people to attain ‘refugee status’ in the host country. The notion or perception of a nation is decided by the host country, receiving the refugees. The last part ‘Red Herring’ deals with how in some countries, including India, Bangladesh, refugee laws have taken a backseat. Not being signatories to 1951 UN Convention on Refugees is the biggest failure of the UN. These countries interpret refugee laws according to their suits and needs, thus making the refugees mere tools of realpolitik. Things need to improve, immediately and vastly, in order not to make complete destitute out of refugees, forced to an uncertainty by the very state regime that was to take them under its shelter.

For the full article “Infantilising refugees amidst manufactured multiculturalism”
By : Oishik Sircar
click here: http://himalmag.com/2008/april/essay_refugees.htm

Refugee Access to Citizenship in the UK

Elizabeth Williams

There are two main routes for a refugee to acquire citizenship in the UK. The first is to be accepted onto a resettlement programme before arriving in the UK. The second is to arrive in the UK and to be recognised as a refugee or a person requiring international protection, to then be awarded indefinite leave to remain and then to make an application for citizenship after the required time period. I examine each of these routes in turn.

1. Citizenship by Resettlement

In 2002 the UK Government announced the Gateway Protection Programme in conjunction with the UNHCR to resettle 500 refugees every year with indefinite leave to remain. Persons with indefinite leave to remain can apply for citizenship after one year. Candidates for resettlement to the UK will have been classified by UNHCR field offices as refugees and selected on the basis that they have urgent humanitarian or security needs, are not able to return to their countries of origin and cannot integrate locally. The UK Home Office then makes the decision on who to accept under the UK programme. Despite this annual target of 500 refugees, as of February 2007, only 764 refugees in total had been resettled. Attaining UK citizenship through resettlement is therefore extremely unlikely. To put it in the global context, only around 1% of the world’s refugees are resettled each year.

2. Citizenship by Grant of Asylum or Temporary Protection

In 2005, the UK Government announced the New Asylum Model which consisted of a series of largely procedural changes that fundamentally altered how the Home Office processed asylum claims. Prior to the introduction of this model, successful asylum applicants were granted permanent refugee status with indefinite leave to remain. However, the New Asylum Model stipulates that refugees are now subject to a minimum five-year residency requirement and a successful review of their case before becoming eligible for permanent settlement. Given that the first reviews are expected in 2010, there is limited understanding of the implication of this new temporary refugee status, or it’s effect on refugee access to citizenship. What is clear however, is the fact that refugees have to live through a 5 year period of uncertainty before the Government confirms that they can reside in the UK permanently. Given that applicants must have indefinite leave to remain for one year before they can apply for citizenship, the requirement of residing in the UK for 5 years as a refugee prior to receiving indefinite leave to remain greatly increases the length and insecurity of the whole process.

It must be pointed out that unsuccessful asylum applicants may still be eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. Both grants are for temporary leave to remain (for 5 years and 3 years respectively). Whilst it is possible to apply for indefinite leave to remain and citizenship under these statuses, both are subject to active review before a person is eligible to apply for consideration for settlement.

3. Current Attitude to Awarding Refugee Status

It is important at this point to recognise the current attitude towards granting refugee status in the UK. Since the ratification of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees there has been a dramatic shift in the reception of refugees in the UK. Whilst refugees were welcomed to the UK in the aftermath of World War II, the current climate is so restrictive that the region has been termed ‘Fortress Europe.” Whilst I don’t intend analyse the reasons for this shift in any detail, suffice to say that the issue of refugee protection and awarding of citizenship status has always been predicated on a delicate balance between humanitarianism, states’ interests and political ideology.

The 1980s saw the beginning of regional European policy to establish a common regime for asylum seekers, refugees and migrants. The European harmonization process points to an emphasis on policing borders and limiting entry, rather that an attempt to establish a just and fair protection regime. Practices of deterring asylum seekers include visa restrictions, increased powers for border police, the imposition of carrier sanctions, detention, reduction in legal aid for asylum seekers, and the inability to appeal asylum decisions in the country of claiming asylum. The non-entrée measures fail to distinguish those migrants who are in need of international protection from those who are seeking economic opportunities. Moreover the measures have displaced the ‘refugee problem’ through moving activity underground. This has resulted in the proliferation of people smuggling by trafficking rings, which in turn has led to the criminalization of the asylum seeker.

Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, domestic and foreign policy has been focussed on strengthening security to prevent terrorists entering Europe though the asylum system. Despite the fact that none of the terrorists involved had used asylum entry, fear of the ‘other’ and the rhetoric of national security have led to the perception of asylum seekers as potential terror suspects. This is also been reflected in the media portrayal of asylum seekers, which has served to homogenise and criminalise all immigrants, regardless of their motivation to flee their homeland. For example in 2005 the UK daily tabloid newspaper the Daily Mail ran with the headline ‘1 in 4 Asylum Seekers are Terror Suspects.’ As one commentator points out ‘through mass media, information influences consciousness and is at the core of individual and collective identity formation.’

All these factors have succeeded in restricting asylum seekers from entering the UK, effectively barring significant numbers from the attainment of full citizenship status. Moreover, the tougher reception of refugees in the UK and the increase in border and immigration controls instil the idea that refugees are a national ‘problem’ or that asylum seekers are ‘bogus’ or ‘illegal’ and can be seen to institutionalise racism. It is not unrelated that the UK has experienced an increase in violence against ethnic minorities and immigrants in recent years.

