|
Q. At the end of 2001, some 345,000 refugees were living in India, including 110,000 from Sri Lanka, 52,000 from China (Tibet), 15,000 from Myanmar, 12,000 from Bhutan, an estimated 5,000 to 20,000 from Bangladesh, and thousands more from other countries such as Afghanistan. Is the condition of refugees in India satisfactory from UNHCR standard? If not, what steps are UNHCR taking to fill the gaps?
Over all we can say that the treatment of refugees in India is quite satisfactory. As such historical record of India in this respect has always been good, be it the reception of Tamilian refugees from East Pakistan or Tibetans or refugees from Sri Lanka, or other groups as well. Whenever there is a major crisis in the neighbourhood India is ready to receive a large number of refugees. Then we have realized that perhaps the treatment of various groups is very different. We would like to see a more homogeneous treatment of various groups. For example, the treatment in the form of the provision of residential permits to certain groups, their access to labour market etc. It has been felt that certain groups get more assistance and facilities, while other groups are not so well assisted by the state. In fact the groups the UNHCR is dealing with in urban areas, primarily New Delhi, are not such large groups, but only consist of around 11,000 persons. In their cases the government expects UNHCR to provide assistance. But there are other groups as well that have arrived here but their status is not very clear. For instance there are people from Myanmar in Mizoram, whose status has not been clarified. They are not considered as refugees. Similarly the groups that has arrived from Bhutan, is not considered refugees, because there exists a differential treaty between India and Bhutan. According to that treaty Bhutanese can avail of the same benefits and facilities as are available for Indian citizens. They have equal access to education or the labour market. Nevertheless some Bhutanese feel that they should be given refugee status because they have been compelled to leave their country under pressure. One can say that each group is looked at its own merit by the Government of India. There are degrees of differentiation as how they are treated both in the legal sense and in terms of assistance.
Q. India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and does not have national legislation regarding refugees. Why is it so? Has UNHCR ever made any effort in this direction?
We have actually put the emphasis more recently on India having national refugee legislation at least as a first step. Of course it is important that India adopts a proper legislation for refugees, which incorporates major principles from the United Nation Convention. And there is actually a discussion in the government on this issue. There is now an expert group established by the National Human Rights Commission to examine this aspect in detail about the possibility of a national legislation on refugees. We do not know whether this is going to be successful or not, but we think that it is a very positive step.’
Q. What are the problems in this direction?
India feels that the present UN convention does not deal with many of the realities that India has to face in terms of refugees. They feel, for example, that mass influx of refugees have not been adequately dealt with in 51 Convention of UN. They feel that the question of how to find solution of refugee problems has not been properly highlighted in the 51 Convention. There are many other issues also that they feel this document is not sufficiently adapted to the current realities of the world as it is today. And of course, initially India, mainly because of the rivalry between two super powers, felt constrained in a way, and also because a large number of refugees came from the communist countries, and at that time India saw UNHCR and its activities more linked with western countries of Europe and America. But this situation has changed now. In reality the UNHCR activities are now primarily focused on the developing countries. Perhaps it is the right time to reassess some of these issues. We also recognize that there is need to evolve the convention - for additional agreement or protocol that could take up the concerns of the countries like India.
Q. Don’t you think that instead of persuading the country like India to sign the Convention, UNHCR should consider its valid concerns and do accordingly to make the Convention more realistic and adequate to address the existing realities of the world? Is UNHCR doing something in this regard?
Actually the High Commission has launched an initiative that is called Convention Plus. Because it has realized that there is a need for something more than the current Convention. And we are trying to see that whether one could have some new agreements. One major issue is the question of resettlement of the refugees or the organized transfer of refugees. Now it happens in very small number. Perhaps one could increase that. But more importantly, there is need to address the concern of how the developmental assistance for refugees could be used much more effectively to support the countries that have the biggest burden in receiving the refugees. The first country of asylum doesn’t only need Unitarian assistance to support the refugees, but also the local population in those areas is heavily impacted whenever there is mass influx of refugees in that region. So there is need to direct some of developmental funds to those areas or regions which have high impact of refugees to sustain the pressure, also so that the refugees do not feel the need to migrate illegally to other areas. So there is a discussion that has started in the executive committee of the UNHCR. And I think India is very much interested in seeing this discussion leading to some concrete results. We feel that if there is a Convention Plus and there are new agreements to make the international framework stronger, then perhaps India would be ready one day to sign the 51 Convention.
Q. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is present in India, but the government permits the agency access only to refugees living in urban centers and does not formally recognize UNHCR grants of refugee status (although it has provided ‘residential permits’ to many Afghans and Myanmar refugees). India considers Tibetans and Sri Lankan in camps to be prima facie refugees but regards most other groups as economic migrants. Do such rules create confusion in smooth functioning of UNHCR in India?
