Persecuted and Unwanted: Plight of Rohingya Refugees in India

-Kriti Chopra

Introduction

The Rohingyas have been described as the ‘World’s least wanted’ and the ‘World’s most persecuted minorities’. Victims of ethnic cleansing and ongoing violence in their homeland Myanmar, they have been facing persecution since the 1960s. In 1982, the government deprived them of their Burmese citizenship unless they proved that their ancestors lived in Burma since 1832.

Since the 1980s, curfew-like conditions in their homeland has forced close to a million Rohingyas to flee to neighbouring countries especially Bangladesh. The current wave of persecution and ethnic cleansing spearheaded by Buddhist monks can be traced back to February 2013 when thousands of minority community were expelled and their houses and community facilities were destroyed with reportedly in connivance of the Burmese government. An estimated 1,50,000 Rohingyas have since fled their country taking refuge in Bangladesh, India, Thailand and Malaysia. Many have died while attempting to flee in small boats.

Living Conditions

The Rohingyas have been attempting to get recognition as refugees by UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), something that has finally been achieved after years of persistent effort. India neither has a special law pertaining to refugees, nor is it a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, 1951. Officially, India from the very beginning has been accommodative of the community. However, even in India the community faces a number of problems. This minority community continues to suffer at the hands of differential treatment meted out by India to refugees of different countries, as deemed suited to its political and diplomatic interests. Thus Rohingyas continue to live in pitiful conditions in their host countries, unable to avail education facilities, jobs, and even identity documents.

During the months of April and May, 2014 I learnt more about the condition of the Rohingyas in India by interviewing one of the UNHCR officials. She stated, in India they have inserted themselves into the interstices of Delhi, in areas like Nizamuddin and VasantVihar, and others have proceeded further to U.P, Haryana, Jammu, etc. Some have settled in camps on the relatively invisible and porous border between Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, at KalindiKunj. There is no provision for potable drinking water, no sanitation facilities either, which is particularly grievous for the womenfolk. The camp area is a low-lying piece of land that turns into a snake infested swamp during rains, which claimed the lives of three children this year. In bitter cold winter, the people burn tyres and junk to find some warmth.The location of the camp land on the Delhi-Noida border areas ensures that the faintest shadow of development work approaching the settlement stays mired in bureaucratic apathy. Further, the threat of additional displacement is ever-present, as attempts by various quarters to evict them periodically start gaining momentum.

To demonstrate their disastrous condition on May 7, 2014 the Rohingya community in New Delhi staged a protest rally to highlight their sufferings and deplorable living conditions. They demonstrated to urge the international community to look into their plight. They also brought attention to the violence in Myanmar, where hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims are suffering from a severe shortage of food and drinking water. Humanitarian aid deliveries have slowed down in Rakhine state as a result of an escalation in sectarian violence. Due to lack of empathy on the side of the Myanmar’s Government hundreds of people mostly belonging to the Rohingya community have been killed in Myanmar since the outbreak of the sectarian violence back in 2012.

Health Issues

The greatest issue faced by the Rohingyas, both in their homeland and host countries, today is their healthcare. Many of those displaced by recent violence live on the outskirts of Sittwe, the capital of Rakhine. There are reports almost daily about deaths; many of them are pregnant women experiencing complications that could have been prevented, according to aid workersin the camps.

Those who have fled to India are not able to survive on the limited access to food and shelter and on the other hand they are scared to return to Myanmar as they fear that they will be killed. It is believed that the recent attacks on the Rohingyas in Myanmar have been more severe than the 2012 violence. However, the roots of all issues and atrocities faced by the community today lies in the 2012 violence. The fear that has grown over two years in which ethnic violence in Rakhine, mostly by Buddhist mobs against the community, has left up to 280 people dead and forced another 1,40,000 from their homes. They worry Buddhist doctors and nurses will hurt or even kill them, though aid workers, now just beginning to return to Rakhine, say there is nothing to suggest that these rumours are true. Even in India they suffer due to the absence of adequate medical facilities that they can access.

Political Apathy

The current government of President TheinSein, which has been lauded for implementing political and economic reforms over the last year, has also come under criticism for continuing the junta's discriminatory policies towards the Rohingya. They were given voting rights in Myanmar’s landmark 2010 elections, with the promise of citizenship if they voted for the military regime’s representatives. Citizenship, however, has still not been granted. The plight of the Rohingya has yet to be made an integral part of any reconciliation program involving ethnic groups, which is a dismaying warning sign.

Human rights activist, head of opposition and NLD leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, has also been criticised for failing to speak out. Aung San Suu Kyi has taken a neutral stance, despite earlier pleas from the European Union to take a stand on the issue. The parliament’s Rule of Law Committee - chaired by Aung San Suu Kyi - and ethnic leaders to discuss steps to prevent new clashes between Muslim Rohingya and Buddhist Rakhines requested the government to clearly define its citizenship policies, maintain transparency in its efforts to secure the region, and to act in accordance with Myanmarese law, thus washing its own hands off the citizenship issue. Interesting to note here is, that although the Committee spoke about bringing the violence to an end, it made no specific mention of the Rohingya themselves. Rather, it seemed to pass the onus to do so largely on the government.

The Road Ahead

The Rohingya problem has now a raging persistent international human rights issue. Myanmar has been criticised by various international organisation especially the EU for not dealing with the issue with utmost sincerity. Myanmar is in a stage of transition and introducing economic and political reforms. Political and economic reforms alone do not measure the success of a nation, the humanitarian and social issues need to be dealt with giving them the importance they deserve. Myanmar cannot possibly be called a country on the path of transformation if it fails to accommodate the ethnic minorities – the Rohingyas. There is an urgent need for the international and regional communities to continue exerting pressure on the government of Myanmar to meet its obligations.

Myanmar can resolve this longstanding crisis by either amending or repealing the 1982 Citizenship Law to recognise Rohingyas as an ethnic group of Myanmar. A recentreport by Fortify Rights states that the policies of the Myanmarese government restrict the Rohingyas movement, marriage, childbirth, home repairs and construction of houses of worship. Such discriminatory laws should be immediately withdrawn to stop the further persecution of this minority. Meanwhile those Rohingyas living on Indian soil are continuing their struggle for a life of dignity on alien territory.

References

•“Burma: Rights group insists Rohingya in more danger than ever”, Asian Correspondent, Asia, June 2, 2014 (online:Web)http://asiancorrespondent.com/123403/burma-rights-groups-say-rohingya-in-more-danger-than-ever/, Accessed on June 3, 2014
•“Burma census bans people registering as Rohingyas”, News Asia, Asia, March 30 2014 (online: Web)http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26807239, Accessed on May 2, 2014
•“Myanmar’s Buddhist Rohingya demand”, Aljazeera, February 4, 2014 (online: Web) http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/02/myanmar-buddhist-rohingya-ethnic-divide-20142211421962209.html, Accessed on May 10, 2014
•“Myanmar Migrants fear Violence”, The Myanmar Times, Myanmar, June 28, 2013 (online: Web) http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/7278-myanmar-migrants-fear-violence.html, Accessed on April 29, 2014
•“Rakhine Violence may be Crimes against Humanity”, The Myanmar Times, Myanmar, March 17, 2014 (online: Web) http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/national-news/9882-rakhine-violence-may-be-crimes-against-humanity-quintana.html, Accessed on May 17, 2014
•“Root causes of Rohingya crisis lie in Myanmar”, The Daily Star, Bangladesh, May 19, 2014 (online: Web) http://www.thedailystar.net/root-causes-of-rohingya-crisis-lie-in-myanmar-24641, Accessed on May 27, 2014
•Stateless and Unwanted”. Aljazeera, America, April 8, 2014 (online:Web) http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/rohingya/, Accessed on May 18, 2014
•“The Plight of Rohingyas”, Astroawani, Myanmar, June 2, 2014 (online:Web) http://english.astroawani.com/videos/show/news/the-plight-of-rohingyas-32814, Accessed on June 2, 2014
•“Aung San Suu Kyi’s silence on the Rohingya: Has the lady lost her voice?”, Huffington Post, America, May 31, 2014 (online: Web) http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/15/world/asia/myanmar-aung-san-suu-kyi-rohingya-disappointment/?hpt=hp_c2, Accessed on June 1, 2014
•“UN raises alarm over Rohingya Muslim abuse”, Aljazeera, Asia, April 8, 2014 (online:Web) http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/04/un-raises-alarm-over-rohingya-muslim-abuse-20144863638917587.html, Accessed on May 2, 2014

