1. Given the history of migration in South Asia, do you consider the question of South Asian countries ratifying the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees relevant? If yes, on what basis could one argue that this is so? Given the systematic erosion of the principles of the 1951 Convention, are South Asian countries finding novel ways of managing its population flows? If this is not a relevant issue anymore, how may one visualize a better legal protection mechanism for refugees in the South Asian region?

2. What does the current Australian forced migration policy (one of the forms being the Australian-Malaysian swap deal) mean for forced migration discourse? Should it not be taken too seriously given that most states who have ratified the 1951 Convention have failed to abide by its principles? Or does it signify a changing pattern of refugee protection in the post (Sri-Lankan) and Snowdenian world?

3. In what ways have refugees in “urban areas” benefited from the UNHCR Urban Refugee Policy? Discuss this with the realities of refugee protection in the South Asian region.

4. Do countries in the South Asian region, specially Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan (the last country although not officially part of South Asia, increasingly participating in the political and economic realities of the SA region) provide unique examples of the blurring of the terms “refugee”, “stateless person” and “internally displaced person”? Add to this that the overall conflict has forced many to leave in order to find better economies that are violence free (a case in point being Afghanistan), what becomes of the idea of the “refugee”?