After World War II, up to 50 million refugees have been relocated or returned home, but almost an equal number of those who were uprooted are still fighting for their fundamental human rights. Over 22 million individuals are receiving aid from the UNHCR, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, at this time in the world. Refugees are produced as a result of widespread violations of human rights, civil wars, internal struggle, intergroup violence, forced migration, and natural catastrophes. “Refugees” find themselves without the protection of a national state, even though national governments are in charge of defending their citizens’ fundamental human rights.
Therefore, granting these individuals international protection is more necessary than it is for those who reside in their native country. The term ‘refugee’ is defined as “any persons who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, are outside the country of his nationality and are unable or, owing to such fear, are unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”[1] in Article 1(a) (2) of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the Refugee Convention).
International Obligations India is not a party to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. While this occludes any examination of its record in complying with the refugee-specific rights contained in the Convention, India does nevertheless recognize refugee rights in practice. India acceded in March 1979 to the two 1966 Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural rights, and many of their provisions are relevant to the rights of refugees.
However, it should be noted that India has reserved its right to apply its own municipal law in relation to the expulsion of foreigners, but as has been pointed out, this does not relieve India of its international obligations under the Covenants. The courts may take them into account in appropriate cases while interpreting the statute law, India has also acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 11 December, 1992, article 22 of which deals with the refugee child.
The Status of Refugees in India
The Principle of Non-refoulement Refugees from Tibet In the 1950s, culminating with the arrival of the Dalai Lama in 1959, nearly 100,000 Tibetan refugees were granted asylum in India has strictly upheld the concept of non-refoulement, despite the fact that it did not support Tibet’s independence or autonomy and that the Dalai Lama and his adherents have long been a thorn in the side of Indian-Chinese ties, In 1967 the Indian Government gave asylum to a further 1,500 Tibetans and as recently as 1993 India gave refuge to 3,500 refugees who arrived in India through Nepal.
Bangladesh
Refugees from East Pakistan In 1971 East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, seceded from Pakistan. Brutal repression was unleashed by Pakistan in present day Bangladesh in March 1971 with the result that nearly ten million refugees entered India between March and December 1971. Most of the refugees were Bengali Hindus who were especially open to attack by the armed forces. Of the ten million refugees, nearly seven million were put up in camps while the other three million stayed with friends and relatives.
There was no question of turning any refugee back. Even Zolberg, who note that ‘the refugees were an important part of the conflict’, concede that ‘India’s ability to derive political mileage from the refugee situation does not deny its objective reality’. The refugees quickly returned home after the liberation of Bangladesh, but thousands remained in neighbouring Indian states (i.e., other than West Bengal, Tripura and Assam where migration and refugee trails had already created sizeable Bengali communities.
Tamil Refugees from Sri Lanka
The state of Tamil Nadu is home to India’s 55 million Tamils, who have linguistic, religious and political affinities with their Tamil neighbours across the waters in Sri Lanka. It is therefore not surprising that it is in the state of Tamil Nadu that Sri Lankan Tamils sought refuge from persecution at home. In 1983, after the anti-Tamil riots in Sri Lanka, between 27,000 and 30,000 Tamils sought asylum in India. By early 1987, there were about 100,000 Tamil refugees living independently and another 35,000 living in government-assisted refugee camps in Tamil Nadu.
Developments by Government
On January 6, 1992 the Indian government signed a bilateral agreement with the Sri Lankan Government to begin repatriation of refugees on January 20. By May 1992 some 23,000 refugees had been returned to temporary transit camps in Sri Lanka. Soon after, the programme was temporarily suspended when the High Commissioner for Refugees raised concerns about security threats in Sri Lanka and the repatriation process. In July 1992 the Indian government signed an agreement with UNHCR which allowed the agency a token presence in Madras, with access to refugees at the point of departure, in transit centres, but not in the camps themselves.[2]
In August UNHCR began assisting the repatriation process. A total of 29,102 refugees were returned to Sri Lanka by October 1992, when the process was suspended due to rough seas. Repatriation was renewed in 1993. By February 1993, another 6,000 refugees had registered to repatriate. The repatriation took place only in August, 1993. The next phase began in January, 1994 when over 3,600 refugees returned to Sri Lanka. It’s important to put the claim that there were some forced repatriations in perspective.
India, in contrast to the West, has admitted all those who have sought refuge. Its overall record in so far as voluntary repatriation is concerned has been excellent. The situation with regard to Tamil refugees after May 1991 is a complex one. The assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi resulted an understandable absence of sympathy for Sri Lankan refugees among the people of Tamil Nadu. The problem also needs to be looked at in the matrix of the evolving relationship between India and Sri Lanka, in particular the former’s mediatory role in the conflict which is tearing Sri Lanka apart, a matter which cannot be gone into here. While it is true that UNHCR was and is not allowed access to the camps, it must not be forgotten that the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding between UNHCR and the Government of India, allowing it to open an office in Madras, is an important step forward in an evolving relationship.
