Before one explores different ways and means of protecting the rights of the refugees and IDPs, it is necessary to define them. Article 1A, paragraph 1, of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugee applies the term “refugee”, first, to any person considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization. Article 1A, paragraph 2, read now together with the 1967 Protocol and offers a general definition of the refugee as including any person who is outside their country of origin and unable or unwilling to return there or to avail themselves of its protection, on account of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group, or political opinion. Stateless persons may also be refugees in this sense, where country of origin (citizenship) is understood as “country of former habitual residence”. Those who possess more than one nationality will only be considered as refugees within the Convention if such other nationality or nationalities are ineffective (that is, do not provide protection).

The refugee must be “outside” his or her country of origin, and the fact of having fled, of having crossed an international frontier, is an intrinsic part of the quality of refugee, understood in its ordinary sense. However, it is not necessary to have fled by reason of fear of persecution, or even actually to have been persecuted. The fear of persecution looks to the future, and can also emerge during an individual’s absence from their home country, for example, as a result of intervening political change. While international law on protection of refugees deals with the condition, status, and the rights of persons who have already escaped the persecution and crossed the border to seek asylum, this module deals with what may be called the “root causes” of the flight. It is in this respect that we have to discuss the phenomena of racism and xenophobia, and the relation of the state controls on immigration with the issue of protection of refugees.

It must be understood that when we discuss the root causes of the refugee flow and the un-wanted and unprotected status of the refugees, we are not ignoring the historic patterns of migration on which population flows including forced population movements are often built. Some have termed this as “transplanted networks”. This historical perspective is essential as a perspective when we consider refugee flows. Also it must be borne in mind that whatever be the cause, refugees have a right to care, protection, and settlement, though it is true that if the root causes are not considered seriously, then there is a probability that we shall consider the refugee situation as a banal one, and neglect thereby the question of the rights of the refugees or the duty of the States and the international community to protect the escapees of violence.

The problem we often confront in studying root causes is the “exceptional” nature of the refugee situation. Is the refugee situation exceptional because the refugee is merely outside some state responsibility? Or, and this is what we are implying, is the refugee situation exceptional because of the inherent violence of the state, and the incapacity of all states to fulfil their human rights obligations consistently? The question is complicated, because it affects the political attitude and will of the States to grant asylum to a person on the ground of “well founded fear”.

The right to return is a significant issue in this context. Refugees enjoy very few rights but one of the most intrinsic rights for a refugee is the right to return. Although much debated internationally the right to return is most clearly enshrined in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) under its provisions on the right to freedom of movement (Article 12.4) which says that No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. But this right has often proved to be a chimera at least in South Asia. A historian has shown that perhaps the first group of people, though not refugees, whose right to return was denied by a South Asian state were the Indian emigrants who travelled abroad in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to work as plantation labourers. All through the nationalist period the fate of these labourers in their country of domicile was a rallying point for Indian leaders to portray the dark side of foreign rule. There was constant reiteration that the state was responsible for all the people who were born in India. Yet during the legislative assembly debates in 1944 the leaders came to a consensus that these émigrés rightfully belonged to their country of domicile and not in India. Unlike nationalists during the colonial period, the leaders of the post-colonial State formation project no longer looked forward to the return of the emigrants who were slowly being considered as foreigners. South Asian independence was accompanied by a blood bath. The partition of India and Pakistan resulted in two million deaths and about 15 million people were displaced. Most of the refugees were lucky enough to get domicile and often citizenship in their country of domicile. Yet problem arose over the issue of return. In people’s memory their Desh (country) was where they were born. But once displaced they did not have the right to return even when they so desired. South Asian states passed legislations whereby property of the displaced were confiscated by the State and treated as enemy property. So the home that they wanted to go back to remained only in their own imagination. One often hears the argument that because partition refugees got an alternate citizenship they lost the right to return. In South Asia there are however, other groups of refugees who remain as stateless people; yet they are denied the right to return. We have the instances of two such groups of refugees: the Chakmas (Jumma people) and the Bhutanese. This module has to discuss in the context of these experiences as to how South Asia’s political history is predicated by aliens, half-citizens, exiles, refuge, temporary shelters where citizens pass away their lives, illegal immigrants, – in short, the non-state persons who are beyond the pale of citizenship rights, and who are not even the proper subjects of the international law on non-state persons? The focus in any discussion on the right to return of citizens expelled has to be thus on the need to move away from the classical theories of sovereignty, democracy, State, and citizenship, and take the exile, the alien, the displaced (both internally and trans-border), and the half-citizen as the central figure of the politics in South Asia, the figure who is with us like the eternally accompanying shadow, so normalised that we forget its existence which we have taken for granted. In this physical milieu of expulsion, de-enfranchisement, and nationalisation, the right to return is at once the most crucial question and the most hallucinatory claim. The illusory nature in many cases of the right to return shows the deep nature of the causes that force displacement in the first place. The apparent reasons may go away, while the root causes remain. Once the population groups leave, they are reduced to extreme marginality wherefrom it becomes extremely difficult for them to force back to their original position in their “national” societies. Instead of durable solutions we have durable vulnerabilities. The root causes spark off forced migration, but marginal and vulnerable positions have a way of accumulating so that even when causes are removed marginal positions or situations persist.