Of course, the entry of refugees is very fundamental to any country. And also if one does not have access to border areas, it is difficult to perform the monitoring role successfully. So there is that limitation. But I want to say that although we have in operational terms a limited role to play, it is well understandable, because India takes responsibility for a large group of refugees here, especially from Tibet and Sri Lanka. So there is no need for UNHCR to intervene directly, because the Indian government has resources that it makes available to support the large groups of refugees. But that is also true that there are perhaps other issues where we are somewhat constrained.
Q. What is your assessment about the condition of particularly Tibetan refugees in India? Especially when their spiritual and religious head Dalai Lama runs a government from here?
I think it is a big success story for India. It is almost exemplary in the way India has dealt with Tibetan refugees and it can really feel proud. First when the largest group of Tibetans came in 1960s, India established settlements for these people so that they could become self-supporting in rural areas. This was largely very impressive and very positive action. Recently of course you see many Tibetans have started trading and are also engaged in many commercial activities in urban areas. They have been educated here. They can manage on their own very well. I think there is no need for UNHCR to involve with Tibetan refugees in India. This has been and is being dealt with by the Government of India very satisfactorily. UNHCR is though involved in Nepal, where still a trickle of Tibetan refugees are coming there. So when they enter from China into Nepal our office there assists them in getting necessary facilities.
Q. The 18-year conflict between Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese Buddhists majority and Tamil Hindu minority has led to more than 144,000 Sri Lankan Tamils to seek refuge in India. Some 64,000 of the refugees live in state-run camps in Tamil Nadu. The state government provides the refugees with cash assistance and food rations, as well as space to build homes. All refugees may receive social service available to Indians and are permitted to work and attend school. However, while some of the refugee camps are well maintained, others are badly neglected, with inadequate sanitation and insufficient provision of clean drinking water, food etc. Your comment?
We don’t have direct access to the refugee camps in Tamil Nadu. We don’t go there. Still we are helping in the voluntary repatriation of refugees from the camps in Tamil Nadu. We do that and we work closely with state authorities in Tamil Nadu. But we don’t visit the camps. We have no need to go and check and we don’t really know the condition of refugees in these camps. That is the responsibility of commissioner of refugees and state authorities in Tamil Nadu. But we have an office in Chennai to assist in voluntary repatriation work.
I understand that the Government of India spends about 5 million dollars on the refugee camps in Tamil Nadu. So we could come in the picture only when government of India would make a request for our assistance in case they feel they don’t have adequate resources to deal with the situation. But I do know the European Commission has provided some support for the activities in some of the camps in Tamil Nadu. In any case we have to work with the government and we have to find the way when the government feels that we are contributing positively. When the government is managing very well on its own, there is no need for us to get involved.
Q. Between October and December last year, an estimated 5,000 to 20,000 Bangladeshi Hindus and other minorities fled to India seeking asylum. India, however, did not welcome the Bangladeshis as refugees, instead calling them ‘economic migrants’ or even intruders. Indian officials reportedly arrested many of the asylum seekers for illegally crossing the border, placed them in jail and said that they would be returned to Bangladesh. Has UNHCR ever interfered in this issue? What is the UNHCR’s stand regarding the Bangladeshi refugees in India?
Actually there is a large inflow of Bangladeshi people into India. I personally feel that they are basically coming here for economic reason rather than due to any political or military provocations, which could make them refugees in the real sense. So I agree with the stand of the Government of India. From time to time there may be problems for religious communities, but there is no mechanism to identify refugees from Bangladesh. But mostly they enter India, especially in North-east, for economic reasons. There is a big problem of economic migrants. There needs to be a clear-cut procedure to deal with them. I won’t qualify that primarily a refugee problem; it is more a question of economic migration.
Q. What is the definition of Refugees under UN convention?
Refugees are those people, who have well-founded fear of prosecution due to his race, religion, nationality, or due to his particular opinion or political stand or due to belonging to a particular group. So there has be an element of threat there, along with the fear of prosecution. It is just not because somebody is feeling prosecuted due to some minor discrimination or inconvenience in the country of their origin that he can benefit from the refugee status. There has to be some serious threat to life or freedom to the people who are seeking asylum in other country as refugees.
Q. Some 13,149 UNHCR-recognized refugees live in urban centers in India, mostly in New Delhi. A large majority, some 12,000, was from Afghanistan. Smaller number from Myanmar (876), Iran (95), Somalia (68), Sudan (67) and elsewhere. Further, it is said that there are still more than 40,000 Afghans living in refugee-like conditions in India. What needs to be done?
I cannot say about the exact number of Afghan refugees. It is really difficult to say the right figure as they have moved to different part of the country. Most of the refugees from Afghanistan are Afghani Sikhs or Hindus. For them the situation over there is perhaps still not very conducive, so it may not be feasible for them in near future to go back to the country of their origin. So the majority of them, we think, probably would prefer to stay in India, and some of them have already started applying to be naturalized as Indian citizens. There are a few, say 400-500, who have already applied for Indian citizenship. And their applications have been filed. The entire process will take perhaps a couple of years.
