The Rohingya crisis in Burma has become 'a protracted, squalid, stateless status-quo'

Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/rohingya-crisis-burma-has-become-protracted-squalid-stateless-status-quo

Last month Yanghee Lee, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in Burma (also known as Myanmar), criticised the Burmese government’s attitude towards its own Rohingya people. In Burma’s Rakhine province, there are currently more than one million Rohingya – an Islamic ethnic group – living in apartheid-like conditions.

Don’t feel too guilty if you don’t know much about this humanitarian crisis; coverage in the mainstream western media has been gradually tailing off since 2012. What you should be made aware of, though, is the fact that the Rohingya were previously recognised as the most persecuted people in the world. Just let that sink in. It has actually been possible to identify one ethnic group as the world’s most persecuted people.

But on Wednesday, rather than address its deliberately poor handling of the crisis, Burma’s ministry of foreign affairs issued a statement saying it “unequivocally” rejected the term Rohingya and labelled it “terminology which has never been included among over 100 national races of Myanmar”. The ministry went on to accuse Lee of exceeding her jurisdiction, warning that insistence on using the term Rohingya would make the current crisis more difficult to address.

The Burmese government is complicit in the persecution of the Rohingya, a group it declared stateless through the passing of the country’s 1982 citizenship law. With that law, the Burmese government effectively declared the Rohingya to be illegal immigrants from neighbouring Bangladesh. Subsequently, Burmese officials have made it impossible for them to seek any help and now, following clashes with Burmese Buddhists in 2012, 140,000 Rohingya currently live in displacement camps.

“The displacement camp is no different to a concentration camp,” says Nurul Islam, chairman of the London based Arakan (Rakhine) Rohingya National Organisation (ARNO). Formed in 1998, ARNO campaigns for the self-determination of the Rohingya within the Burmese federation, as well as the repatriation of displaced peoples and “the establishment of a welfare society based on equality, liberty, democracy, human rights and freedom for all peoples”.

While the crisis has been on-going for the last five decades, Islam says that the Rohingya are now waiting for the rest of the world to increase pressure on the Burmese government. “[The Burmese government] are persecuting their own people,” he says. “It is now up to the international community to help us. People are dying; all the ingredients for genocide are in place – a slow genocide is taking place in Burma.”

David Mathieson, a senior research for the Human Rights Watch in Burma, explained that through rejection of the term Rohingya the Burmese government are perpetuating a culture of violence against its own people. “[This] is a betrayal of the principle of self identity, and has acted to justify decades of appalling violence and repression,” Mathieson says.

“This denial has been exacerbated by growing numbers of international donors, diplomats and dubious analysts and experts who kowtow to Rakhine extremists and government hardliners like callow collaborators.

So what needs to happen? Well, most importantly, western governments need to be more vocal in their condemnation of the crisis as it stands. Military aid, supplied by countries including the UK, should of course be halted. We need sanctions and, most importantly, our politicians must use the term Rohingya. Loudly.

Both Islam and Mathieson are vocal in their condemnation of nations that have not spoken out about the rejection of the term Rohingya, describing it as “tantamount to being a co-conspirator in ethnic cleansing”. As Mathieson says, the crisis has turned into “a protracted, squalid, stateless status-quo”; it is becoming increasingly clear that we need to do more to bring about a swift resolution.

Myanmar Halts Citizenship Verification Project for Muslim Minorities

Source: http://www.voanews.com/content/myanmar-halts-citizenship-verification-project-for-muslim-minorities/2630806.html

Myanmar, also known as Burma, has halted a national pilot project to verify the citizenship status of Muslim minorities in western Rakhine State.

Rakhine Chief Minister Maung Maung Ohn told VOA Burmese Thursday that since the program began last year, only 40 Muslims were given citizenship and more than 200 were granted temporary citizenship because only those who identified themselves as Bengali were accepted.

“The Rakhine situation is too complicated. The verification process is difficult since applicants are applying with an identity which does not exist in the country,” said Maung Maung.

Most Muslims in the state refer to themselves as Rohingya, a term rejected by the government, which sees the Rohingya as illegal migrants from Bangladesh and refers to them as "Bengalis."

Officials have said the verification process was being conducted under a 1982 law that bars citizenship registration using the term Rohingya instead of Bengali.

Shwe Maung, a Muslim member of parliament from the western part of Rakhine, said there may be a way around the problem.

“I want to point out we should look at the generation of those who hold temporary citizenship cards," he said. "The problem will be solved in short term if those who hold [temporary] citizenship cards and whose parents hold [temporary] citizenship cards are allowed to apply for citizenship [using] normal procedures, instead of a specific project."

For years, international rights groups have criticized government policies that deny the Rohingya citizenship and restrict their travel.

Violence between Myanmar's Buddhist majority and Muslim minority has killed more than 240 people and forced about 140,000 out of their homes since 2012. Most of the dead and displaced are Rohingya Muslims in western Rakhine state.

Thousands of Rohingya refugees evicted in Bangladesh

Source: http://www.ucanews.com/news/thousands-of-rohingya-refugees-evicted-in-bangladesh/72940

Groups cleared from informal settlements without warning or assistance in order to make way for tourism


Authorities in Bangladesh's southeastern Cox’s Bazar district forced out thousands of undocumented Rohingya refugees from their makeshift refugee camps on Wednesday, leaving them homeless.
Rohingya Muslims living in about 2,500 homes were driven out of the pine forests of Shamlapur, a fishing village about 50 kilometers from Cox’s Bazar town. Officials estimated no more than 7,000 were evicted, but Prothom Alo, the country’s most popular Bengali daily reported the figure to be 35,000.

The refugees had lived in the area since the 1990s, occupying dilapidated houses and relying on fishing for their livelihood. All had fled sectarian violence in their native Rakhine state, in Myanmar just across the border.