4. The UK Citizenship Test

Indeed, for those that manage to reach the UK in order to claim asylum, the route to receiving full citizenship rights is far from straightforward. In addition to the revocation of automatic indefinite leave to remain for refugees, 2005 also saw the introduction of a new five-year plan on asylum and immigration entitled ‘Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain’. The strategy included the proposal to introduce English language and knowledge of British life tests, which applicants granted limited leave should be required to pass before qualifying for indefinite leave to remain. These are the same tests that must be passed in order to qualify for naturalization as a British citizen, but only need to be taken once.

The introduction of ‘British Life Tests’ or ‘Citizenship Test’ has been extremely controversial and has called into question the very concept of ‘Britishness.’ Whilst advocates of the citizenship test emphasise its focus on civic nationalism over ethnic nationalism, critics have called for the debate around Britishness to move away from the abstract notions of identity and focus more on its practical application. Critics argue that there is no ‘essential Britishness’ and any attempt to define it in terms of characteristics or knowledge possessed is to resort to in the words of Benedict Anderson, an imagined community. Others have referred to Britishness as an active, participatory identity, rather than consisting of certain knowledge that must be learned and tested.

Furthermore the introduction of a citizenship test with a 75% pass mark implies that there will be people that fail. That is, the introduction of the citizenship test suggests a level of cultural knowledge that must be known, or at least learnt to pass as ‘British.’ Given that the citizenship test will only apply to new applicants, it appears that the test is not attempting to address what British people think Britishness is, least of all what immigrants feel Britishness is, but an attempt to make foreigners more like an imagined Brit, that is an attempt to culturally assimilate the ‘other.’

The glaring irony in all of this is the fact that if all British citizens were required to sit the test there would be a huge amount of people who would not pass. The handout includes some examples of questions on the test. Out of interest I only got 3 questions correct, which would suggest that despite being British born citizen, I am not quite British enough. The issue of current British citizens not being able to pass the test not only points to an issue with the types of questions asked, or to the very attempt to define Britishness, but to why only new applicants for Citizenship are required to sit the test. This points to another model of social exclusion for the refugee.

In my opinion, at best the Citizenship test is another barrier to the attainment of settlement and citizenship for refugees and other foreigners. At worst, the Citizenship test is an attempt to assert cultural superiority and is therefore imbued with racism.

Reports from Marraiguda Salwa Judum Camp

JP Rao

I had an opportunity to visit Marraiguda Salwa Judum camp on the 25thFebruary 2008,exactly one year after I visited the camp earlier when it was setup. When the camp was set up in February 2007 there were around 3000 persons in the camp. Today there are around 250 families living in the camp. More then half of the people left the camp and migrated to the villages across the border. I was informed that the Chhattisgharh Government has decided to suspend supply of free rations (Rice, Dal, oil, potatoes and onions etc) to the inmates of Salwa Judum camps in both Dantewra and Bijapur districts and boards have been put up in Konta, Vinjaram and other camps stating that people will be provided rice at Rs.3 per kg and free rations would be suspended. The supply of free rations had become erratic in Konta, Vinjaram, Errabore and Marraiguda camps since the beginning of December 2007. Reports trickling in from Bijapur state that people are deserting the camps as the supply of rations have become erratic there also. When I asked the police personal 'how many people will stay in the camp if the Government asks them to return to their villages' they said 100% of people will go back to their villages. The Salwa Judum leaders present there were shock to hear this answer from the police. In the informal chat they also told us that because of the atrocities committed by the Salwa Judum peoples support to the Maoists has increased.

The Salwa Judum leader of Marraiguda camp in a tribal of Gollapalli village works as a village assistant whose salary is Rs.1000 per month. However, he owns a Bolero Jeep, which he bought after the camp was setup last year and visits Bhadrachalm daily along with his dozen cronies. I was also informed that most of the Salwa Judum leaders of all these camps in Konta division have bought properties in Jagdalpur and other towns besides purchasing gold and jewelry worth laks of rupees. This alone is proof of rampant corruption that is prevailing in Salwa Judum camps. The camp dwellers informed us that these Salwa Judum activists sleep in different houses daily out of fear. The Salwa Judum activists in Konta sleep in the police station out of fear of being killed by the people. If the government suspends free supply of rations to the camp inmates Salwa Judum will die its natural death and its activists would become sitting ducks for the Maoists and the people who suffered at their hands. I was also informed that some time back before the Naga police was withdrawn the Naga police killed every one present in a village in Bejji forest as retaliation to the killing of 12 policemen.

Goldhap Bhutanese Refugee Camp in Nepal Gutted

Som Prasad Nirula

Out of 1300 huts over 1000 huts inhabited by Bhutanese refugees were gutted by a fire in the Goldhap refugee camp in eastern part of Nepal's Jhapa District on Saturday evening. As a result around 8000 refugees have been displaced from the camps.
The fire started at around 6:30 p.m. in the evening, and later engulfed the entire camp. As per the reports from the camps seven persons have been injured with minor burns and casualty were rushed to Mechi Zonal Hospital, Bhadrapur for treatment.
According to police, the fire had started from the godown of the UN World Food Program (WFP) inside the camp and spread out toward the residential site. As the fire engines from Bhadrapur, Mechi Municipality and Damak Municipality could not control the flames, fire engines from Biratnagar and Dharan had to be called.
Fire brigades and around 500 security personnel from Nepal Police, Armed Police Force, Nepal Army and locals were mobilized to rescue the people and put the fire out till late at night. The exact extent of the damage is yet to be assessed
After the inferno, the victims are in the terrible situation and are forced to live under the open sky near by the refugee camps
Nepal Institute of Peace (NIP) call upon all the stakeholders for immediate assistance for the Bhutanese refugees