Q. Do you have any scheme to facilitate this process and help refuges in this task?
We have involved one NGO, Slick, that is helping them in this process. They follow up the individual cases. It is really very complicated process. But eventually we hope that many of the Indian origin Afghans will be able to stay here. Especially the younger generation people don’t want to go back to Afghanistan. Many of them are already well integrated here. Then you have a small group of ethnic Afghans. There are about 1000 such persons. Some of them will still go for resettlement to other countries. But most of them will not qualify according to our criteria for resettlement to other countries and eventually they will have to go back to Afghanistan because there has been a change in situation there. Of course still the conditions in many parts of that country are unstable. But nevertheless there has been a huge improvement. And in this process India and other countries are trying to help to stabilise the situation in Afghanistan. But among the refugees in New Delhi, only about 400 people have gone back to Afghanistan with the help of UNHCR. We have a programme to assist those who want to go back. So we help them with air tickets and some small stipend.
Q. What are the rules for refugees? Is any government under any legal obligation to grant asylum to people fleeing from any area?
No, there is no legal obligation. Nor can we force a country to take a group of people as refugees. When a country has signed the 19951 convention, then of course that country is expected in a way. But even in such a situation if that country has valid reason not to accept the asylum seekers, or feels that certain category of refugees cannot remain in that country, UNHCR has no authority to force it. What we normally do in such cases is to look for resettlement of those refugees in other country.
Q. Recently the fund for UNHCR India operation has been curtailed substantially. Has it been done purportedly? What will be its impact?
Actually there is a misunderstanding here. People think that because we have reduced the subsistence allowance. What we have really done is that we have diverted some of the fund to human resource development programmes. That costs money. We think that it is better to try to give them skill and other training to make them self-dependent instead of giving them cash. However, of course the fund has never been enough as there is so much to do always. The refugees are complaining for example that we only pay Rs 2, 500 a year to student for books, uniform and other expenses. In fact some of the refugees have also been complaining that they should get the cost of private school education or medical expenses in costly private hospitals. Since the government of India has allowed them to go to government schools or hospitals, we see no reason to provide them money for private expenses. That is not possible and it won’t be fair either. As perhaps some of the local population will feel frustrated and we would be encouraging the growth of a sort of privileged class among the refugees. So we have to maintain a balance. I can tell you that refugees in India, as compared to their situation in many other countries, both in legal and material terms, is in no way inferior, if not better. So some of the complaints might be valid, but most of them are exaggerated.
Q. After the change in the situation can the refugees be forced to go back to the countries they originally belonged to?
Yes, there is a clause in 1951 convention, under the Cessation Paragraph, that tells that if there is a fundamental change that led to the flight in the first case, and this change is durable or of permanent nature say due to dictatorship or military rule, the people under threat are granted refugee status. But if there is a general election or democratic system reestablished again in that country, then basically these refugees are expected to return to their country of the origin. So they could be told by the country that has given them asylum that you have to go back now. Normally such change in situation takes place after a long period of time. After the restoration of the normalcy, technically they are not considered as refugees. So actually it depends on the government of asylum to allow them to live there or not. This has happened in many countries like Latin America or Chili, from where people had fled and when situation became normal again in those countries, they came back to their country of the origin. In fact refugees always want to go back to their country of origin, waiting for the normalization of the condition there. Take the example of Sri Lankan refugees here, they are hoping for the Government and the LTTE will find a solution so that there will be a permanent peace there, and they could return to their home.
Q. What are the future plans of UNHCR?
I don’t think there will be any substantial change in our programme in near future from what we are already doing. What we are hoping for, of course, is that the naturalization project for the Afghans of Indian origin will take off and will be successful. That will lead to the reduction in the number of people registered as refugees here. We are also hoping for change in the condition in Sri Lanka so that they could voluntarily return from the camps in Tmil Nadu. These are two perhaps major changes we are hoping for, that would lead to a reduction in refugee cases over here. Also if there is real change in condition in Afghanistan then a large number of Afghanis will go back. That will reduce the number of refugees here further. So we are very focused on finding the durable solution of refugee problems. We would hope that in next few years the number of refugees in India would come down. We are also hoping that the new Indian government will look at these issues in a positive manner and pass some legislation that would separate refugees from other foreigners. Currently there is only the Foreigners Act and there is no special recognition for refugees in the Indian legislation. Although the Constitution of India allows for the protection of refugees here and India government has been doing it, but a proper legislation will be better. That would be an important change in the coming years.
Q. Are you enjoying your term in India? Will you please narrate some of your interesting experiences?
Yes greatly. I enjoy my work here. I have been here for two years. Working with refugees here is extremely interesting because it is connected with almost all neighbouring countries. We have people from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Bhutan and Tibets. We also have problems of Nepal, though of course they are not technically accepted as refugees here. Then we have China. So altogether it is very interesting from political point of view also. I must say that we increasingly have very positive relations with the Ministry of External Affairs, Home Affairs and state authorities in Tamil Nadu. They all are very cooperative, helpful and sympathetic to find solution to refugee problems. Although we don’t have a large programme here or large operational activity, my term here has been very rewarding.
|