Officials said the eviction is a part of a policy to reclaim the area from illegal encroachers along Marine Drive Road that runs through the country’s most popular tourist destination.
“We have followed instructions from the Prime Minister’s Office to clear government land close to Marine Drive Road. We have received many complaints that Rohingyas have been involved in various criminal activities in the area,” said magistrate Jahid Iqbal, assistant commissioner of land in Teknaf sub-district who led the eviction assisted by police and border guards.

“We didn’t force them out of their settlements. We asked them to move out and they left their places,” he said.
Iqbal said the evicted refugees won’t be sent across the border and that he was waiting for further instructions from higher authorities as to what aid would be provided to them.
“We have written to the government for a rehabilitation package and aid. We will have its response soon,” he added.
The evicted Rohingyas meanwhile disputed Iqbals claim that they were not forced out, saying their homes were torn down by authorities.

“At around 10am police came and told us to leave our home, but we didn’t move because we had nowhere to go. Then they smashed our home and now we are living rough,” said Hasina Begum, 45, a widowed mother of three.
“We have no roof over our heads. My children are hungry and I have nothing to feed them,” she added.

Though Rohingyas have lived in Myanmar for generations, the government considers them illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and has resisted offering them citizenship. Those who have fled across the border to escape persecution are equally unwelcome in Bangladesh.
Since 1978, thousands have fled, many to the Cox’s Bazar district where around 30,000 Rohingyas reside in two official camps, relying on government and NGO aid for survival. As many as 300,000 reside in unofficial makeshift camps, where they face strict restrictions on movements and are frequently exploited for cheap labor.

Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in November said the government was planning to relocate Rohingya refugees to a “better place” from their camps in Cox’s Bazar district. Details as to where that “better place” is have yet to be released.

Anger at secret moving of Rohingya

Source: http://www.phuketgazette.net/thailand-news/Anger-secret-moving-Rohingya/48236

PHUKET: Residents in Nakhon Sri Thammarat's Hua Sai district were upset after the provincial office for social development and human security yesterday relocated 99 Rohingya people from the shelter where they had stayed for 22 days to elsewhere without advance notice, an informed source reported yesterday.

The relocation prevented media from taking photos. Police were notified but not local Muslim people who had provided the Rohingya with food and commodity products and raised funds to cover their well-being for three months. The source claimed that some Rohingya family members were separated in the move.

The Rohingya were divided and sent to three locations; 44 to the Nakhon Sri Thammarat Shelter For Children and Families, 22 to the Songkhla's office for social development and human security, and 35 to the Surat Thani's office for social development and human security. 

Rohingya refugees say traffickers in Malaysia abuse and kill

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/29/us-myanmar-malaysia-rohingya-idUSKBN0L12NF20150129

 

 

Abul Kassim, a Rohingya asylum seeker, was snatched from his home in the northern Malaysian state of Penang on Jan. 12. The next morning, his beaten and bloodied body was found.

That day, police moved on the 40-year-old's alleged killers. Raiding a house in the neighboring state of Kedah, they rescued 17 Rohingya migrants being held against their will, according to a statement by Penang police.

Eight alleged traffickers from Malaysia, Myanmar and Bangladesh were arrested.

The murder of Abul Kassim casts rare light on what Rohingya activists say is widespread abuse by human traffickers in Malaysia, who are willing to use extreme methods to protect their lucrative but illegal business.

Abul Kassim regularly supplied police with information on the activities of traffickers, said Abdul Hamid, president of the Kuala Lumpur-based Rohingya Society in Malaysia.

Since 2012, more than 100,000 stateless Rohingya Muslims have fled violence and poverty in Myanmar. Most travel in traffickers' boats to Thailand, where they are held by traffickers in squalid jungle camps before a ransom is paid.

Relatively wealthy Malaysia to the south is the destination for most Rohingya who flee. For some, it is far from safe.

Relatives and witnesses told Reuters of three abductions in Penang in 2013 and 2014, from a home, a coffee shop and the street. In addition, a Rohingya man was confined and tortured after being brought by traffickers through Thailand.

Three of the four cases ended in murder, they said.

Fortify Rights, a Southeast Asia-based rights group, documented another three suspected killings of Rohingya by traffickers last year.

Banned from legally working and fearful of police harassment, few victims bring their case to authorities. Those who do say police have taken little action.

Confirming cases is difficult. Local media give the issue little coverage and Penang state police did not respond to further questions about Abul Kassim's killing. National police spokeswoman Asmawati Ahmad did not reply to Reuters' questions on that case or other suspected Rohingya murders.

Interviewed by Reuters in late 2014, Penang police chief Abdul Rahim Hanafi denied traffickers had killed any Rohingya in the state that year.

    

"WE ARE NOT SAFE"

Police quoted in the local media said Abul Kassim's killing was likely to be connected to a money dispute.

A Kuala Lumpur-based Rohingya leader, who declined to be named for fear of retribution, said quantifying crimes was difficult due to the power and reach of traffickers in northern Malaysia.

"If we try to get information about the traffickers, they will simply target the person who tries to get information. We are not safe," he said.

Such cases include the alleged abduction and murder of Rohingya cousins Harun and Sayed Noor in 2013 and 2014, according to witnesses interviewed by Reuters.

Harun, 35, had his first run-in with traffickers in early 2013, when he was kidnapped from a Penang shop and held for a week for a ransom of 7,000 ringgit ($1,942), recalled his uncle, Mohammad Salim, 50.

After his release, Harun lodged a complaint with police and fled into hiding, Salim said.

In retaliation, traffickers took his cousin Sayed Noor, aged about 30, and held him as barter for Harun and 50,000 ringgit, Salim said. Several months later, Sayed turned up dead, his body showing signs of torture and mutilation.

In early 2014, the traffickers caught up with Harun.

Months later, his uncle, Salim, received a call from a Thai mobile number, telling him to leave town.

"The trafficker told me himself he had killed Harun."

A similarly chilling message was sent with the alleged murder last March of Sadek Akbar, 17, who had traveled from Myanmar with the help of traffickers.