There is a need to analyse the relation between refugee flows and immigration flows, and the way in which immigration is controlled today impacts on refugee protection also. The flow of (illegal) immigration has not only overwhelmed in some cases the flow of refugees, it has got mixed with it also to such an extent that we can say that aliens have appeared as a subject in the world today. Definition is of course available in municipal laws of who is an alien, and this is not surprising, because an alien is an alien to a State (but can there be an alien to all the states on earth?). But illegal immigrants who are aliens to a state have been in a state of double jeopardy – they do not have the good luck to get protection when they arrive, and they will not benefit from any moral responsibility owned by a state wherefrom they decided to exit, a state that evidently does not care much for the fleeing population. Allowing population to leave is part of its pursuit of a “nice exit” policy (except in case of migrant workers when foreign remittances to the economy would be going down). We have to remember that unlike the Civil and Political Covenant, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not create obligations on the states to fulfil immediately on signing. Therefore, a state can get away by arguing that its allocation of resources is insufficient, but is non-discriminatory. An illegal migrant who is forced to move out from his country is seen as showing desire for “good life”, and thus not eligible for his/her right to protection of the social, economic and cultural attributes necessary for his/her dignity. The mix of the two flows, of the refugees and illegal immigrants, now accentuates all the problems facing humanitarian politics today.

Finally, it has to be remembered that refugee flows are direct consequences of political and social reasons, redrawing of boundaries, Partition of states, xenophobic policies, minority persecution, civil wars, and foreign aggression. Without a proper understanding of these causes, we cannot think of durable solutions, burden sharing in refugee protection, and the interface of human rights origins and humanitarian dimensions of refugee protection.

Refugee Law is a relatively new branch of International Law. First major step towards developing an international regime of protection was 1951 convention in a Post World War Two situation, later modified in 1967. From then on 1951 convention has formed the core of all Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law for the protection of refugees. However since its inception there have been objections to the provisions of the 1951 convention on the grounds of Euro centrism, and insensitivity towards the internecine racial, ethnic and religious conflicts in third world which has resulted in the creation of refugees in large numbers. The provisions of the convention have served well to the protection of refugees during the Cold War times but have failed to do so after that, when there has been an attempt at dealing with the refugee problems ‘at source’. This has led to the international interference in the internal matters of a sovereign nation creating further problems for states and for the displaced. This has been witnessed very recently in the Darfur region of Sudan and in past in former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and the other African countries.

Another failure has been the inability of the convention to recognise the special needs of women, children, and aged people within the sections of refugees, though this has been addressed to some extent in the provisions of CEDAW convention but need to be reflected in 1951 convention as well. The provisions of 1951 convention further need revision due to increased complexities in the process of refugee generation, protection and also due to advances in the field of refugee studies. The increased focus on refugee studies has led to broadening of definitions of ‘refugee’, ‘protection’, ‘rights’, ‘justice’ etc.