The Crisis of South Sudan

- Kaikho Osha

South Sudan, the newest formed nation, born out of decades of conflicts, still looks a long way from reconciliation. The conflict that erupted in the middle of December 2013 has escalated into a full-fledged civil war between the government troops and the rebel factions, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands. It has forced more than one million people to leave their homes, over 80,000 people to take refuge in various UN camps, set up across the country; and more than 320,000 people to take shelter in the neighbouring countries.(i) The country is torn apart today by civil war.

The Birth of South Sudan

South Sudan declared independence from Sudan in July 2011. Decades before, in 1956 when Sudan was getting ready for independence from joint British and Egyptian rule, South of Sudan prepared to revolt against the new authorities condemning it of betrayal, in creating a federal system, in addition to the attempt of asserting Islamic and Arabic identity. A civil war broke out in 1955 between the south headed by Anya Nya guerrilla movement, and the Sudanese government. The Addis Ababa peace agreement of 1972 put an end to the long-standing conflict and granted the south a measure of autonomy. (ii)

However, as an outcome of the Sudanese government’s withdrawal of the autonomy bargain, the south rebelled again in 1983, led by Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the armed wing, Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). The conflict claimed over 1.5 million lives, rendered and more than 4 million people displaced, and sent a, massive exodus of population fleeing to neighbouring counties and northern Sudan. (iii)

It was in 2005 when the conflict ultimately ended with the signing of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which granted South Sudan with regional autonomy and also provided for referendum.(iv)

The overwhelming majority of Southern Sudanese people voted in favour of independence from Sudan in the January 2011 referendum and, accordingly South Sudan gained independence from Sudan in July 2011. As the new country celebrated its freedom, the people were unaware that it would soon fall into a power struggle, leaving the country in catastrophe.

Genesis of Current Conflict

On the 15th of December 2013 an intense gunfire battle broke out in the South Sudan’s capital Juba, President SalvaKiir claimed forces devoted to Machar, the ex-vice president, were responsible for the gunfire. Ten people were arrested, together with eight former ministers. But this battle that erupted in the middle of December 2013 soon escalated into a full-fledged civil war. The government troops headed by the PresidentKiir who is also from the Dinka ethnic group, the largest in South Sudan, and the rebel faction headed by DrRiekMachar, who is from the Nuer ethnic community, the second largest ethnic community in Southern Sudan,(v)succumbed into a struggle for power, turning the crisis into an ethnic conflict.

Refugees

According to the recent report of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) it is estimated that over 323,613 populations of South Sudan have taken refuge in the neighbouringcountries'since December 2013. About 111,058 of the population have taken refuge in the neighbouring countries before the incident of December 2013, bring the total to 434,671, (updated 23rd May 2014) sheltered in the bordering countries Ethiopia, Uganda, Sudan and Kenya. The refugee population comprises 46 per cent of males and 53.4 per cent females.(vi)

The Situation

The clashes between the two factions have turned the country into a slaughter field, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. (vii) Of the 900,000 internally displaced South Sudanese, the (UNHCR) stated that since December 2013, more than 80,000 people have taken shelter in various UN camps set up across the country. There are reports that conditions for women are neither safe inside nor outside these camps. Today, more than 4.9 million people are in need of humanitarian aid. The ongoing crisis has forced the International Committee of the Red Cross to commence on its first airdrops of food and supplies aftera gap of two decades. (viii)

There is an alarming food shortage as the fighting has disrupted all forms of commerce. In the WauShiluk Upper Nile State, it is reported that the conditions have deteriorated so much that people are engaged in eating leaves and grass to fill their stomach. (ix)Productionin plantation firms may stop, fishermen no longer feel safe working in the rivers, hordes of domestic animals gone astray. (x)

The absence of food and clean water has led to a spike in case of malnutrition and, it is estimated that over 223,000 children are without food and water. More threatening is the constant threat of outbreak of cholera, in Juba and in different parts of the country, due to the lack of hygienic facilities.(xi)

The 50-nation conference hosted by Norway along with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) resulted in countries making commitments to raise $ 1.2 billion for South Sudan on humanitarian aid, all together 22 countries have given assurance to donate in cash for eg. United States committed $290 million, Britain $101 million, European Union $76 million, Norway $63 million and Qatar $10 million. However, the UN has indicated that more aids would be needed to facilitate food and shelters in the region, estimating over $1.8 billion as a target for humanitarian aid. (xii)

Conclusion

South Sudan is in a desperate need of help today, as the country formed only a couple of years ago, stands plunged into a devastating civil war. The leaders struggling for power would not have foreseen the price they would have to pay for freedom and ironically, lives of the citizen becomes merely an instrument of power in the hands of the leaders. The country cannot handle the shattering impact of the civil war by itself and other countries need to help this conflict torn nation. More nations will have to come forward and contribute. Just as we had welcome South Sudan independence as the newest nation in the world, the nation needs us as it is on the brink of collapse.

Endnotes

i) Oxfam, “Crisis in South Sudan” Accessed on: 20 May 2014, URL: http://www.oxfam.org/en/sudan-southsudan-crisis
ii) “South Sudan profile” BBC, 23 April 2014, Accessed on: 20 May 2014, URL: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14069082
iii) Ibid
iv) Ibid
v) Timeline: Fighting in South Sudan” Mail and Guardian, 02 January 2014, Accessed on: 21 May 2014, URL: http://mg.co.za/article/2014-01-02-timeline-fighting-in-south-sudan
vi) UNHCR, “South Sudan Situation” Accessed on: 20 May 2014, URL: https://data.unhcr.org/SouthSudan/regional.php
vii) UNHCR, “More than 11,000 South Sudanese flee to Ethiopia after fall of rebel-held town” UNHCR, 6 May 2014 Accessed on: 20 May 2014, URL: http://www.unhcr.org/5368b02d9.html
viii) “South Sudan in Peril” The New York Times, 17 May 2014, Accessed on: 21 May 2014, URL: www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/south-sudan-in-peril.html
ix) Kushkush, Isma’il, “Food crisis Worsens in South Sudan as Civil War is Displacing Millions” The New York Times, 19 May 2014, Accessed on: 21 May 2014, URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/world/africa/food-crisis-worsens-in-south-sudan-as-civil-war-is-displacing-millions.html?_r=0
x)Ibid
xi) Ibid
xii) Lewis, Mark, “Nations Double South Sudan Refugee Aid to $1.2 Billion” abc News, 20 May 2014, Accessed on: 21 May 2014, URL: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nations-double-south-sudan-refugee-aid-12-bln-23795506