After passing through a Thai camp and being ransomed for release, Sadek was imprisoned in a safehouse in Penang. Traffickers then demanded 2,000 ringgit for Sadek's release, his uncle, Altaf Hussain, told Reuters.

"We couldn't afford it, so they beat him to death and dropped him by the side of the road," Altaf, 48, told Reuters.

Altaf's account of retrieving the body from hospital was verified by another Rohingya witness and a Malaysian journalist, who both declined to be named.

   

"MILLIONS OF DOLLARS"

Hampering a full account of the problem is Malaysia's patchy record of protecting millions of migrants, including nearly 150,000 registered refugees and asylum seekers living there.

Relatives of victims are reluctant to report crimes to police, fearing months of detention for migration violations and shakedowns for bribes, according to Fortify Rights executive director Matthew Smith.

"There are millions of dollars being made through the trafficking of Rohingya. It's unsurprising that illicit profits of that magnitude would bring out violent behavior," he said.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) declined to comment on specific criminal cases, but has received "regular reports of abuse, intimidation and exploitation of Rohingya refugees," said spokeswoman Yante Ismail.

"Under Malaysian law, all refugees are treated as undocumented and illegal migrants, and there is no national system in place to provide them with protection."

(Additional reporting by Trinna Leong in George Town, Malaysia; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

Call for Papers : Workshop on Forced Migration Studies

Calcutta Research Group (CRG) will hold a series of Research Workshops on Forced Migration Studies. The first in the series will be held in Kolkata from 16 March to 21 March 2015. The five themes to be addressed in this workshop are; (a) Violence in the borderlands and forced migration in West Bengal-Bangladesh border; (b) Violence in the borderlands and forced migration in Central Asia and West Asia; (c) Rohingya Refugees in India; (d) Research Methodology in forced migration studies; (e) Conceptual issues in forced migration studies.
Research papers relevant to the five themes are invited to be presented and discussed in the workshop. Selected research papers will have to reach the CRG office by the last week of February 2015. Papers will be circulated in advance. Those desirous of presenting research papers may kindly send their applications along with respective CVs, proposed titles, and abstracts (between 500 to 700 words and with clear reference to the theme) by 26 December 2014. The language of papers and abstracts will be in English. Research fellows, teachers, and practioners with at least 5 years experience will be given priority in selection. Selected participants will be given accommodation and train travel by economy class. Applications may be sent to the Office Secretary, Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group, GC-45, Sector–III, First Floor, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700106 (e-mail: forcedmigrationdesk@mcrg.ac.in phone: 91-33-2337-0408; Fax: 91-33-2337-1523). Applications should mention clearly the themes being addressed.

The workshop is being held in collaboration with the ICSSR, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies, and Taft Fund.

Call for Papers: Refugee and Asylum Law: Theory, Policy and Practice

Dates: 31 March-2 April 2015
Venue: University of Warwick, United Kingdom
The deadline for the submissions is Monday 19 January 2015.

This stream welcomes papers that focus on any issues relating to the theory, policy and practice of refugee and asylum law at an international or national level. In view of the current global refugee crises, and the apparent failure of the “international community” to address the problems confronting millions of asylum seekers and refugees, papers that address the following are particularly welcome:
• Conceptualising asylum and refugee protection
• The role of law in achieving or diminishing (access to) protection
• The role of the UNHCR and NGOs in refugee protection
• Regional protection regimes and access to asylum
• The search for durable solutions
• Future challenges for asylum and refugee protection

Abstracts may only be submitted via the Easy Chair system. They must be no longer than 300 words and must include your title, name and institutional affiliation and your email address for correspondence.


For more information see: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/events/conferences/slsa/streams/raaltpap/

Call for Papers: Advancing Protection and Fostering Belonging in a Global Era of the Criminalization of Migration

8th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Refugee and Forced Migration Studies (CARFMS)

Hosted by: Department of Criminology, Ryerson University in collaboration with
Ryerson Centre for Immigration and Settlement (RCIS)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Dates: 13-15 May 2015

The United Nations Member States recently acknowledged the need to promote and protect effectively the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons, regardless of their migration status. Similarly, there is recognition of the importance of addressing international migration through a comprehensive and balanced approach, recognizing the roles and responsibilities of countries of origin, transit and destination in promoting and protecting the human rights of all migrants (Declaration of the High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, 2013). While the international community’s aim to promote a balanced and human-rights-centred approach to migration is laudable, it is also highly challenging to achieve due to the increasing criminalization of migration. Over the past decades, countries of the Global North have resorted to criminal law measures to deter and punish irregular migrants, including those in need of international protection. They have imposed criminal penalties on forced migrants for entering or staying in their territory in an irregular manner, or using false documents or for unauthorized employment. Detention has not only become increasingly common but pervasive. Transport companies and employers as well as other persons who come into contact with or help forced migrants, such as health professionals, humanitarian workers, landlords, family members and friends have also become the targets of criminal sanctions. Asylum systems have become stricter for refugee claimants arriving in the destination countries with the help of smugglers. These developments fuelled by negative political and popular discourses have significant repercussions for the situation of not only forced migrants whose fundamental rights have been constrained, but also for legal migrants who become tainted by suspicion and face ever stronger selection barriers to entry. This practice of criminalization is counterproductive: it may result in rising levels of discrimination against migrants and xenophobia; it may hamper the implementation of integration and settlement policies; it may discourage forced migrants who are the victims of human trafficking, sexual assault, labour exploitation, abuse by employers or domestic violence and other crimes from coming forward, receive adequate protection and denounce the perpetrators of such crimes; ultimately it may contribute to driving forced migration underground, enhancing the possibilities of exploitation, oppression and infringement to their human dignity.
The 2015 CARFMS Conference will bring together students, instructors, researchers, academics, governmental officials, decision-makers, practitioners (including non-governmental organizations), refugee lawyers and members of community organizations, from diverse disciplinary and regional backgrounds to discuss changes, achievements, challenges and short and long-term options for advancing the protection of migrants and fostering their belonging in their receiving societies. The conference will feature keynote and plenary speeches from leaders in the field and from people with direct experience of forced migration. We invite participants with a wide range of perspectives to explore practical, social, legal, policy-oriented and theoretical questions related to the general theme outlined above. We welcome proposals for individual papers, organized panels and roundtables structured around the following broad subthemes:

