The Refugees Situation in South Asia and its Security Implications

01 Dec, 2000    ·   442

Report on the IPCS Seminar held on 26th November 2000
Panelists

 

 

Dr. Mahendra P Lama (Associate Professor, JNU) 

 

 

Ms. Sumbul Rizvi Khan ( Legal Protection Officer, UNHCR, New Delhi )

 

 

 

 

Mr. P.R.Chari, in his introductory remarks, said that the refugee problem is not a new one, but the erection of legal barriers against their movement across borders is a contemporary phenomenon. One in every forty citizens in the world is a refugee or an internally displaced person (IDP) or an economic migrant. South Asia has witnessed the movement of 35-40 million refugees since partition. There is considerable focus on refugees, but adequate attention has not been paid to IDPs. Development or, paradoxically, the lack of it, natural disasters and environmental degradation will cause large-scale demographic movement in future.

 

 

The phenomenon creates legal, political, security, sociological and psychological problems. There are different types of displacement problems in South Asia . The Rohingyas, Sri Lankan Tamils and Afghans constitute a typology of forced migration, while Bangladeshis and Nepalis in India are generally seeking a better quality of life. Internal Displacement, especially of people moving from villages to cities in search of employment or due to natural disaster, constitutes a third problem.

 

 

Certain important questions need to be answered in the refugee context. Could the funds for humanitarian relief be better utilised for development? How could originating and recipient countries work together to mitigate the problem? Is joint development the solution? If so, how does this solution impinge on the IDP problem within national settings? There is also a need for greater gender sensitivity in analysing the refugee problem. Women are more vulnerable, apart from the aged and children among those displaced, the problem is also related to the crisis of governance in South Asia . 

 

 

Dr Lama initiated the discussion by quoting the refugee figures in South Asia . According to the Report, “State of the World’s Refugees 2000”, published by the UNHCR there are 1.53 million refugees in the region, out of which 22,000 are in Bangladesh, 180,000 in India, 127,000 in Nepal and 1.2 million in Pakistan.

 

 

No country in South Asia has signed either the 1951 Treaty on Refugees or the 1967 Protocol. Despite that, most of the states have accepted refugees, both from countries inside the region and outside. For example, there are Rohingyas from Myanmar in Bangladesh , Tamils from Sri Lanka in India , Lhotsampas from Bhutan in Nepal and Afghans from Afghanistan in Pakistan .

 

 

Refugees in South Asia , have been absorbed in the region itself. Three factors could be identified in shaping the geographical destination of refugees. First, easy physical accessibility. India for example, is easily accessible to the Chakmas, Tibetans and the Sri Lankan Tamils. In the case of Afghan refugees in Pakistan , 80 percent of them were displaced from within 250 kms of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Second, cultural and linguistic affinity. The Sri Lankan Tamils and the Tamils in India , and the Afghans and Pathans in Pakistan share a common language and culture. Third, the political support provided by the host government. Indian support to Sri Lankan Tamils and Pakistan ’s support to Afghans was a major factor promoting the refugee flow in to these countries. There are three reasons why India does not generate refugees. First, India has a large, accommodative federal structure, and even its states accept people in distress. If there is mass movement in a state, there is a high absorption rate by adjoining states. Secondly, both the Centre and the States can absorb shocks and violence, which leads to the quick restoration of normalcy. Thirdly, the neigbouring countries’ living conditions are worse than India , so there is no exodus from India to them.

 

 

The refugee management process in South Asia is not uniform and there have been shifts in terms of policy frame-work. Two factors—humanitarian and national security—largely shape State’s attitudes in either accepting or refusing the refugees. Refugees become a threat to the host country in three ways- as a threat or security risk to the host regime; as a threat to its cultural identity; and as a socio-economic burden. The countries of origin are also at risk. There are instances in South Asia when the host country armed refugees against the countries of origin: For example, the host countries, armed the East Pakistanis, Tamils and the Afghans to pursue their foreign policy objectives. Besides, refugees have also influence the host country’s policy against their countries of origin as in the case of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in Tamilnadu. 

 

 

Besides, there is active participation of refugees in terrorism in the host country. The refugees involve themselves in the proliferation of small arms and drugs smuggling affecting both the countries of origin and the host. For example in Pakistan , there has been a sharp rise in drug addicts since 1979. Pakistan has spent around US$82 million on drug reduction plans. Besides, the nexus between the politicians, bureaucrats, and the military with drug lords in Pakistan is alarming.