A casualty of above mentioned problems has been that 1951 Convention has not been ratified by all the nations of the world. India is one such nation which has stayed away, citing certain biases in the provisions of the convention. However, it has developed its own provisions to deal with the problems of refugees on a case-by-case basis in absence of a consistent national policy. This has its own problems, for example India has provided all possible help to Tibetan refugee due to its own political necessities but has not done so with the Bangladeshi and Bhutanese refugees. The provision of Indian state has also not progressed with the evolution of feminist critic of the protection regimes which needs attention and creation of a consistent policy accommodating the faults in current practices. It is to be noted that, the need to improve the humanitarian strategy is most visible in the international context where boundary transgressions appear as more pronounced. One can refer to in this context the recent move by the Office of the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) in the form of a “Ten Point Plan of Action for Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration”. The action plan towards protection of refugees in situations of mixed migration includes issues of cooperation among key partners, data collection and analysis, building protection-sensitive entry systems, reception arrangements, mechanisms for profiling and referral, differentiated processes and procedures, addressing secondary movements, return arrangements for non-refugees and alternative migration options, and finally an appropriate information strategy.

In this module, the focus will be on various aspects of refugee protection at an international level in general and on South Asian level in particular. To mention a few of them:

1. What do we mean by refugees, asylum protection etc. from the socio-political and legal perspectives?

2. What are the special provisions required for protection of the women, children and other marginalised communities in the overall context of refugee protection and law?

3. What contributions have been made by the international human rights law and international humanitarian law with respect to refugee protection?

4. What are the safeguards available for the protection of refugees in international law?

5. What is the responsibility of the State and society towards the refugees? Can they simply be considered as problems and responsibility of the host countries alone?

6. Is there a link between the refugee protection regime, international law and globalisation?

7. What has been the record of the Indian state in the context of refugee protection since the partition of the sub-continent?

Contextualising Internal Displacement in South Asia

Besides being ‘potential refugees’ who might cross international borders, most of the IDPs living in the countries share ethnic continuities with the people of the neighbouring countries. The Pashtuns of northwest Pakistan for example, seem to harbour an active interest in the affairs of their ethnic cousins living in Afghanistan and vice versa. Similarly, much of what happens inside today’s Myanmar has its implications for the minorities of northeastern India and Bangladesh. Massive displacement and the resulting plight of the predominantly tribal populations such as, the Nagas of Myanmar continue to be one of the key running themes of the Naga rebel discourse across the borders and the ethnic cousins of Myanmar are described by it as, ‘the Eastern Nagas’. Insofar as the creation of national borders could not make many of these pre-existing ethnic spaces completely obsolescent, South Asia’s living linkages with West or South East Asia can hardly be exaggerated. Also national specificities notwithstanding South Asian IDPs are connected by their ethnicities, minority status and situations of extreme marginalisation. This portrays the reality that in so far as in South Asia IDPs cannot be regarded as a national category. It is essential to think of them as regional categories.

Besides, conflict as source of displacement, naturural disasters are recurrent in South Asia, which at times are trans boorder impact oriented as well. It is witnessed as in the case of Indian ocean tsunamis of 2004 hitting Sri Lanka, India and Maldives, Kashmir earthquake of 2005 affected both Indian and Pakistan side of Kashmir, Aila cyclone in May 2009 affected India and Bangladesh, etc. Now the only few South Asian countries are in the process of setting up the legal-institutional framework to tackle disasters. India has taken the lead to constitute a national disaster management authority (NDMA) based on national disaster management act (2005). This is supposed to provide the national policies and guidelines not only to tackle post-disaster relief and response but also to promote proactive preparedness and mitigation measures. Other countries are also taking their own measures in the lines of Hyogo framework for action (2005).