1. Advancing Protection in a Global Era of the Criminalization of Migration: Local, National, Regional, Comparative and International Issues and Concerns

2. Fostering Belonging in a Global Era of the Criminalization of Migration: Local, National, Regional, Comparative and International Issues and Concerns

3. New Approaches, Research Methods and Theories in Advancing Protection and Fostering Belonging

For more information, please contact:
Michele Millard
Coordinator, Centre for Refugee Studies 8th Floor, York Research Tower
4700 Keele Street Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Tel: 416-736-2100
GRATUIT 416-736-2100 ext. 303391
Fax: 416-736-5688
Email: mmillard@yorku.ca
www.yorku.ca/crs
www.refugeeresearch.net

Conference 2015: Human Migration and the Environment: Futures, Politics, Invention

Date: 28th June - 1st July, 2015
Venue:Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom

Concept Note

Human migration and the environment are two of the most pressing issues of our times. Migration is a defining attribute of the human condition, and yet all across the world negative attitudes towards migration are intensifying. Meanwhile, our natural environment is undergoing such profound transformation that the future habitability of Earth is regularly called into question. But what is stake when these two phenomena – human migration and environmental catastrophe – are articulated as a singular relation? In popular media, this relation is often said to be one of mass migration which culminates in religious or ethnic violence, whereas contemporary liberalism poses it as a problem of international cooperation or state managerialism. But how else might we conceive of this relation? Is it enough to understand it as a binary between alarmist rhetoric and managerial reason? Or does our of understanding of human migration and the environment require entirely new concepts? Are we to conceptualise migration in the context of climate change as a matter of in/justice, law and sovereignty? Or does it pose something more fundamental to the human condition? What does it mean when future environmental catastrophe conjugates with prejudice, inequality and difference? What ontological, epistemological and methodological challenges arise when environmental change and migration are characterised as a single relation? How are we to conceive of the Human, Nature, the State, the migrant and the citizen when human migration and environmental change are conjoined? What political, sociological, cultural and legal challenges does this relation pose? And what futures does it make possible? How should we conceive of migration in the Anthropocene?

By asking these and many other questions, this conference provides a multidisciplinary forum for scholars, policymakers, practitioners and artists to chart out the next generation of research on human migration and the environment. Whereas the first generation of research on environmental migration focussed squarely on problems of causation and on questions of law and policy, our starting point for the conference is that the relation between environment and migration is multidimensional, touching on all aspects of human and non-human life, including economy, social institutions, politics and culture, as well as bio- and geo-physical processes. The aim of the conference is to expand the debate on human migration and the environment beyond its current configuration as a problem of causation, law and policy towards a more pluralist debate that acknowledges the multidimensional nature of environmental change and migration. The conference should appeal to social scientists, humanities and legal scholars as well as to scientists committed to working with and within the social sciences, humanities and law.

The conference is organised around three interrelated themes of Futures, Politics, and Invention.

For more information please see: http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/ccmcostaction/Conference2015/tabid/4035/Default.aspx

International Summer School on Forced Migration

Dates: Monday, 06 July 2015 to Friday, 24 July 2015
Venue: Oxford Department of International Development, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TB / Wadham College, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PN

The International Summer School in Forced Migration fosters dialogue between academics, practitioners and policymakers working to improve the situation of refugees and forced migrants.

The Summer School offers an intensive, interdisciplinary and participative approach to the study of forced migration. It aims to enable people working with refugees and other forced migrants to reflect critically on the forces and institutions that dominate the world of the displaced.

The three-week course combines the very best of Oxford University’s academic excellence with a stimulating and participatory method of critical learning and reflection.
The Summer School is intended for:

Mid-career and senior policymakers and practitioners involved with humanitarian assistance and policy making for forced migrants. Participants typically include host government officials, intergovernmental and non-governmental agency personnel engaged in planning, administering and co-ordinating assistance.

Researchers specialising in the study of forced migration.

To apply and find out more information go to: http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/study/international-summer-school/overview

Transitional Justice and Displacement: The Way Forward

Fathima Azmiya Badurdeen

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

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

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

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

References

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

‘Seeking Asylum is a Human Right, Not A Crime’

Today a ground breaking inquiry into the use of immigration detention in the UK has been launched.

Imagine a country where, at the stroke of a pen and without any recourse to a judge, a faceless Government official can deprive someone of their liberty and consign them indefinitely to what to all intents and purposes is a prison, without them having being charged with or convicted of any crime.

That country is Britain. And if you thought that this use of state power was characteristic only of dictatorships or tyrannies, then think again, as it’s happening here, on our doorstep, under our noses, without any fuss and certainly without any publicity.

Today, in 11 Immigration Removal Centres around the UK, people are being detained, with minimal information about what’s happening to them and with scant access to a lawyer. And yet they’ve neither been accused, nor found guilty of, any wrongdoing. In fact, all that they’ve done is to have the temerity to exercise their legal right to seek refugee protection in the UK.

These are people who have fled persecution in their home countries and are deeply traumatised by their experiences. Some will be torture or rape survivors, others will have witnessed harm inflicted on their families and friends, many will have been incarcerated and brutalised.

We know from countless personal testimonies and independent medical reports that, for many of those held in detention in the UK, the experience triggers harrowing memories of the fear and the pain they’ve suffered at the hands of their previous captors. Unsurprisingly, this treatment more often than not undermines their mental or physical stability, a consequence further exacerbated by the lack of any meaningful judicial oversight, which means that the authorities are rarely ever required to explain or account for their decisions to detain.