Australia and Sri Lankan Boat Refugees

The Australian Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has refused to confirm claims by refugee activists that a boat carrying Tamil asylum seekers off the coast of Christmas Island is in trouble. On the other hand, refugee activists said the 21m boat carrying 153 asylum seekers, which left from India, had sprung an oil leak and was 250km from Christmas Island. However, a man claiming to be aboard the boat told Fairfax Media via satellite phone: “We are experiencing huge waves and very bad conditions. We are very afraid and at threat. We have only three litres of water left. We can only manage for today, and tomorrow we will have nothing to drink.” The man said the group are all refugees from northern Sri Lanka – mainly the war-effected cities of Jaffna and Mullaitivu - who had sought refuge in south India before leaving for Australia on June 13. Since then they have been subsisting mainly on biscuits and milk. He said two of the children on board, one aged 3 months and the other two years, “are sick with vomiting, fever and headaches. They vomit up the milk and biscuits.” The man put their position at “about 175 miles from Christmas Island". He said they had received assistance from some Indonesian fishing boats, but had not yet spotted any Australian navy ships. “The wind is increasing,” said the man. “It is a very difficult situation, sir.” The refugees' vessel, a 72-foot blue hulled fishing boat, is said to be carrying 37 children and 32 women. According to refugee advocate Ian Rintoul, it has a leak in the oil pipe supplying the engine. “They are only travelling very slowly, about 100km a day,” he said. “They are very anxious, and they aren’t sure they will be able to make it to Christmas Island without assistance.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/morrison-denies-refugees-in-trouble-20140628-zspal.html#ixzz3623oQyqp

Ireland to Resettle Syrian Refugees

The UN’s refugee agency has welcomed the Ireland’s decision to resettle 220 refugees in 2015 and 2016, including many from war-torn Syria. The announcement, made in Geneva yesterday at a high-level UN meeting on resettlement of Syrian refugees, came as states began offering additional places over the next two years for those displaced by the crisis in Syria. “This is further proof of the Irish Government’s commitment to finding solutions for refugees around the world,” said UNHCR Ireland head of office Sophie Magennis. “Some 2.8 million people have fled Syria since the conflict began in 2011,” she said.

“On current estimates, that figure will rise to 4.1 million by the end of 2014. Another 6.5 million Syrians are internally displaced, meaning that half of Syria’s population has now been forced out of their homes.” Ms Magennis added that, as a result of this, the UNHCR anticipated that in the coming years there would be increasing numbers of vulnerable Syrian refugees in need of resettlement, relocation or other forms of humanitarian admission.

Read more at http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/government-agrees-to-resettle-220-refugees-1.1848210

Refugees in Stand-off With Police at Berlin School

Hundreds of police officers have surrounded a former school in Berlin which has been occupied by refugees who refuse to leave. The predominantly African refugees are demanding the right to stay in Germany, even though most of their asylum applications have been rejected.

Adam, a Sudanese refugee who only gave his first name, told reporters Friday that many of the migrants had climbed onto the roof and were ready to jump off the building if police entered it. The tense stand-off involved 40-80 refugees and supporters who stayed in the building after police earlier this week evicted the majority of the roughly 200 who had occupied it since 2012. City officials say they are willing to negotiate with the refugees about their demands, but only if they leave the school.

Read more at http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/refugees-stand-off-police-berlin-school-24340619

Ukrainian Refugee Exodus Continues

The republics in Russia’s North Caucasus will receive over 500 refugees from southeast Ukraine, a Russian Emergencies Ministry source told Itar-Tass. An Emergencies Ministry plane delivered 125 people, of whom 48 are children, from Simferopol to Mineralnye Vody, on Saturday, June 28. Rescuers, doctors and psychologists accompanied the refugees onboard.

“Employees of the Russian Emergency Ministry meet the refugees at the airport and take them to accommodation centers. The people receive psychological assistance and informational help,” the Russian Emergencies Ministry source said. Alexander Drobyshevsky, the Ministry’s spokesperson, told Tass that more than 16,800 Ukrainian refugees were staying at 282 temporary accommodation centers set up in the regions of the North Caucasian, Southern and Central federal districts as well as Crimea and Sevastopol.

Many people who are coming from a war-torn country need psychological and medical help. The local branch of the Federal Migration Service will start registering the refugees soon to legalize their stay in Russia. At present, the Republic of Karachay-Cherkessia has 241 refugees from Ukraine, 11 of who arrived in the republic independently and are staying at relatives and friends.

Read more at http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_29/500-Ukrainian-refugees-to-come-to-North-Caucasus-in-next-24-hours-0474/

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!

The Enduring ‘Problem ‘ of Refugee Protection in Hong Kong

Luke Marsh

The HKSAR stands unique in the world as a post-industrialized state which is not subject to the terms of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugee Convention”) despite both its former colonial (the United Kingdom) and current (the PRC) superstructures having ratified and implemented its provisions in turn. Nonetheless, the Hong Kong government has very recently introduced a unified screening mechanism (USM) that will evaluate claims under the Torture Convention, the ICCPR and Refugee Convention. This new system arose, not from government initiative, rather the effects of government inertia with unmanageable backlogs of claimants reaching into the several thousands.

Space precludes a detailed examination of the weaknesses of the refugee protection system the USM replaced (for further, see Ramsden and Marsh). It remains to be seen whether the USM is able to improve matters for those on the ground who are subject to its revised procedures. Needless to say, the difficult personal circumstances experienced by refugees recognized under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) in Hong Kong, and those of torture claimants screened-in by the Administration pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) are unlikely to improve due to the concerning low levels of welfare support on offer through the government.

Refugee protection presents a very specific set of issues to the SAR vis-à-vis the status of the socio-economic rights of these individuals. In particular, Hong Kong has a firm policy of not absorbing those who achieve refugee status or are successful torture applicants. Instead, those mandated refugees are required to wait for inordinately long periods of time, sometimes spanning half-decades in poor living conditions with further limits of food, health, education and employment.

Bearing in mind the long delays experienced in re-settling mandated refugees, the insufficiency of socio-economic provision for this marginalized group has been increasingly voiced by interested parties including NGOs set up to fill the ‘welfare gap’ left by government (state support available to these persons has been known to consist of no more than a bag of uncooked rice). The problem of insufficient provision has been exacerbated by the unwillingness of the Hong Kong government to allow successful claimants the right to work. The administration’s current policy on permitting refugees the right to work is a draconian one. The circumstances in which the Director of immigration will permit a refugee to work amounts to a de facto ban on the refugee population seeking paid employment in Hong Kong (in effect, only in cases where the restriction can induce intense mental and physical suffering or humiliation of a degree sufficient to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment under the terms of the CAT).

This governmental stance ignores that the fundamental right of refugees to work in gainful employment is not only embedded in articles 17, 18 and 19 the Convention itself, but also beyond the borders of this framework, it is now well recognized that refugees and those seeking subsidiary protection enjoy inalienable economic rights as human rights under various international instruments, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Civil Rights (“ICCPR”), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and various provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, with seminal guidance on the subject offered by Michigan Guidelines on the Right to Work (2010).

Nevertheless, a recent decision of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong (GA v Director of Immigration [2014]) shot down any remaining hope that the right to work would be extended beyond its current restriction. Instead the exclusion clause contained in article 39(1) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance (“BORO”) was relied on by the Court of Final Appeal, which isolates non-nationals from the full enjoyment of their rights under international law in order, it is said, to protect the Region’s fragile territorial boundaries. The judgment is a very disappointing outcome for genuine claimants who face years ahead with no other option but the indignity of reliance on meagre welfare provision with no real opportunity to provide for themselves and any family members they may have with them. The CFA decision has resulted in the unsustainable destitution of asylum seekers, refugees and torture claimants, who must inevitably survive on the charity of others both before and after a historically inefficient and chronically slow administrative system delivers a decision on their case.

The Rohingya Scenario: Role of Bangladesh and India in Myanmar’s Concealed Tragedy

Kruthika N.S.

In Myanmar around June 2012, a Buddhist woman was raped and killed by three Muslim men. In a revenge attack following the incident, ten Muslim men were killed, and the rest of the story has been hidden from the rest of the world. This was only the story that seemed to be the last straw of the ongoing crisis between the two ethnic groups: the Buddhist majority and the Muslim minority. It soon created a domino effect, with the Rohingya Muslims toppling over in a tragic game of life and death, which led to them getting internally displaced. Further tension caused some of the 140,000 internally displaced to attempt to flee across the border.