 

 

In conclusion, he noted there were three emerging scenarios pertaining to the refugee situation in South Asia : Hidden losers; compassion fatigue; and aid fatigue.

 

 

Sumbul Rizvi Khan began her presentation by identifying three different categories, which are generally grouped under “refugees” in South Asia – Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and economic migrants. The definition of a refugee contains three elements: Crossing of a border; well-founded fear of persecution; five grounds of persecution had further been identified (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, and political opinion). This definition is admittedly too narrow to include mass influxes or grounds such as general violence, or human rights violations. Why? This was the consensus in 1951, but an expansion of the definition is possible if states decide to do so, either individually or regionally, e.g. the Organisation of African Union has included general violence as a ground for refugee status. 

 

 

India has an ad hoc policy on refugees. Discretionary powers are vested in the administrative authorities and policies change from time to time and from group to group, and from groups to individual cases. A dialogue started in 1995-96 in South Asia by an informal group of Eminent Persons discussing refugee issues for the different states here, and for South Asia as a region. Model National Law was framed in the form of a broad draft that was later fine tuned from each country’s perspective. The definition of refugee in the draft Model Law was the main problem, because of the existing confusion between a variety of migrants and refugees. 

 

 

UNHCR has some involvement with IDPs if they can be linked to a persecutory reason, which make them refugees if they crossed a border; UNHCR started to care for IDPs because some may have crossed a border, some may not have, but are in a refugee like situation.  UNHCR not only assists refugees, but in some cases returnees; hence it would not be just not to care for IDPs also.  A UN General Assembly resolution or a request by the host country concerned is required to ask for UNHCR assistance to IDPs. The Deng Principles indicate a need for dialogue with the UNHCR to care for IDPs if persecutory causes are involved.

 

 

India is surrounded by countries where the living conditions are of a lower standard, so it may face more refugees’ entry if the situation in those countries is not addressed. This is the reason why the Eminent Persons Group also looked into the issues of burden sharing and liabilities of the country of origin (e.g. human rights violations which cause refugee flows) could lead to sanctions,  embargo, etc.  It would be useful if SAARC was formally involved in this process.

 

 

The exclusion clauses of the 1951 Convention provide, among other things, that any person who has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity is not entitled to refugee status.  Other excluded categories are those who have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge before admission to that country as a refugee.   It is important to note that the exclusion clauses would be considered only after the inclusion clauses have been applied.  If a person is then excluded, the corner stone of refugee law, the principle of non-refoulement, no longer applies and the person concerned may be deported.  However, this return would not be to the country of origin, but to a third country.

 

 

In conclusion, it is important that India passes its own Refugee Act so that we have our own guidance to deal with refugees, which will leave enough leeway for the Government of India to grant asylum to certain individuals for strategic or other reasons.

 

 

Questions & Comments

 

 

·                     There are around three to four million Bangladeshis in India ’s Northeast. There is hardly any work done by India to identify them. Besides, it is not possible to repatriate them as they have become a vote bank, with considerable influence.

 

 

·                     The definition of refugees and migrants is blurred. The open border and the trickle entry of refugees in South Asia makes it difficult to prevent their entry.

 

 

·                     Population pressure and State policy are two major factors responsible for the creation and movement of refugees. States need to address these basic causes rather than manage the refugee situation. There are elements of discontent in all South Asian societies and States should be tolerant in dealing with them to avoid refugee situations.

 

 

·                     Refugees, by themselves, do not constitute a security threat to the host country. It is the manipulation of refugees by the host countries to achieve foreign policy objectives which makes them a threat.  For example, the arming of Sri Lankan Tamils by India and Afghan refugees by Pakistan had an impact on the host countries. Besides, Pakistan used the Afghans who were proficient in poppy cultivation, drug production and trafficking to finance the jihad against Soviet forces in the 1980s, which had an adverse effect thereafter on Pakistan .

 

 

·                     There is a difference in the perception of refugees by the North and the South configuration of nations. The term “refugee” in Third World countries should not be interpreted in the same narrow perspective as the West. For the West, the refugee problem is a distant one.

 

 

·                     India believes in bilateralism in resolving the refugee problem with its neighbours. Since the causes and issues relating to refugees vary from country to country, it is better for India to continue in this fashion. A uniform policy on refugees will not be beneficial to its national security.

 

 

·                     India has not signed the 1951 Treaty and the 1967 Convention; but there has not been a single case when India rejected refugees. India should nether sign the Treaty nor the Convention, because the West may use this to embarrass India in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

POPULAR COMMENTARIES