See for more: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/blogs/4111_seeking_asylum_is_a_human_right_not_a_crime

Return to Sri Lanka of Individuals Intercepted at Sea

UNHCR is deeply concerned by Australia's announcement today that it has returned some 41 asylum-seekers to Sri Lanka after having intercepted them at sea, as well as the fate of a further 153 asylum-seekers of Sri Lankan origin who are now subject to an Australian High Court injunction on their return.

UNHCR understands that "enhanced screening procedures" were used as a basis for determining whether the 41 individuals involved raised claims for protection which required further consideration. Without further information UNHCR is not in a position, at this time, to confirm whether they were in accordance with international law. UNHCR has previously made known its concerns to Australia about its enhanced screening procedures and their non- compliance with international law.

UNHCR's experience over the years with shipboard processing has generally not been positive. Such an environment would rarely afford an appropriate venue for a fair procedure.
The principle of non-refoulement (the prohibition on return to threats to life or freedom) in the 1951 Refugee Convention and more broadly under customary international law is clear: it applies wherever an asylum-seeker is found and to whatever manner the expulsion or return is carried out, including during interception and other sea operations.

See for more: http://www.unhcr.org/53baa6ff6.html

Hon Alistair Nicholson: "Asylum Seekers: A Disgraceful Episode in Australian History”

Former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia and current Chair of Children's Rights International, the Hon Alistair Nicholson, has criticised both sides of politics in Australia for implementing indefensible policies towards asylum seekers. His speech at a Refugee Week event in Melbourne also condemned the decision by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison to cut the Refugee Council of Australia's core funding.

See for more: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/spch/140619_HonNicholson.pdf

New RCOA Paper Highlights the Strengths within Refugee Communities

A new RCOA paper on the role of refugee community organisations in the settlement of new arrivals highlights the extent of the contribution these community organisations make. Titled “The Strength Within”, the 14-page paper casts light on the often unnoticed and overwhelmingly voluntary work conducted by refugee community organisations in fostering social participation, economic and personal wellbeing, independence, life satisfaction and community connections. The paper profiles the work of five community organisations and canvasses the collective challenges such organisations face.

Se for more: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/n/news.php

The Council of Europe Takes Strides on Combatting Violence against Women

Jutta Seidel and Gert Westerveen in Strasbourg, France

[]

STRASBOURG, France, July 31 (UNHCR) – The UN refugee agency on Thursday warmly welcomed the entry into force of a Council of Europe convention aimed at preventing and countering violence against women and domestic violence.

The Istanbul Convention, which came into force on Thursday, requires state parties to ensure that gender-based violence against women may be recognized as a form of persecution and to ensure that the grounds for asylum listed in the 1951 Refugee Convention are interpreted in a gender-sensitive manner. This is the first time that gender-related persecution is explicitly mentioned in an international convention.

"The Istanbul Convention is designed to become a global protection tool because non-European states can also accede to the convention," said Gert Westerveen, UNHCR's representative to the Council of Europe. "All states should accede to it and implement it," he added.

The convention requires state parties to adopt legislative and practical measures to prevent and combat violence against women, as well as to coordinate measures through comprehensive policies. It establishes an obligation to introduce gender-sensitive procedures, guidelines and support services in the asylum process.

Some states, when applying the 1951 Refugee Convention, fail to acknowledge a gender-sensitive dimension, which may result in inconsistent asylum decisions and deprive many women and girls of international protection.

The Istanbul Convention also reiterates the obligation to respect the principle of non-refoulement requiring that countries adopt measures to ensure that female survivors of violence are not returned to any country where their lives would be at risk or where they may be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Sexual- and gender-based violence (SGBV) affects mostly women and girls, and the forcibly displaced are especially at risk. Many of their asylum claims involve fear of gender-based persecution, including trafficking for sexual and labour exploitation, forced marriage, forced sterilization, female genital mutilation, the threat of "honour" crimes, sexual violence and rape.
In June, UNHCR Special Envoy Angelina Jolie co-chaired a global summit in London, United Kingdom, on ending sexual violence in conflict, helping to put a spotlight on the issue and galvanize public support. Last year, some 12,000 SGBV incidents were reported to UNHCR in 43 countries. One can assume much higher numbers given the many obstacles faced by survivors in reporting their ordeal.

See for more: http://www.unhcr.org/53da56749.html

The 15TH Conference of the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration

IASFM 15
15 – 18 July 2014, Bogota, Colombia
The International Association for the Study of Forced Migration is a platform for academics, practitioners and decision-makers, working on issues of forced migration. It has been organizing biennial international conferences since 1996. This year, the IASFM 15 was hosted by the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota, Colombia.

The conference had the following Plenary Sessions

1.Voices from the displaced people
2.Forced migration within the framework of the Colombian peace process agenda”
3.Forced Displacement in Peace Times: China's Policies and Experience in Development-caused Involuntary Resettlement
4.Towards an ethic and democratic governance of forced migration: Perspective from the Migration and Peace International Forum

Besides the Plenary Sessions, there were parallel sessions each day on different themes