Who are the Rohingya?

The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic minority of Myanmar living in northern Arakan/ Rakhine State in the western part of the country. There are approximately 1.33 million Rohingya in Myanmar, but the country's 1982 Citizenship Law denies them citizenship, despite the fact that Rohingya have lived in Myanmar for generations. The Burmese President Thein Sein blatantly has denied the existence of the Rohingya as an ethnic group of Myanmar, and instead, has called them ‘Bengali’, which in that region is a discriminatory, racist term used to imply that Rohingya are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, which however, is false.

The Unspoken Crisis in Bangladesh:

In April 2011, the Rohingya were trapped between serious constraint in their country and ill-use in neighboring nations. Bangladesh had facilitated a huge number of Rohingya people escaping mistreatment for more than three decades, yet no less than 200,000 Rohingya refugees had any legitimate rights there. Even now, they live in griminess, get extremely constrained support and are liable to capture, blackmail and confinement. Unregistered exiled women and young girls are especially defenceless against sexual and physical strike. The global group must urge the Bangladeshi government to enrol undocumented refugees and enhance insurance for all defenceless Rohingyas. Contributor governments should likewise work to restart and expansion resettlement of displaced people to a third nation and increment help for groups facilitating these refugees.

Treatment of the Rohingya in Bangladesh:

Even after decades of the Burmese Rohingya escaping mistreatment and acquiring shelter in Bangladesh, tension was unwavering. Inter communal viciousness in Myanmar's Rakhine State, and ensuing state-supported mistreatment and focused on ambushes against Muslim populaces, have thrown a global focus on this disregarded populace, and offered an open door to resolution the status of both stateless Rohingya inside Myanmar and those Rohingya who are outcasts in neighboring nations. This could have been an open door for Bangladesh to seize the issue and create a much required refugee arrangement. However, the country is mobilizing against the Rohingya by declining entry to the refugees and confining philanthropic help. This reaction, other than speaking to a break of global law, will debilitate Bangladesh's capacity to secure universal backing as exchanges of the Rohingya's situation increase. The legislatures of Bangladesh and Myanmar ought to be participating in reciprocal - and maybe multilateral - examinations about how to ensure the privileges of the Rohingya group, which is clearly not being carried out.

India’s Role:

The role of India in the issue has been heavily debated. The 2013 blasts in Bodh Gaya triggered suspicions of terrorist linkages to the Rohingya. Responding to the incident in 2013, “Blasts like this have the dual purpose of attacking Buddhist shrines, and attacking India,” Ajai Sahni of the South Asia Terrorism Portal said.

So, caught between the Buddhist-dominated Myanmar and Muslim-dominated Bangladesh, the Rohingyas are entering India through the northeast, say officials. But this is not considered good news for the Indian Home Ministry. The refugees who have been detained under the Foreigners Act, 1946 are to be sent to the Tihar Jail, Delhi, the only place where the UNHCR has jurisdiction. After acquiring refugee status, they will be sent to the refugee camp in Jammu. However, there is a problem of plenty as India does not have the resources to house such a large number which is anticipated.

Their Plight Today:

Myanmar has about 800,000 stateless Rohingyas, without access to basic healthcare or education. About 30,000 Rohingya outcasts formally live in Bangladeshi camps today. Informally, there are more are 200,000 unregistered Rohingya there. The enrolled ones are given help and backing by The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Bangladesh government. Unregistered refugees are entitled to nothing. Bangkok-based UNHCR agent Vivian Tan portrayed this as an extremely “dire situation.”

A Place for the Poor: Slum Dwelling in Dhaka City

Annemiek Prins

A wall between the rich and poor is being built, so that poverty does not annoy the powerful and the poor are obliged to die in the silence of history - Pablo Richard
In August 2012 I started my fieldwork Dhaka’s largest squatter settlement: Korail bosti. During my six months of research I witnessed a rather peculiar construction project evolve: a large wall was being erected to separate the shacks at the fringes of the slum from the main road. Tea-stalls that were previously directly located at roadside were now all at once separated from their customers by a blind wall. Moreover, many of the narrow goli’s that meander through Korail suddenly found themselves destined toward a dead end.

While the wall gradually gained height, I wondered what kind of physical and symbolical division this boundary was expected to realize? Fort his rather insignificant construction project seemed to hint at a bigger question, namely: ‘What place do the urban poor have within the landscape of megacities such as Dhaka?’

Slums have existed in Dhaka for over 200 years, but became a prominent element of the city’s landscape after Bangladesh gained independence in 1971. From the early-1970s onwards landlessness, unemployment and natural disasters in rural areas instigated many people to resettle in urban areas. The continuous influx of migrants makes Dhaka currently the fastest growing city in the world. The capital of Bangladesh counts over 13.5 million inhabitants, of which one-third is estimated to livein squatter settlements.

From the city’s point of view the constant influx of (poor) urban migrants is generally perceived as a nuisance, as their arrival is adding to the already severe population pressure. In addition, many property developers are aiming for the hectares of land that are now ‘illegally’ occupied by slum dwellers. For, although the inhabitants of Korail monthly rent (approximately 2,000 Taka) to local landlords, they are paradoxically not legally entitled to their houses. Ongoing disputes over land ownership have resulted in highly informal and insecure land-tenure arrangements, which in combination with the unreliability of public services- such as drainage and water supply – underscore people’s second-class position within the city.

Slum dwellers themselves are all too aware of their precarious position within the city. When discussing the construction of the wall around Korail, a male shopkeeper expressed his fear that the wall would be a forebode of eviction and forced displacement. For rumor had it that a multiple story building would be constructed on the grounds next to the wall. The reality has proved that fear of displacement is all but unfounded. In April 2012a large part of Korail was forcibly evicted, leaving an estimated 2,000 families homeless. Many saw their houses being destroyed by bulldozers and were forced to seek shelter under pieces of plastic during the days of rainfall that succeeded the eviction.

Although eviction is probably the most violent form of displacement that slum dwellers are faced with, there are also more subtle threats that coincide with living in a squatter settlement; forms of displacement that are characterized by neglect rather than by orchestrated force. The non-durable housing structures within Korail, for example, coincide with the ever-simmering possibility of collapse. This threat is especially salient for families whose houses have been built over the nearby lake. Since land is a scarce resource, local landlords have resorted to building houses directly over the surface of the lake, using bamboo poles for support. The damp and fumes that rise up from the polluted water make the bamboo floors moist and consequently result in a constant threat of collapse.

The risk of fire outbreaks is another danger that has the capacity for drastically uprooting the community and is inherent to living in an overpopulated and largely unplanned squatter settlement. A community leader that I spoke to in Korail emphasized the need for more fire extinguishers within the locality. He explained that the improvised way in which the gas-lines have been set up results in a constant threat of fire outbreaks. Moreover, the congested roads and the walls surrounding Korail make it impossible for fire trucks to enter in case of an emergency, and similarly, obstruct people from leaving.

At the start of this article I raised the question what place the urban poor have within the landscape of Dhaka. My brief case-study portrays Korail slum as a place that is characterized by a certain frailty of structures and where the risk of displacement is simmering beneath the surface of everyday life, either in the form of eviction or in the more subtle form of institutional neglect. Hackenbroch (2012) has introduced the term ‘spatial injustice’ to make sense of the ways in which poor people are excluded from the city’s landscape and its services. This exclusion, for example, manifests itself in the deliberate construction of the wall that separates Korail slum from the rest of the city and in the institutional unwillingness to view slums as sites for proper urban planning and development. These exclusionary politics are underpinned by the idea that poor people have no rightful claim to the city, as “elite perceptions remain focused on rural areas as the rightful home of the poor, and this is exacerbated by negative images of crime and squalor” (Banks et al. 2011).