Why IDPs are more Vulnerable

Although all persons affected by conflict and/or human rights violations suffer, displacement and likely to increase the need for protection. Following are broad reasons why IDPs are considered more vulnerable due to:

• Movement to unhealthy or inhospitable environments
• Destruction of community social fabric and social organizations
• Seperation or disruption of family groups
• Women may be forced to assume non-traditional roles or face particular vulnerabilities.
• Internally displaced populace, and especially groups like children, the elderly, chronically ill, physically challenged or pregnant women, may experience profound psychosocial distress related to displacement.
• Due to displacement livelihood may be badly affected which may add to physical and psychosocial vulnerability for displaced people.
• School education for children and adolescents may be disrupted due to lack of restoration of schools or increase in distance in new location. Even sometimes children do not get adequate study space
• Internal displacement to areas where local inhabitants are of different groups or inhospitable may increase risk to internally displaced communities; internally displaced persons may face language barriers during displacement.
• Internally displaced persons may lack identity documents essential to receiving relief benefits or legal recognition. Such documents are either lost or misplaced during displacement.

· Lack of basic amenities such as proper shelter, nutrition, water, sanitation, etc.

In south Asian context the situation of IDPs seems particularly more vulnerable when one considers that there are hardly any legal mechanisms that guide their rehabilitation, care and protection. Since the early 1990s the need for a separate legal mechanism for IDPs in South Asia has increasingly been felt. This is not only to compile new laws but also to bring together the existing laws within a single legal instrument and to plug the loopholes detected in them over the years. Only recently the international community has developed such a mechanism that is popularly known as the ‘UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.’ The Principles consolidate into one document the legal standards relevant to the internally displaced drawn from international human rights law, humanitarian law and refugee law by analogy. In addition to restating existing norms, they address gray areas and gaps identified in the law. As a result, there is now for the first time an authoritative statement of the rights of internally displaced persons and the obligations of governments and other controlling authorities toward these populations.

This has given us a framework within which rehabilitation and care of internally displaced people in South Asia can be organised. Keeping that in mind it becomes imperative for scholars working on issues of forced migration in South Asia to consider whether South Asian states have taken the Guiding Principles into account while organising programmes for rehabilitation and care for the internally displaced persons (IDPs). For example Sri Lanka has relied upon the Guiding Principles in the formulation of its National Framework for Relief, Rehabilitation and Reconciliation. Likewise, civil society institutions have made increasing use of the Guiding Principles to assess domestic policy and practice concerning displaced persons. It is hoped that in the near future more states in South Asia will accept, adopt and adhere to the Guiding Principles regarding the internally. Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons set out the rights of internally displaced persons relevant to the needs they encounter in different stages of displacement. The Guiding Principles provide a handy schematic of how to design a national policy or law on internal displacement that is focused on the individuals concerned and responsive to the requirements of international law. Similarly, governments (and particularly national human rights institutions where they exist), advocates, and displaced persons can use the Guiding Principles as a means to measure the compliance of existing laws and policies with international standards. Finally, their simplicity allows the Guiding Principles to effectively inform the internally displaced themselves of their rights. The Guiding Principles are thus part of a growing number of “soft law” instruments that have come to characterize norm-making in the human rights field as well as other areas of international law, in particular environmental, labor and finance. Although the Guiding Principles do not constitute a binding instrument like a treaty, they do reflect and are consistent with existing international law. They address all displacement—providing protection against arbitrary displacement, offering a basis for protection and assistance during displacement, and setting forth guarantees for safe return, resettlement and reintegration.

About 26 million people worldwide currently live in situations of internal displacement as a result of conflicts or human rights violations. Although internally displaced people now outnumber refugees by two to one, their plight receives far less international attention. The Guiding Principles also reflect on the rights of displaced people, the obligations of their states’ towards them and also the obligations of international community towards these people. It is pertinent to make such rights accessible to vulnerable people of South Asia who are already displaced or live in fear of displacement.