1.La Declaración de Cartagena 30 años después frente a la relación entre el refugio y la paz en Colombia
2.The New Frontier: Organised Crime and Forced Migration in Mexico
3.Forecasting shifting patterns of displacement
4.Sanctuary Without Refugee Camps: Understanding Protection Needs
5.Critical engagements with the role of Humanitarianism in durable solutions for forced migrants
6.Gentrificación y migracion urbana. Caso San Martin de Porres
7.Casos de estudio sobre la afectación y restablecimiento de los derechos de la población migrante. Retos de las políticas públicas
8.Justice for Gender-Based Violence in the Context of Migration?: Illustrations from in Mexico and Canada
9.Forced Migration State Policies
10.Políticas nacionales de asilo y refugio
11.Desplazamiento Forzado, Retorno, Resistencia y Reparación en Colombia
12.National and Regional Responses to Crisis Migration in the Americas
13.Sanctuary Without Refugee Camps: Alternative Solutions
14.Space matters: Contrasting integration experiences of recent refugees by social and political sites.
15.Researching the durability of durable solutions: The challenges of longitudinal research and the translation of evidence for policy on refugee resettlement
16.Syrian Forced Exodus: A new protection challenge
17.Éxodos forzados en territorios de frontera
18.Respuestas a los refugiados haitianos
19.Development-Displacement in Latin America: Why So Little Research?
20.Conflict, other situations of violence and the protection granted under the 1951 Refugee Convention and Cartagena Declaration
21.Transitional Justice and Forced Migration –Substantive Links
22.Children and Forced Migration: Durable Solutions during Transient Years
23.Demography of Refugee and Forced Migration
24.Construcción de soluciones sostenibles en Colombia
25.Not just victims: Forced migrants resistance strategies
26.Integration as a durable solution
27.Respuestas regionales a la migración forzada
28.Redes sociales y espacios de protección de las personas en situación de desplazamiento. La complejidad de la búsqueda de soluciones duraderas para la construcción de la paz
29.Advancing Peace and Addressing Forced Migration Through eLearning: Using Online Course Instruction, Ongoing Professional Development, and Continuing Education for Peacebuilding and Protecting the Rights of Forced Migrants
30.Framing identities and regarding rights: Reconciliation in post War Sri Lanka
31.In a strange land: Forced migrants experiences
32.Resettlement: Challenges and opportunities
33.Más que víctimas: estrategias de resistencia de los migrantes forzados
34.Return as durable solution
35.Desplazamiento por causas ambientales
36.Transitional Justice and forced migrations
37.Complex forced migration scenarios
38.Vulnerable groups: Protection challenges.
39.Dejar el desplazamiento atrás: Condiciones necesarias para las soluciones duraderas
40.Los olvidados: poblaciones vulnerables en éxodo
41.“Is Displacement – a state of exception”?: Issues and Perspectives in Forced Migration
42.Red Americana de Migraciones Forzadas y II Conferencia Regional Humanitaria.
43.The Role of Human Rights Norms in Regional Refugee Protection Regimes: A Comparison of Two Regions
44.A theoretical approach to the forced migration.
45.Leaving displacement behind: Conditions for durable solutions (I)
46.Miradas al desplazamiento forzado en Colombia
47.Alternative approaches to forced migration
48.National and International Tribunals: A scenario of protection.
49.Screening for Conflict and Asylum Related Sexual Violence – and its implications for Justice & Durable Solutions
50.Racism and Xenophobia: still present
51.Leaving behind the displacement: Conditions for durable solutions (II)
52.Forced Migrations and the Construction of Humanitarian Protection in Brazil – durable lessons to be learned by other States in the Region
53.Forced Migration in peace time

Abstracts for the papers presented can be found here: http://iasfm.org/conference/program/

Exploring the Case of Protracted Displacement and Transitional Justice in Sri Lanka

Fathima Azmiya Badurdeen and Anuradha Gunerathne

In Sri Lanka, the twenty six year old conflict between the government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have result in massive waves of displacement. Attributed to these waves of displacement are the massive human rights violations such as arbitrary arrests, torture, rape and killings. Controversial debates also surround on the context of whether certain waves of displacement were intentional and constitute a war crime (Human Rights Report 10). Within this context includes violations associated with displacement along with specific abuses of rights associated to durable solutions (Yoshikawa 5-6). Amidst these contexts, it becomes futile to address transitional justice without addressing the human rights violations of the displaced. For, transitional justice incorporates the addressing of legacies of massive human rights abuses that occur during armed conflicts which includes the displaced, as well as the rights of the displaced in the context of durable solutions.

Linking transitional justice with displacement is important as many countries that pursue transitional justice mechanisms/processes have many displaced populations. Displacements results in forcibly being evicted from one’s home and society and are unable to return to their original homes and lives. This, forcible being displaced or uprooted from their homes against their will are human rights violations. Apart from this, they also face human rights violations in the process of flight such as loosing lies, loss of property, disappearances, gender-based violence, torture or arbitrary detention. In addition, they may also face human rights violation in the camps and in the process of attaining durable solutions: as in the right to return to their origins, or in the process of integration in the place of displacement or in the place of relocation. All these human rights violations need to be addressed if transitional justice processes are to be effective (Duthie 38).

Much attention has been given to return as a durable solution for the displaced. This has been true even in the Sri Lankan context. Government initiatives towards displacement such as the 180 day project focused on return as a durable solution for the displaced. These top-down approaches towards displacement (Badurdeen 2-3) is not always the best or possible solution for the displaced in protracted contexts (Badurdeen 29) as preferences of the displaced vary as in the case of Northern Muslim IDPs in Puttalam District or protracted IDPs from the Tellipallai High Security Zone in Jaffna or Sampur High Security/Economic Zone in Trincomalee. Further, those IDPs who have chosen a particular durable solution such as return, integration or relocation are far from achieving durable solutions in line with the Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement (GPID).

There are various push and pull factors that influence IDP choices on durable solutions in Sri Lanka. These include ownership of land, accumulated assets, social relations, emotional attachments, economic status, availability of resources, levels of assistance for different options of durable solutions and pressure from government officials and political leaders etc. The context can be further complicated for protracted IDPs who see choices differently due to their prolonged stay in the place of refuge and looks forth for a choice if a mixed option (Badurdeen 30). Ferris highlights that IDP settlement preferences vary based on their personal or family experiences, traumatic experiences or circumstances of war. Hence some may not return due to such experiences and may prefer to integrate. Even if they do return, their reintegration process is not facilitated nor their past atrocities faced are not addressed, nor compensated resulting in vulnerability to abuse if they do return and bringing within them the feeling that they have suffered injustice (3-6).

The term reintegration is often associated to return, as the displaced have to be reintegrated into their respective communities. As highlighted in Gunerathna and Badurdeen in their case study from two villages in North (Allaipiddy) and North East (Karukamuani) in Sri Lanka, reintegration was a long term process in which returnees need to be incorporated within the social, political, economic and cultural aspects of their communities if their rights are to be addressed and reconciliation to take place (17-18).