However, despite popular opinion the poor actually are an indispensable part of city’s economy and landscape. For how would Dhaka function without the many day-laborers, rickshaw pullers and garment workers that live in slums? How would dustbins be emptied and drains be unclogged? Who would build the flats and houses for Dhaka’s ever increasing population? In fact, the landscape of the city would look completely different without the labor of the poor. It therefore seems to me that they have earned the right to a more permanent place within the city. Fortunately there is hope… For in February 2013 the inhabitants of Korail, after years of advocacy from the local NGO ‘Dushtha Shasthya Kendra’, got access to legal water supply. Let us hope that this gesture will be a forebode of further infrastructural progress in slums in Dhaka.

Summary of UNHCR Protection Manual

- Shreeparna Dutta

UNHCR has recently launched its online Protection Manual. The Protection Manual is organized by theme/subject. Under each heading, the documents are arranged in reverse chronological order and are accessible through a hyperlink. At the end of each subject heading, relevant related sources are listed, containing older guidance and documents which serve as background reading. Brief structure of the manual is as follows:

A. International Protection -

1.Refugee law instruments:- It contains all International instruments as well as Regional instruments Africa, North Africa and the Middle East, America, Asia, Europe, Council of Europe, Europe and European Union) on refugee protection.
2.UNHCR mandate and supervisory responsibility
3.Executive Committee Conclusions
4.General Assembly and Economic and Social Council Resolutions
5.UNHCR and Humanitarian Reform

B. Refugee Protection –

1.Inclusion (Article 1A(2)):- It contains instruments pertaining to Inclusion – general, Persecution, Agents of Persecution, Outside country of origin, Persons fleeing armed conflict and other situations of violence, Religious-based refugee claims, Membership of a particular social group, Gender-related persecution, Victims of trafficking, Child asylum claims, Sexual orientation and gender identity, Claims related to military service – Conscientious objection / Draft evasion / Desertion, Internal flight / relocation alternative, Safe countries of origin / Safe third countries / Safe first country of asylum / 'Secondary' or 'onward' movement and Family Unity and Derivative Refugee Status.
2.Cessation (Article 1C)
3.Exclusion:- It includes instruments and documents on Article 1D – Palestinian refugees, Article 1E and Article 1F.
4.Cancellation and revocation of refugee status
5.Regional Refugee Definitions and Complementary forms of protection
6.Country-related guidance:- It encompasses documents relating to Country-of-origin information and guidance, standards and procedures, Eligibility guidelines, Protection considerations, non-return advisories and other country-specific guidance, 'Country-of-asylum' guidance and Other 'country-related' guidance.
7.Procedures relating to Procedural safeguards / Due process rights, Credibility assessment / Use of country of origin information / Use of expert advice and evidence / Burden and standard of proof and UNHCR mandate procedures.
8.Effective remedies and access to courts
9.Reception
10.Entry (article 31) / Freedom of movement (Article 26) / (alternatives to) detention
11.Obligations of refugees
12.Expulsion and non-refoulement (Articles 32 and 33) which includes instruments on Expulsion (Article 32), Non-refoulement (Article 33(1)), Exceptions (Article 33(2)) and Diplomatic assurances.
13.Extradition
14.Rights of asylum-seekers and refugees, containing documents relating to Employment / Self-reliance (Articles 17-19), Housing, Land and Property (Article 21), Education (Article 22), Social welfare / Public relief (Article 23-24), Health and Other rights / Levels of attachment.
15.Identity papers / Convention Travel Documents (Articles 27-28)

C. Asylum and Migration - It encompasses instruments and documents pertaining to Asylum – general, Access to territory and procedures, Asylum / Migration nexus, Smuggling / Trafficking, Asylum-seekers at sea / Maritime issues, Persons not in need of international protection / Return of persons who have had their asylum claim rejected / Re-admission agreements, National security / International crimes / Terrorism and Extraterritorial processing.

D. Protection in Mass Influx Situations / Emergency Response - Under this head documents related to Protection in mass influx situations / Emergency response – general, Temporary protection, Civilian character of asylum / Physical security of refugees, Armed conflict / Relations with the military, Camps and Registration are enlisted.

E. International Solidarity / Burden-sharing / Responsibility-sharing / Comprehensive Approach

F. Specific Protection Priorities - Instruments under this head are directed towards specific protection people viz-Women of Concern, Children of Concern, Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities, National, Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex persons, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, HIV/AIDS, Age, Gender and Diversity, Protection of Civilians and Refugees in Urban Settings.

G. Durable Solutions - It includes documents on Durable Solutions – General (in relation to both refugees and IDPs), Return, Voluntary Repatriation and Reintegration, Resettlement, Local Integration in the Country of Asylum and Family Reunification.

H. Statelessness - It includes International legal instruments relating to nationality and statelessness, UNHCR's statelessness mandate, Guidance on specific aspects of UNHCR's mandate on identification, prevention, and reduction of statelessness and protection of stateless persons and Promotion of accession to the statelessness conventions

I. Internally Displaced Persons - It provides instruments on Normative framework on IDPs, Policy guidance regarding IDPs, Operational guidance regarding IDPs and Durable solutions for IDPs.

J. Global Protection Cluster - It includes documents on GPC guidance on IDPs, Protection Mainstreaming and Transformative Agenda

K. Displacement related to Climate Change or Natural Disasters

L. Human Rights

M. Other Operational Guidance - It contains instruments on Confidentiality and Data Protection, Commenting on National (Asylum) Legislation, Involvement with Courts, Relations with International Criminal Tribunals / ICC, Rule of Law, Communications and public information and Partnerships and high-level agreements

N. Miscellaneous

The Protection Manual is updated whenever a new protection policy or guidance document is published and can thus be relied upon to represent current state of UNHCR protection policies or guidance. The manual is extremely handy for being one-stop UNHCR's repository of protection policy and guidance documents.

Climate Refugee Problem: In Light of New IPCC Report

Deva Prasad M.

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) report which was finalized after the five day long conference on 30th March, 2014 deals with the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems, and possible methods of adaptation. The conference was held in Yokohama, Japan. The report says that climate change is a major threat to human security. This would disturb the ecosystem from equator to poles. It talks of “extreme weather events leading to breakdown of…critical services such as electricity, water supply and health and emergency services” and it sounds the alarm about “the breakdown of food systems, linked to warming”. The climate change also raises health concerns. Summer heat waves, sun burn, cold related deaths are all raising an alarming situation. Moreover this would in turn upset the public health and nutrition matter, distribution of access to food and water leading to a huge number of exoduses of migrants.

An important element that gets highlighted by the recent IPCC report is that there large scale human rights impact apprehended due to the climate change catastrophe. The very basic rights such as right to water, right to health, right to housing would be severely hampered. This would lead to large scale exodus of affected people from vulnerable countries. The vulnerability caused by the adverse impact of climate change is causing them to the migrate, both internally with in the country and cross-border migration. In this context, academic literature has tried to further and substantiate the terminology ‘climate refugees’. But even though there has been a persistent attempt from the academic community to highlight the necessity of separate classification of climate refugees, there is total lack of will from the policy makers side. This is reflected in the lack of any legal and policy initiative for the purpose of climate refugees.

The existing international legal framework for refugee protection is at present silent on the aspect of climate refugees. The Refugee Convention, 1951, which is drafted from the Euro-centric perspective and is a product of the post-world war times. Due to this fact the Refugee Convention, 1951 never emphasized upon the protection of refugees due to vulnerable environmental conditions. The Refugee Convention, 1951 scope was limited to that of persons who have fled their country in fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Another major hurdle is the lack of consensus amongst states regarding the definition of climate refugee.