Furthermore, while UNHCR was not allowed access to the camps, it was allowed to distribute a leaflet to the refugees explaining its role and the kind of assistance it would be offering to returnees. It must also be recognized that UNHCR interviews with refugees at the point of departure did offer some safeguard. UNHCR presence has, it is believed, deterred involuntary repatriation. The question of the voluntariness of the repatriations was considered by the Madras High Court in P. Neduraman and Dr. S. Ramadoss v. The Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu (unreported). The case deserves a brief review. In August 1992 writ petitions were filed in the Madras High Court seeking inter alia an interim injunction restraining the Indian government and the state of Tamil Nadu from repatriating the refugees in Tamil Nadu. The petitioners complained that refugees were being repatriated against their will and were being coerced to sign letters of consent.
Government efforts for Education
Refugees from Tibet
After 1961 a special sub-division in the Ministry of Education was created, the Tibetan Schools Society, which was funded by the Indian Government. The Society developed and administered an outstanding program for Tibetan refugee education’. Tibetan refugees also have access to institutions of higher education in India. However, they are faced with certain problems in this regard. Education being a state as opposed to federal responsibility in India, one of the requirements of admission into any of the state colleges is a ‘domicile certificate’ which confirms the student’s parents are legal residents of that state.
Persons who are not legal residents of the state are not eligible to apply for admission. To be able to get a domicile certificate a Tibetan student must first take Indian citizenship, a highly sensitive and emotional issue with Tibetan refugees, for it is felt that ‘taking Indian citizenship and forsaking refugee status negates the very purpose of fleeing one’s own country’. Where institutions run by the federal or central government are concerned, it has been felt that it is difficult to get admission because the level of competition is very high.
These problems need to be looked into. But even as these problems are pointed out, the contribution of India in the area of education is acknowledged. Tibetan refugees have been issued certificates of identity which enable them to engage in gainful employment and economic activities, and even to travel abroad and return to India. However, since they are not Indian citizens most employment opportunities are closed to them. The only avenues open to a vast majority of Tibetan students are within the Dalai Lama’s administration in exile.
Bangladesh
The question of education did not arise in 1971 as the refugees soon returned home. However, in the 18 orphanages which were set up by voluntary organizations, boys and girls received residential education and training in handicrafts. Additionally, according to Holborn, ‘homes and vocational training centres were established for unattached women and social education centres were opened in various camps, where refugees were taught health measures to prevent spreading diseases and children were given elementary education’.
Discrimination between Refugees based on their Country of origin India has granted rights to the Tibetan refugees which have not been granted to later refugee groups. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that in the case of the Tibetan refugees the possibility of repatriation was non-existent from the very beginning. In so far as differences in treatment between other refugee groups are concerned, two factors may be mentioned. First, the existence of ethnic ties, as in the instance of Sri Lankan Tamils. The support of Indian Tamils, at least till May 1991, accounts for the warm welcome extended to them. Second, despite the Central Government sharing the financial burden, much also depends on the resources of the state in which the refugees are located. For example, Tripura, where the Chakma refugees are living, is one of the poorest regions in the country. However, be that as it may, there is clearly a need to formulate and pursue a uniform policy towards different refugee groups.
India and UNHCR
India has always upheld the overall policy of avoiding internationalizing refugee issues and, thus, of declining requests for aid from other countries. India has always upheld the overall policy of avoiding internationalizing refugee issues and, thus, of declining requests for aid from other countries. When the stay of the Tibetan refugees became prolonged the government began a tentative reconsideration of this position. Initially, UNHCR’s involvement was rejected because the continued tensions with China meant that the Indian government preferred not to have an official representative of UNHCR based in the country. However, in February 1969 a Branch Office was officially opened in Delhi, and Mr. Frederik L. Pijnacker-Hordijk of Netherlands was appointed UNHCR representative.
Conclusion
India’s way of handling refugee situations is like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with pieces from different sets. It’s complicated because it mixes past experiences, unclear laws, and political influences. Over the years, India has opened its doors to many people in need—like those fleeing Tibet or Sri Lanka and others escaping troubles in Bangladesh and Myanmar. The country tries hard to stick by the rule of non-refoulement (which means not sending refugees back into danger) using temporary solutions since there isn’t an official law just for refugees. Sometimes how refugees are treated depends on things like their ethnicity or where resources are tightest.
Despite these challenges, India has made some good moves through agreements with other countries which help manage refugee issues better than going it alone would allow. However, these efforts don’t always fully meet all the needs that refugees have—from safety concerns right down to basic rights.
In conclusion while India plays a big part in offering shelter and aid during crises involving displaced folks—the whole system could use a fresh look if they want everything smelling as sweet as roses when helping out those seeking asylum.
Author: The article on written by Srijan Singh and Shivanshi Sarwang, students at USLLS, GGSIP University.
[1] https://www.unhcr.org/us/refugees
[2] . https://www.studocu.com/in/document/kle-societys-law-college/constitutional-law-2/7jrefugee-stud-378 reference/46456951