Restitution of property and reparations are central issues for the displaced who are longing for durable solution (Ferris 8). Reparations can facilitate integration and re-integration into their respective communities thereby enabling sustainability of the integration/re-integration process. This can be in the form of property restitution, compensation and other benefits that can help rebuild their livelihoods (Cantor 4-5). The International Organization of Migration (IOM), highlights the importance of reparation programmes in attaining durable solutions for the displaced mainly in the context of facilitating voluntary return. Reparations have the ability to provide material remedies/redress by recognizing the injustices faced by the displaced (Ibid, IOM) as well as increase the range of choices by the displaced in the process of return. This will enable effective re-integration in the place of origin (Gunerathne and Badurdeen 17-18).

In Sri Lanka, the lack of appropriate IDP figures and relevant data of the displaced have complicated the process of reparations mainly in terms of restitution of property. This includes complications in recognizing returnee land deeds – where some don’t have deeds, some have deeds but others have settled in these lands and are registered voters (Charles, P as cited in IRIN 2013). As highlighted by Badurdeen, prior to displacement many of the families in Sampur, Trincomalee were engaged in fishing as their livelihood. Today, with the restrictions they were engaged in farming in government lands. Some families who received land did not have enough land for cultivation as there was an increase in need for land in the area. These displaced families were not comfortable with their new livelihood as less land meant less output and needed assistance in rebuilding their lives (15). This context is an example for the failure for reparation measures by the government of Sri Lanka. Other aspects that hinder the reparation process include the ineffectiveness of policy plans. Even with mechanisms available such as the Rehabilitation of Persons, Properties and Industries Authority (REPPIA), IDPs do not receive adequate compensation for loss of or damage to houses, livestock, livelihood equipment and other assets.

In such contexts, truth commissions can aid in making recommendations on reparations and restitution programmes taking into account the particular needs of the displaced for economic re-integration. The Citizen Commission in Puttalam is commendable in this sense that have taken up the issue of the protracted IDPs of Puttalam District that have resulted in an indepth understanding of the plight of the displaced through the use of narratives where they have looked into the plight of the displaced and also the host communities in terms of resettlement assistance, assistance to the poor host community (Citizen Commission para 3-8).

In cases of mass displacement, like in the last phase of the Sri Lankan conflict, the larger numbers do pose a practical constraint for material reparation. Even in such contexts, there is a need to look into their displaced nature and benefits distributed to the actual needs of the displaced. Further, the benefits need to be tailored to address particular needs. As highlighted by Duthie, collective reparations may be appropriate if reparations may be appropriate if reparations cannot cater on individual basis. While reparations differ from individual to individual basis and is the best, collective reparations can be easily administered based on geographic and community responses (143). Reparations can also play an important role for women, especially for female headed household for their economic wellbeing of their families as in the case of the North and the North East wherein the most of the female headed households as a result of the war resides.

As evident in the above discussions, transitional justice can have a positive contribution to durable solutions by facilitating the processes of integration and reintegration. This involves not only the displaced but also the communities into which they fled and the communities into which they are integrating or reintegrating as in the case of Northern Muslim IDPs in Puttalam or IDPs of Sampur who have lost their lands to HSZ/SEZs. The success of transitional justice processes are dependent on factors such as the actions taken by the government in aiding such processes, the actions taken by the displaced and dynamics of the society wherein all factors of human rights violations of the past are connected. The aspect of gender in transitional justice processes along with effective participation of the displaced is important if it is to remain effective. Transitional justice mechanisms can facilitate durable solutions in the long run. While it is evident that there are significant challenges to be met in addressing durable solutions, acknowledging the link between transitional justice and durable solutions are vital for sustainable post war development.

References

Badurdeen, Fathima. Azmiya. IDP Resettlement in Post Conflict Sri Lanka: Assessing the
Evidence-based context of the Resettlement Process with particular emphasis on IDP
Participation. Refugee Watch No.41. Kolkata: MCRG. 2013. Print.
Badurdeen, Azmiya. Conditions for Sustainable Return: A Study from the District of
Trincomalee, Sri Lanka. Kolkata: MCRG. 2011. Print.
Badurdeen, Azmiya. Ending Internal Displacement: the long term IDP’s in Sri Lanka. Oxford: RSC. 2010. Print.
Duthie, Roger. Transitional Justice and Displacement. 2012. NY: Brookings. Print.
Gunerathne, Anuradha and Badurdeen Azmiya. Internally Displaced Persons in the Process of Human Rights Watch. War on the LTTE Abuses against Civilians in the Vanni. 2009. 2 Feb. 2014.
IRIN. Analysis: Prospects for Reconciliation in Sri Lanka. 2010. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.
IRIN. Sri Lanka’s Long Term IDPs – what next? 2013. Web. 7 Jan. 2014.
The Citizens’ Commission. Inclusions in the Lessons Learnt and the Reconciliation Commission Final Report. 2010. Web. 7 Dec. 2013.
Yoshikawa, Lynn. Sri Lanka: Transitioning from a Humanitarian Crisis to a Human Rights
Crisis. 2013. 2 Feb. 2014.

Reconciliation in Sri Lanka: Voices from Former War Zones

Minna Thaheer Pradeep Peiris and Kasun Pathiraja

Study of this book is an effort at understanding the post-war reconciliation process as experienced by the different communities in the war-affected villages in the North and East of Sri Lanka. Since May 2009, ‘reconciliation’ has been an abiding concern for all concerned with the future trajectory of the post-war Sri Lanka. ‘Reconciliation’ is defined, understood and constructed in diverse ways by the stakeholders involved. Of these actors, the State, the Tamil National Alliance and the International Community seem to agree on reconciliation in principle but they differ significantly and at times irreconcilably on its substantive meaning. This complicates an already complex and fraught situation. In this context, this book attempts to give voice to the voiceless by contributing to the bourgeoning discourse on reconciliation in Sri Lanka. This research was an endeavor to understand the many interpretations or renditions of reconciliation as seen through the living experiences of people whose lives were shattered by a war that was not of their making. If anything has survived the conflict of three decades it is their hopes to live in dignity in their own land. Whatever, definition that is given to reconciliation, it remains a proposition that looks at the future.