Conference of Parties, under the auspices of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is lacking focus on human rights impact and how causes vulnerability and leads to migration of the adversely affected population. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest report helps us to recognize the alarming situation regarding impact of climate change. Time has come for the international community to take concrete steps in creation of an inclusive legal framework regarding the climate refugees. International community has to reach at a consensus regarding the legal instruments and institutional mechanism by which the climate refugees could be dealt with a right based approach.

Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees in India: Will they be Granted Citizenship?

Arpita Sengupta

Sri Lankan refugees came to India during the Sri Lankan Civil War which continued erratically from 1983 to 2009 and millions of them have still not found an asylum in their own country. According to a statistical report brought out by the Government of India, there are more than 100,000 ethnic Sri Lankan Tamils residing in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, which accounts for a minimum figure of 68,000 living in 112 government-run camps and 32,000 outside the camps. For a period of almost 26 years these people have been residing in the Indian subcontinent, working as daily wage laborers with no hope of a bright peaceful future. International Organisations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have tried to repatriate the refugees but the Tamil refugees have been reluctant to go back to their home country. They have cited various reasons for the same such as economic destitution, loss of habitation in their home land and gross human rights violation.

Many of the refugee children were born in India after their parents had migrated from Sri Lanka. Due to this rationale, they feel that they are more adept at the cultural, political and economic paradigms that exist in India. Inspite of having lived in India for almost half their lives these illegal migrants have not been granted citizenship and it seems that the Indian Government does not have the intention to confer such a right all together.

Advocate B Arulmozhimaran filed a PIL before the Madras High Court to declare S. 2(1)(b) of the Indian Citizenship Act as unconstitutional and accept the application for citizenship of the Tamil refugees. S. 2(1)(b) of the act disallows citizenship on the grounds that both parents are not citizens of India or that one of them is an illegal migrant. The petitioner argued that these people who had spent almost three decades of their lives in India could not be denied citizenship as it would violate their right to life as is guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. They also contended that Article 11 of the Constitution does not prohibit any person from applying for citizenship and hence it was legally untenable to brand these refugees as illegal migrants and deny them Indian citizenship.

S Tamilarasan, counsel for the petitioner, contented that in the matter of Chakma refugees residing in Arunachal Pradesh, a petition was filed by the by National Human Rights commission and the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of citizenship for those 65,000 refugees, who were staying there for more than three decades. The rationale behind asking for citizenship for the Tamil refugees was the same. Nearly one lakh Sri Lankan refugees have been living in Tamil Nadu for the past three decades and denying them a social, cultural and economic identity would be inhuman to them and it would be violative of their fundamental right to live. In 2013, the first bench of the Supreme Court comprising the then acting Chief Justice R K Agrawal and Justice M. Sathyanarayanan ordered notices to central and state governments in the matter.

The Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have still not been granted with Indian citizenship and the judgement of the Supreme Court in the PIL is eagerly awaited. Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Mr. M. Karunanidhi supported the cause of the migrants stating that the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees would be granted Indian citizenship soon. His demand has been backed by spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.

It has become a matter of utmost importance to provide these refugees with citizenship of India. Although the State government has been providing them with temporary housing facilities, free medical aid, education up to secondary level, cash benefits, subsidized food materials like rice, potatoes, clothing material and utensils for their survival, employability remains a problem in the absence of social integration and they face an uncertain future without the provision of citizenship. Providing de facto asylum without an intention to provide Indian citizenship - all the while suspending civil and political rights like right to property, right to free movement, right to voting, etc is an injustice for the Tamil refugee populations which have been stateless in Tamil Nadu since the 1980s.

Compiled by- Kruthika NS

Walter G. Craddock Paper Prize:

Dr. Lopita Nath, Associate Professor of History and Chair, University of the Incarnate Word, USA was awarded the Walter G. Craddock Paper Prize for best paper in European/Asian/Middle Eastern History by the Southwest Historical Association at the Annual Conference of the Southwest Social Science Association. The title of the paper was: Legality, Accountability and Responsibility: the Case of the Lhotshampa Refugees from Bhutan. Dr. Nath was a participant for the Eleventh Annual Orientation Course on Forced Migration which was organized by the Calcutta Research Group (CRG) in 2013. The awarded paper was prepared for CRG’s Orientation Programme.

Concerns Over Rejection of Asylum Applications in Japan:

Japan has rejected 99.9% of the asylum applications it considered in 2013, which has raised major concerns regarding the legitimacy and efficacy of Japan’s domestic refugee systems. Reports show that all Syrian asylum seekers were denied protection. However, the Immigration Bureau of the country has granted special permission to stay for humanitarian reasons to 151 of the 3777 requests.

Burma's Ethnic Persecution is State Policy:

Burma’s serious rise in ethnic violence has raised quite a large number of eyebrows. There have been serious accusations against the government for meting out abusive "population control" measures against Rohingya, a sect of Muslims, which demonstrates that state and central government authorities are responsible for denying Rohingya fundamental human rights by limiting their freedom of movement, marriage and childbirth, among other aspects of daily life, in northern Rakhine State. For instance, a 2005 order from local Rakhine State authorities, requires Rohingya "who have permission to marry" to "limit the number of children, in order to control the birth rate so that there is enough food and shelter." This order is imposed as a strict two-child limit which prohibits Rohingya from having children out of wedlock. As a result, fearful Rohingya women have fled the country and undergone illegal abortions that have resulted in severe injury and even death. This shows dangerous precedents for the future.

Proof of Registration Card Renewals held in Pakistan:

The most number of cards renewed has been in Lahore, which is a whopping 3494 out of 12409. The UNHCR has however, suggested a number of techniques for Pakistan to up its game. A suggestion to increase processing speed has been put forth, and the UNHCR review this on February 25, 2014. Similarly, a suggestion has been made to install more active Queue management, such as physical barriers.

20,000 Civilians in Danger of Starving to Death in Yarmouk Refugee Camp:

The United Nations has cautioned that more than 20,000 people are in unavoidable risk of starving to death in a Palestinian exile camp that has turned into a key battleground in the Syrian civil war. The approaching humane emergency in Yarmouk, on the edge of the Syrian capital, Damascus, was depicted as "beyond desperate" by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees. A delicate understanding between the warring factions to permit sustenance into the camp has broken down, and for 10 days no food parcel has been permitted through an administration barricade of the range, the scene of furious battling between the Syrian Army and dissidents. Chris Gunness, of UNRWA, has confirmed that there will be no further UN food assistance in the camp.

Until the flare-up of war in Syria, Yarmouk was a flourishing sanctuary for upwards of 250,000 Palestinian outcasts living nearby many Syrians. Anyway in December 2012 the range was invaded by radical gatherings, who were marked "terrorists" by President Bashar al-Assad's administration. People who couldn't escape ended up trapped as a Syrian armed force barrage lessened most structures to rubble. In July 2013, administration powers succeeded in forcing a tight bar around the locale. It wasn't until January not long from now that a delicate agreement was facilitated between all warring factions to permit food to be given as aid.

Mr. Gunness said even before the arrangement's breakdown, the circumstances had been basic for exactly 18,000 Palestinians and more than 2,000 Syrian citizens trapped in Yarmouk. He said: “Just about 100 food parcels allocates day were traversing; 700 were required.”

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.

