HVK Archives: No paradise beyond the borders
No paradise beyond the borders - The Telegraph
Lok Raj Baral
()
31 March 1997
Title: No paradise beyond the borders
Author : Lok Raj Baral
Publication : The Telegraph
Date : March 31, 1997
Generally speaking, peoples who migrate from one place to another
voluntarily or by design are termed migrants. But peoples who
differ from spontaneous or sponsored migrants become refugees.
Refugees are forced to leave their homes because of a change in
their environment. This makes it impossible for them to continue
life as they have known it. Thus, for refugees, coercive factors
are more pronounced than voluntary factors.
The two categories, migrants and refugees, however, often overlap
as the environment under which migration takes place is equally
harsh. Disparity in wealth and income differentials work as push
factors. Push and pull factors impel the movements of peoples
either for income maximization or for avoidance of repressive
conditions.
It has been observed that labour migration is basically an
individual decision dictated by compelling reasons in the home
country. Migration also works on the "network theory". Migrant
workers form sets of inter-personal ties that connect migrants,
former migrants and non-migrants in destination areas through ties
of kinship, friendship and shared community origin. Indo-Nepalese
migratory trends exemplify this trend.
Migration by design and by individual will are also features of
Indo-Nepalese migration. Recruitment of Gorkha troops in armies -
British and Indian - is designed, a result of the tripartite
arrangement among India, Nepal and the United Kingdom.
"Rejected peoples" expelled from either country on religious,
ethnic or other grounds achieve refugee status if they gain the
attention of other countries and international agencies. The latter
must ,determine whether the former come within the ambit of the
accepted definition of refugees. Peoples having such backgrounds
for migration are "dumped" upon a neighbouring country in the hope
they will be accepted as they share the ethnicity of groups within
the receiving society.
Repatriation of refugees with dignity and the refusal of the
refugee sending countries to honour it has often delayed the
process of repatriation. Socio-economic, political and
psychological considerations of borne countries stand in the way of
repatriation. Even if refugee expatriates return after realizing
an acceptable degree of peace and stability, their efforts are
frustrated by a combination of factors. Thus, the rights of
refugees to return and ,live peacefully suffer despite various
attempts made by the United Nation's human rights institutions and
non-governmental organizations.
Although there is a close connection between the displaced peoples
and war affected populations which come within the scope of
international refugee and international humanitarian laws, it is
difficult to reach an agreement ,with the countries of origin. The
problem "statelessness" has arisen with countries of origin denying
the displaced peoples the right of return. If both the refugee
generating and refugee receiving countries along with the first
asylum country adopt divergent approaches to the status of
refugees, the repatriation process becomes all the more
problematic.
The issue of Bhutanese refugees, particularly with regard to
harmonizing the positions of Bhutan and Nepal on verification, has
stalemated the bilateral dialogue. At the first meeting of the
ministerial committee held in Kathmandu in 1993, the two
delegations agreed to verify the status of refugees in the eight
camps of Nepal. Four categories of refugees were accepted those
evicted forcibly, Bhutanese who emigrated, non-Bhutanese people and
Bhutanese with criminal records.
Altogether, seven rounds of bilateral ministerial level talks have
been held till 1996. But no tangible progress has been made. The
two governments have not yet harmonized their positions on category
two - those who emigrated from Bhutan. This is because Bhutan has
continued to insist that verification be done on the basis of
citizenship and immigration laws of the two countries. It may be
recalled that under a retroactive Bhutanese citizenship law,
emigration automatically results in forfeiture of citizenship.
Also, as the Bhutanese authorities argue, their customs and
conventions do not permit people to retake citizenship once they
"leave" their country.
Nepal does not accept this position. According to Nepal, if Bhutan
insists on not accepting its people on the grounds of "voluntary"
emigration and if Nepal, India or any other country refuses to
recognize the refugees as citizens, then the latter become
"stateless persons".
Recently, an official. talk was held in Thimpu, Bhutan, which is
likely to pave the way for talks at the ministerial level. If the
refugee problem continues for a long time, there will be more
chances for the emergence of an economic burden, a political
liability, a foreign policy complication or all the above. Its
overall implications for security, environment and socio-economic
harmony are immeasurable.