This study used a pluralist research methodology comprising a series of in-depth interviews and dialogue sessions with communities in the former war zones combined with a survey of 600 respondents in six districts in the North and East. The findings of the study are presented in six chapters in order to capture the multi-dimensional nature of reconciliation on the ground. The analysis in this book has been informed by and will inform the work of scholars who, through rigorous and dedicated scholarly interventions, strive to build a just and democratic society in Sri Lanka.

Organizing for Exile through Self-Help! The Tibetan Narrative

Sudeep Basu

Unlike the rehabilitation strategy for the permanent agricultural settlements in Southern India which were built at the behest of the Tibetan Government-in-exile in Dharamsala and the Government of India, the Tibetan Refugee Self Help Centre (TRSHC) which came up in Darjeeling town, India, in 1959, emerged spontaneously and autonomously with the idea that no refugee could ever be rehabilitated in the fullest sense of the word without “Self-Help”, a realization that this “vital element could only come from within the community from within one’s selves”. And this vital element could only come from within the own community (mi sde) from within one’s selves.” This sums up in categorical terms not only the orientation of the inhabitants of TRSHC to life in exile as a whole but also provides a glimpse of the form and the limits to the relationship which they intend to forge with their hosts; other diasporic members of their ethnic group, Non-Governmental Organizations and the State. What began as the labeling of target groups – in this case the Tibetan as ‘refugees’ who are recipients of aid led on the one hand to client conformity and loyalty with the institutionally imposed stereotype and on the other to a gradual transformation of the identity expressed through the adoption of Goffman-like metaphors to describe alienating feelings like “we are foreigners here”; by asserting individuality and by not remaining acquiescent.

A ten-member committee was formed in Darjeeling to organize a rehabilitation centre which came to be known as the Tibetan Refugee Self Help Centre. Over time, the TRSHC has acquired a simple administrative structure consistent with its ethos of self-help, unlike the administrative structure seen in the Tibetan settlements in south India.

The initial fund for setting up the TRSHC was raised locally by subscriptions, donations, charity shows and an exhibition football match. This was augmented shortly afterwards from contributions by a number of voluntary agencies through the Central Relief Committee notably CARE, Catholic Relief Services, American Emergency Committee for Tibetan Refugees, National Christian Council, The Red Cross, World Veterans Federation, American Friends Committee, Church World Service as well as several individuals. With the reception of this aid, the Tibetans who fled from Tibet back then gradually became labeled as refugees. Their ambivalent response to relief programmes in the subsequent years came through in that with client-group compliance and dependency there has also been indifference in the refugees’ reactions to the relief programmes arising out of the resultant perceived loss of status and dignity of the group. Situated at “Hill-side” Lebong West in the area locally known as “Hermitage”, the Tibetan Refugee Self Help Centre in Darjeeling town is one of the oldest refugee centres in the Tibetan Diaspora. This refugee settlement came into existence on October 2nd 1959. It initially provided base for distribution of emergency relief to Tibetan refugees who had brought nothing with them apart from the clothes they wore and the little provisions they managed to bring along during their hazardous trek over the Himalayas into India. The “Hill-side”, a small estate comprising 3.44 acres was originally leased and eventually bought from St Joseph’s College. There was space to build and develop a small community outside the town but easily approachable by motor road. The Hill-side had a special significance for Tibetans, for it was here that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama had spent his exile in India between 1910-1912 following the Chinese invasion of Tibet at that time.

The refugees who chose to stay in the Refugee Centre and other settlements were those who were not in a capacity to establish themselves privately mainly due to the lack of capital. The rest preferred to stay in the town but remained connected to TRSHC. The visible success in charting out a career in exile became a source of worry for the refugees and produced caution in their management of social relations. For they knew that their achievement did create what they often say, feelings of “jealousy, envy and deprivation” among locals. Previously, the Tibetans were sore about the Gorkhaland movement precisely because it had severely affected their economy which principally depended on tourism (Subba 1987-88). The sheer numerical majority of the Nepalis must have dissuaded them from any intention of opposing the Movement. In recent times, the All Gorkha Student’s Union (AGSU) has on few occasions vociferously expressed their resentment to the emerging domination of Tibetan refugees in the region and their alleged or surreptitious use of Voters’ Identity cards for gaining employment or commerce. Four Tibetan youths interpreting the relation between Tibetans and Nepalis, hasten to add that “Nepalis think good about Tibetans, they want to make friends with us; Nepali girls nowadays want to get friendly with Tibetan boys because they think we have a lot of money (dngul). They are in a majority, there is no point avoiding them.” For Tibetan refugees, sensitivity to potentially hostile feelings of locals is deemed crucial in order to maintain peace and order. It enables them to gain self-confidence and avoid potential conflict, by invoking an ideal image of a “non-violent Tibetan refugee”. On examining this canvas one can also assert that the movement of Tibetan refugees, unlike their Bhutia co-ethnics remains incomplete, rendering the refugee community’s relationship to Darjeeling tentative and precarious. What is also at work in these forms of social action is the process of ‘re-territorialization’ as Tibetan refugee groups faced with a protracted exile condition attempt to delimit and influence relationships with ‘others’ over a geographic area (Darjeeling town). This process assumes significance in places like Darjeeling where the rights of access to and use of, sources of livelihood are apportioned on the basis of territorially anchored identity. The unfolding Tibetan-host relationship characterized by conjunction and disjunction relative to local circumstances makes it possible to appreciate the significance that the Tibetans attribute to their refugee identity and the ‘spatial practices’ by means of which the Tibetans produce and maintain a sense of ‘place’ in a contested environment.