IDPs from Swat Province in Uncertainty as Peace Talks Fail between

Compiled by Ishita Dey

On 15 February 2014, a news report in TOI carried a report of how families were looking forward to the peace talks between Government of Pakistan and the Taliban. This instilled a hope in Bibi and many others like her, who were forced to live in temporary shelters, IDP camps because of the conflict torn tribal areas in Pakistan. According to this report, ZarmataBibi lost her son, grand-daughter to conflict and was forced to flee in 2012 from her home. Another resident from Khyber district (one of the worst hit areas due to an army operation against Khyber and where there have been clashes last year as well) wished that this dialogue will lead to some solution. He has been living in a camp since 2009. The conflict in SWAT province left people homeless and the Government’s attempts to take control in the semi-autonomous tribal zone has been met with multi-layered challenges of home grown insurgency, and revenge killings. As the talks were on, 23 paramilitary soldiers were reportedly executed as a revenge for army operations in the volatile tribal regions (See Reuters). This has led to a deadlock and the peace talks have collapsed leaving the displaced in camps, or temporary shelters in perpetual uncertainty.
For details visit:
“Pakistan’s displaced families put faith in peace talks” The Times of India, 15 February 2014.http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-02-15/pakistan/47358291_1_peace-talks-jalozai-camp-swat-valley; Accessed on 16 February 2014

“Peace talks between Pakistan and Taliban collapse after killings” 17 February 2014; http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/17/us-pakistan-taliban-idUSBREA1G0G520140217; Accessed on 17 February 2014.

Afghan Refugees in India Fear Return

Compiled by Ishita Dey

As of 2011, there were more than 18000 refugees in India (External Affairs Ministry) and out of them 10,000 reportedly were registered with UNHCR. Though international statistics of UNHCR show voluntary repatriation of 5.7 million people in the last ten years, some 2.7 million people continue live in exile in neighbouring countries. According to the report “Afghan Refugees in India refuse to return fearing violence” (The Outlook), most of the refugees were forced to flee Afghanistan and struggled to make a living in Delhi. One of the refugees point out that though people are retuning back, they continue to live life in conflict torn Afghanistan with no jobs or money. Fearing an uncertain future most people do not want to go back. Some also point out that they fear that once the NATO troops are withdrawn, the Taliban might take over. The fear of the past looms large as refugees continue to struggle and negotiate with the changing rules and modalities of documentation in India, as India is a non-signatory to 1951 convention. The Government of India, as the report suggests has started issuing long term visas and according to a UNHCR official, some of the Chin refugees from Myanmar have obtained them. Initially, there was a provision for giving visas for six months which had to be renewed and failure to do so mean hefty sums of fine. Under the given circumstances, Afghan refugees in Delhi prefer not to return to their homeland and live a life in transit.

For details see:-Saini, G.“Afghan Refugees in India refuse to return fearing violence” 22 December 2013 http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=821927; Accessed on 13 February 2014.

Australia to Shut Down for Mainland Immigration Centres

Compiled by Ishita Dey

Australia has been under the scanner for its immigration policies and in its latest attempt to securitise borders the Government has announced to shut down the mainland immigration centres. These detention centres are run by British outsourcing firm Serco Group Plc and this closure will save A$88.8 million. According to the article “Australia hardens refugee policy, to close mainland centres”( see link below), this move comes at a time when Australian Navy has been reportedly been returning asylum seeker vessels to Indonesia. Indonesia has been a transit route for boat people trying to migrate to Australia. Despite the recent shift of asylum seeking processing facilities to Nauru and Papua New Guinea, the closure of the immigration centres clearly shows the ways in which much criticised off-shore immigration arrangements are newer ways of controlling “boat people”.

For details visit: http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-australia-hardens-refugee-policy-to-close-mainland-centres-1950754; Accessed on 23 January 2014; 2014

Q&A Session with Meghna Guhathakurta

This report is prepared by Shreya Ghosh. She was a participant of the Eleventh Annual Orientation Course on Forced Migration, 2013

[Meghna Guhathakurta is the Executive Director of Research Initiatives, Bangladesh, a research organization working with marginalized communities. Formerly she was Professor of International Relations at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. She was the speaker of an interactive sessionat Eleventh Annual Orientation Course on Forced Migration, organized by Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group on December 8, 2013]

Meghna Guhathakurta initiated the discussion through sharing her work on family histories and how family can be a crucial site of investigation to understand the ways in which decisions related to migration are taken and to unravel the different gender roles in negotiating migration. She further spoke on the idea of 'violence', 'fear' and migration. She spoke of instances where violence does not necessarily demonstrate itself explicitly, but results in a sense of (psychological) fear. The idea of perceived 'fear' is important in understanding forced migration and, according to her, family is again an institution that negotiates with such fear and looking at family narratives can become critical in understanding fear driven migration.

Q.Can you speak on the experience of environment driven migration in Bangladesh and whether looking at 'family' can be used as a 'method' of investigation in such cases.

A.Bangladesh is among the countries that are prone to environmental disasters and related migration. This is especially so in case of south-west Bangladesh, which is also where the Sunderbans are located. Here, drastic changes take place in the environment due to siltation and erosion of soil which leads to large migration of mostly agricultural laborers. Another cause of forced migration remains the frequent change of river course in Bangladesh.

One has not used family narratives as a method for looking at environmental migrations. But there remains a possibility. Such environment driven migration often leads to men in the effected villages migrating for work, while women are left behind. There are villages now that only consists of women. Abandoned women become vulnerable. There are instances were seasonal laborers, who come into new areas, marry women who have once been abandoned and then they too leave after a while, at the end of the season.

An important aspect about cross border migration is that successive migrations take place through same border passes and areas, using the networks that are established. There is also a continuous negotiation with border guards and state institutions.

Q.Has there been any significant migration, specially of any minority community, due to recent political crisis in Bangladesh (Shahbag movement)?

A.One specific instance is that of migration among the Buddhist community in Bangladesh. There were some rumors and panic related to mob violence which led to migratory trends among the aforementioned group to other Buddhist majority states. Such migration can be momentary or cyclical.

Also there are other deeper issues that need to be highlighted here. In Bangladesh, there is a tendency towards land grabbing within the influential political and elite classes. Minorities and the land belonging to the migrants are especially susceptible. There is a systematic structure of laws and norms that has been devised to effect such land grabbing. The Enemy Property Act was a legislation of such kind. In more recent times, this has been followed by legislation to try and control temple land or property held by communities for religious purposes (devatya property).

Also there are times when the state encourages migration for remittances. Equally, it is true that migration happens because people want to live a better life. For instance people go out on dangerous and uncertain ventures, traveling long distances, in anticipation of better livelihood and living conditions. Some such travels even become fatal for few migrants.

Q.Is there any change in perception of self-identity among new generation of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh? Does the new generation recognize a change from being refugees to being stateless?

A.Protracted refugee-hood can become a condition of statelessness. UNHCR has introduced the category of statelessness but the Bangladesh state does not consider Rohingyas as stateless. They consider Myanmar as responsible for them.

On part of the Rohingya refugees, the older generation is very conscious of their Myanmarese belonging and cultural and linguistic roots. They are also very conscious of ensuring a certain continuation of the same among their next generation. While teaching them language skills and education in camps, the mothers of the Rohingya refugee children often complained about the teaching medium not being the Burmese language and the fear of losing the language among the new generation. Hence while teaching at the camps, one had to develop teaching programmes in the Burmese language.

Q.Has there been any case of displacement due to the Rampal power plant project?

A.This again is a project in the south-western part of Bangladesh. The construction of the said project was stopped due to protests. But the rate of displacement due to large construction projects in Bangladesh is high. The displaced also receive very less or often no compensation. The displaced from the Jamuna bridge project have not received due compensation. Also there are gas explosion related disasters. The displaced and victims of Magurchara gas explosion have not yet received compensation. The Kaptai dam in Bangladesh has been the source of one of the largest refugee population group.

Q.On the nature of work by Research Initiative Bangladesh (RIB) in the Rohingya refugee camps?

A.RIB does not follow the top down developmental model of forcing change from above. In its efforts it negotiates with existing community conventions in order to make change participatory. Over the time, we have seen the relevance of working with and breaking the cultural codes.

Q.Is it not that working through existing cultural norms of communities re-enforces prevailing patriarchal norms. How does it foresee change?