Many IDPs remain exposed to violence and other human rights violations during their displacement. Often they have no or only very limited access to food, employment, education and health care. Large numbers of IDPs are caught in desperate situations amidst fighting or in remote and inaccessible areas cut-off from international assistance. Others have been forced to live away from their homes for many years, or even decades, because the conflicts that caused their displacement remained unresolved.

While refugees are eligible to receive international protection and help under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, the international community is not under the same legal obligation to protect and assist internally displaced people. National governments have the primary responsibility for the security and well-being of all displaced people on their territory, but often they are unable or unwilling to live up to this obligation.

Are their Any Special Provisions for Women?

In the UN Guiding Principles a concerted attempt was made to prioritise gender issues. For example, while discussing groups that needed special attention in Principle 4, it was stated that, the expectant mothers, mothers with young children and female heads of households, among others, are people who may need special attention. In Principle 7, it was stated that when displacement occurred due to reasons other than armed conflict authorities should involve women who are affected, in the planning and management of their relocation. Principle 9 upheld that IDPs should be protected in particular against “Rape, mutilation, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and other outrages upon personal dignity, such as acts of gender-specific violence, forced prostitution and any other form of indecent assault.” Special protection was also sought against sexual exploitation. Principle 18 stated that special efforts should be made to include women in planning and distribution of supplies. Principle19 stated that attention should be given to the health needs of women and Principle 20 stated that, both men and women had equal rights to obtain government documents in their own names.

Apart from the UN Guiding Principles there are other international mechanisms that displaced women can access. They include the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (hereafter CEDAW) and the 1999 Optional Protocol sets out specific steps for states to become proactive in their efforts to eliminate discrimination against displaced women. Article 2 of CEDAW clearly states that public authorities, individuals, organisations and enterprises should refrain from discrimination against women. Article 3 reiterated women’s right to get protection from sexual violence. Article 6 spoke against trafficking and sexual exploitation of women. Since most displaced women are particularly vulnerable to traffickers this article is of some importance to them. It must be noted that all the countries of South Asia are signatories to CEDAW with some reservations but not of the proportion that it negates the overarching principles and therefore the onus of being gender sensitive in their attitude and programmes is on them. Apart from these there are other international provisions that protect women’s human rights. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 calls for the halt of weapons against the civilian population and to protect all civilians, including children, women and persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities from violations of humanitarian law. Article 29 of ILO 1930 Convention concerning forced or compulsory labour also impacts the situation of women. It calls for the end of violations of the human rights of women, in particular forced labour, abuse and torture of labourers including women.

Whose Responsibility is it anyway?

If the state-centric nationalistic approach has meant the exclusion of minorities and has produced large number of refugees in the post-colonial states in Asia and Africa, state-centric national security perspective and development paradigm have not done any better. The people displaced against this backdrop may have got some relief if they have been able to cross international boundaries. Crossing the international boundary may entitle them to “refugee” status, thus providing them at least a fig leaf of relief and rehabilitation in an alien land. But wretched are those who remain internally displaced. They remain at the mercy of the same state and administration whose policy might have sent them on the run. According to all estimates, the number of IDPs is rising compared to the refugees seeking shelter in another country. South Asia is no exception to this. But, so far, no systematic and comprehensive study was carried out. Only a few brief, and sometimes sketchy, reports and articles are available on the plight of the IDPs in South Asia. This module hopefully will fill that awesome and disturbing vacuum. The module is meant to explore the nature and the extent of displacement in respective countries of South Asia and provide recommendations to minimize the insecurity of the displaced by discussing mechanisms for rehabilitation and care. As for who takes responsibility for the displaced? The answer is primarily the state, although there are attempts on its part to abdicate its responsibility in this regard. None of the states of South Asia recognizes right against forced displacement as a non-negotiable right. We have to note that it is the policies of the state and the model of development and nation building that it has pursued since its birth that have caused and continue to cause displacement in largest numbers. It is primarily a failure of the state system. The module is meant to explore how far South Asian states are sensitive to the needs of the IDPs, how they can be made sensitive to these needs and whether the UN Guiding Principle are being adhered to, to any extent.