Any refugee crisis is replete with some human rights and democratic
components. The UN convention on human rights and refugee related
international meetings work as anchors for refugees, who use every
opportunity to mount pressure on the defiant regime. And for a
receiving country, the refugee issue distracts attention of
governments from the proper maintenance of its civil society,
environment, stability, foreign policy and security.
Afghan refugees in Pakistan, Bhutanese refugees in Nepal, Tamil
refugees in Tamil Nadu, Bangladeshis in India, Rohingyas in Myanmar
and Chakma refugees in India have effects on civil society.
Religious fundamentalism, ethnicization of politics and society can
immediately be connected to the mass exodus of people.
The repercussions of the refugee problem on the development of
south Asian nations' state systems are no less significant.
Religious and ethnic divides and disparities in income and
opportunities are sources of conflict.
Another aspect of the refugee-society interrelationship is the
changed demographic structure of the receiving regions. Many
refugees and migrants evicted by push factors have now settled in
various parts of India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. It has been
said that in November 1995, about 1,000 refugee colonies were
legalized following a decision of the West Bengal government.
The Afghan refugees, Kashmiri Brahmins and Bangladeshis in Delhi
have not received legal status as refugees. Yet, Indian megacities
are increasingly turning into refugee destinations. India is an
asylum country for the Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka. There have
been waves of migrations following the violent ethnic clash in
1983. Today, the problem is about the repatriation of refugees.
The refugee population swelled in the Eighties and early Nineties
in south Asia. By the time the Geneva agreements were signed in
1988, the number of Afghan refugees in Pakistan was more than 3.5
million. Induction of armies and smuggling of drugs further
complicated the societal balance. Effects of refugee populations
on the environment are equally disturbing. Environment implies all
socio-cultural, economic, political and demographic dimensions As a
result, the economy is disturbed, the social environment polluted,
political equilibrium affected.
How refugee and security are inter-linked can be seen in many
refugee receiving countries. Pakistan and India continue to be
refugee receiving countries - India because of its centrality in
south Asia, Pakistan, because of its proximity to Afghanistan. The
emerging strategic scenario has made an impact on security.
Concentration of refugees in certain areas also causes "ecological
problems". As most refugees are poor, they become the greatest
threat to environmental security. But those Afghan refugees who
were rich started their own business or made investments in various
sectors. In the case of Bhutanese or Tamil refugees, such a
possibility was limited because of the predominantly poor coming
into Nepal and India. Only some educated Bhutanese refugees seem
to be engaged in professional or independent work.
Given south Asian countries' fragile ethnic fabric, and
environmental and economic problems, the refugee problem will have
telling effects on the stability of both governments and systems.
Karachi is perennially in conflict owing to the mutual hatred
between the Mohajir Quami Movement and other Muslim communities.
The issue of repatriation of more than 200,000 Bihari Muslims to
Pakistan is in cold storage. Bilateral relations between the two
countries often soured because of these refugees. Although refugees
in general do not pose a threat to national security in India -
because the refugee population is less in size than that of the
general migrants - it has wider security ramifications for all the
affected countries. So any complacency on the part of refugee
receiving countries is likely to create security problems in the
future. The West Bengal government has understood this implication
as its strategic part belongs to such a hypersensitive zone. Four
countries Bhutan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal are physically close
to one another.
Myron Weiner has succinctly described the situation when
governments receive or send refugees. For, "refugees to whom they
give protection may turn against them if they are unwilling to
assist the refugees in their opposition to the governments of their
country of origin. Paradoxically, the risk may be particularly high
if the host country has gone so far as to arm the refugees against
their country of origin". For some countries, large-scale
migrations also constitute security threats. Sometimes, migration
of all varieties is only a matter of perception of the elites. At
times, for smaller countries, it is a real danger to stability and
security.
Finally, the refugee issue is a foreign policy complication. It has
the potential of being used in coercive diplomacy. And the extreme
form of coercive diplomacy is armed intervention - as was witnessed
in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war.
Back
Top
|