A.Yes, but it is important to work with existing cultural norms in order to make change acceptable. It is like walking on a thin line. Negotiating with community conventions is also important for legitimizing change and in guise work towards women empowerment. Another important aspect is of protection. In case of negotiating through community conventions it helps to gain the confidence of the community and hence one is better placed to protect them. Losing the confidence of the community leadership might lead to loosing access to the community all-together. It is important to remember here that one is dealing with multiple stake-holders – the Bangladesh government on the one hand and the UNHCR on the other – who might not like very much interference. In such a scenario one always has to retain the confidence of the community. The question one always has to keep in mind, over and above everything else, is the responsibility to protect the community. Hence the perspective of refugees is crucial, it is important to understand what people want.

“Shaping Technology” for the Protection of Refugees

Marko Szilveszter MACSKOVICH

The incorporation of innovation into the humanitarian workflow, striving to find new solutions, especially from outside of the sector and to express willingness to embrace novelty is an emerging tendency in the behavior of humanitarian agencies. Solutionsthat enter through the humanitarian gateway can have minor, complementary as well as major paradigm shift causing attributes.

The innovation culture wherein the decision is being made on novel solutions has the rigorous task to ensure that the choice will serve the intended output. For technology-based solutions, especially the ones that are affecting and even defining identity, the threshold of acceptance must be set proportionally to the strictness of privacy safeguards and the purpose envisaged. Further, the understanding of the technology behind the solution to grasp its potential, its risks, limitations and life span is pivotal.

The rationale for reaching out to technology is that it has an inherent potential to expand protection space against contracting tendencies. To discover the spaces where it can deliver these outputs, refugee protection is being placed in the notion of social shaping processes where innovative ideas may enter and materialize in technological artifacts.

Only being aware of the capability of a technology to produce an output is not enough to capture its full potential. Technology needs to be understood from the outside, as much as from the inside: what are the shaping forces, how they are interconnected, how control can be employed, what are the limits, the risks and through what modalities can they be resolved and mitigated in the short- as well as in the long term. While the decision is being negotiated on the use of a particular solution, the knowledge-base and methodology of the organizational innovation culture should take note of the solution’s inherent attributes. Not just its impact but also the shaping forces of the solution,from the inside and from the outside.

These considerations are even more focal in the humanitarian context where funding, and thus room to maneuver in choices, is limited and the target population is highly sensitive to risks. Humanitarian organizations ought to endeavor for a thorough understanding of the envisaged technology’s holistic posture, especially in reference to the expected output as it rests at the core of the decision-making process. The “black-box” of technology needs to be opened and its composing elements need to be looked at with the requirement of transparency.

Space is present within the refugee protection realm to employ novel ways to positively impact the life of this particular social group. In this article I focus on how this space can be cultivated and consciously developed. It remains conscious of positive expectations generally connected to the employment of technologies, and although acknowledging the potential of benefits, it simultaneously endorses a cautious approach. Technology cannot be expected as the ultimate solution, rather a tool of complementarity. The solution it delivers – especially in the refugee context – is highly time sensitive and susceptible to all environmental variables. Technology’s deployment should be accompanied with the tool’s thorough understanding, including its potential benefits balanced with cautious expectations in light of realities in the field.

The “social shaping of technology” (SST) approach (Williams & Edge, 1996)argues that a technology to be perceived and looked at with the impetus purely on its impact and outcomes does not allow for a deep understanding of the “technology artifact”, and does not broaden the corresponding technology policy agenda. Instead of the linear, traditional approach the SST argues for the opening of the black-box of technology to make visible the socio-economic patterns embedded in the content of technology and the process of innovation(Bijker & Law, 1994; Ruth Schwartz Cowan, 1985). It implies that there is a particular process behind the shaping, design and implementation of technology, impacted by organizational, political, economic and cultural factors and not only an inner technical logic. Understanding these factors and their role and impact has a positive effect on the apprehension of the relationship between scientific excellence, technological innovation and economic and social well-being.

The argument of social shaping also implies the existence of shaping forces with the existence of a set of choices made at every stage in the generation and implementation of technology-based solutions, not just resting on purely technology attribute focused considerations but in pair with technology content influencing social factors. Choices can be made on various levels including design, systems, and trajectory of innovation processes leading to potentially different technological outcomes, ultimately impacting the implication towards society and towards a particular social group. The choices that can be made over technology and with consideration of the position of those who make these choices and their relationships with other actors, agents in the same or adjoining issue areas, create the setting for the politics of technology. Such a setting renders technology as non-neutral, subjecting it to the interest of particular actor(s) or (social) group(s) to preserve or alter social relations. Ultimately technology therewith becomes a platform for/of politics (Bruno Latour, 1988; Hård, 1993; Winner, 1978,1980).


In thecontext of forced migration, and zooming-in further on refugee protection, the agents that are exercising protection mandates are the ones who make the ultimate choices on technology. These choices are envisaged to be democratic to allow for a constructive technology assessment, involving therewith primarily the refugees – as the ultimate beneficiaries – to participate. Yet due to their“exposed” beneficiary position, the shaping and the control of the process what leads to the final choice on technology remains incomplete. (Rip, Misa, & Schot, 1995; Schot, 1992)

In this article’s scope, the technological artifact forming social processes are clustered into three categories: (1) general social processes, (2) refugee initiated processes, and (3) refugee targeted, through UNHCR, and other humanitarian agents. The interpretative sequence in each case differs. This classification takes note of the linkage between user and consumer and implies the use of the SST model. In the wave of economic dynamics and profit-oriented entrepreneurism the greater bulk of the population, across all social groups, are subject to a general socialization process through which they are able to access technological artifacts designed for the general population. These artifacts are stipulated to be accessible by its envisaged target groups.

The particular attributes of the refugee domain, such as the area covering the ultra-vulnerable refugee population, have its own dedicated social interpretative and shaping dynamics. Refugees, through the general social processes, are able to access and take advantage of the global market produced technological artifacts, such as mobile phones and the internet. To a minuscule degree they also contribute to the shaping of these products. Owing to the particularities of this – ultra-vulnerable – social group they can genuinely perceive and can also become suppliers of technological artifact to their own need. These solutions are not to be understood here as high-end products; rather solutions adapted or compiled from the general market but with the insider’s advantage to market its sub-version.


The category centre to this article is the social process that manifests between the suppliers and the refugees, with the inclusion of the humanitarian agents. The linkage that then impacts the development and control of the technological artifact creation and deployment rests on the humanitarian agents’ interpretation of the refugees’ needs, expectations. The thereby silhouetted humanitarian goals will formulate the baseline information that will define the choice and employment of the solution. The attention of this article is directed on the segment where the humanitarian agent interacts with the technology-based solution and its supplier; to what extent the SST model’s attributes are being manifested – in policy development (a technology-aware innovation policy and innovation cycle) and the understanding and choice of solution (based on an technology-aware assessment scheme).

Defining the needs of the population of concern is an initial step to embark on finding corresponding technology-based solutions. Most of the applied solutions are building on already invented formulas and being adapted to particular needs. Yet to ensure that the right mainstreamed solution is being employed or a new potential solution is being endeavored, an out-and-out apprehension is innate in reference to the interpreted value-needs/gaps of the displaced persons.

This social shaping discourse intends to direct attention to the social processes that the refugee protection domain similarly witnesses. Refugee protection practices also employ technology. Moreover, technology is even being used not just through the deployment of humanitarian actors, but by way of the general social processes the refugees are subject to. Practices of agencies and entities within the refugee domain can be also interpreted within the linear and the SST models.

This article emphasizes the need that technology-based solutions should be looked at beyond the linear perception. Proper technology-aware policies need to be developed that capture the need to understand what shapes technology, and the potential ways of how envisaged impacts can be achieved and their processes controlled. Policies are stipulated to include a scheme or mechanism that ensures such insights.