Image Courtesy: NDTV

Pointing out that four million residents were excluded from Assam’s final draft list, leading to “uncertainty over the status of these individuals, many of whose families had lived in the state for several generations”, the report regrets, the Indian law does not even contain the term “refugee,” treating refugees like Rohingiyas as “any other foreigners.” The present Indian regime has also come in for criticism: “Undocumented physical presence in the country is a criminal offense. Persons without documentation were vulnerable to forced returns and abuse”, the report says.
 
The entire report may be read here:  https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/289490.pdf
 
The entire text of the chapter from the report titled “Freedom of Movement”:
The law provides for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation. The government generally respected these rights. In 2015 the implementation of a land-boundary agreement between India and Bangladesh enfranchised more than 50,000 previously stateless residents, providing access to education and health services.

The country hosts a large refugee population, including 108,005 Tibetan refugees and approximately 90,000 refugees from Sri Lanka. The government generally allows the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to assist asylum seekers and refugees from noncontiguous countries and Burma. In many cases refugees and asylum seekers under UNHCR’s mandate reported increased challenges regularizing their status through long-term visas and residence permits. Rohingya refugees were registered by UNHCR but not granted legal status by the government.

Abuse of Migrants, Refugees, and Stateless Persons: The law does not contain the term “refugee,” treating refugees like any other foreigners. Undocumented physical presence in the country is a criminal offense. Persons without documentation were vulnerable to forced returns and abuse.

The courts protected refugees and asylum seekers in accordance with the constitution.

Refugees reported exploitation by nongovernment actors, including assaults, gender-based violence, fraud, and labor exploitation. Problems of domestic violence, sexual abuse, and early and forced marriage also continued. Gender-based violence and sexual abuse were common in camps for Sri Lankans. Most urban refugees worked in the informal sector or in occupations such as street vending, where they suffered from police extortion, nonpayment of wages, and exploitation.

UNHCR and NGOs observed an increase in antirefugee (specifically anti-Rohingya) rhetoric throughout the year in advance of state and 2019 national elections, which reportedly led to an increased sense of insecurity in refugee communities. On October 4, the Supreme Court rejected a plea to stop the deportation of seven Rohingya immigrants from Assam. The court noted the individuals, held in an Assam jail since 2012, were arrested by Indian authorities as illegal immigrants and that Burma was ready to accept them as their nationals.

According to media reports, the nationality of the immigrants was confirmed after the Burmese government verified their addresses in Rakhine State. Rights groups said the government’s decision to deport them placed them at risk of oppression and abuse. According to HRW, the government deported the seven ethnic Rohingya Muslims to Burma where “they are at grave risk of oppression and abuse.” HRW further noted, “The Indian government has disregarded its long tradition of protecting those seeking refuge within its borders.”

In-country Movement: The central government relaxed restrictions on travel by foreigners to Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, and parts of Jammu and Kashmir, excluding foreign nationals from Pakistan, China, and Burma. The Ministry of Home Affairs and state governments required citizens to obtain special permits upon arrival when traveling to certain restricted areas.

Foreign Travel: The government may legally deny a passport to any applicant for engaging in activities outside the country “prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.”

The trend of delaying issuance and renewal of passports to citizens from the state of Jammu and Kashmir continued, sometimes up to two years. The government reportedly subjected applicants born in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, including children born to military officers deployed in the state, to additional scrutiny and police clearances before issuing them passports.

Citizenship: On July 31, the government of Assam published the final draft of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), a document intended to define individuals with a claim to citizenship in a state that experienced an influx of foreigners in 1971. In 1985 the government declared that anyone who entered Assam without proper documentation after March 24, 1971, would be declared a foreigner.

The names of four million residents were excluded from the final draft list, leading to uncertainty over the status of these individuals, many of whose families had lived in the state for several generations. Individuals will be required to go through an appeals process to have their names included in the final list of Indian citizens.

The Supreme Court is overseeing the process, and four million individuals were given 60 days from September 25 to file a claim or objection. On September 24, ruling BJP party president Amit Shah called Bangladeshis who may be in Assam “termites” who will be struck from the list of citizens.

Internally displaced persons
Authorities located IDP settlements throughout the country, including those containing groups displaced by internal armed conflicts in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Maoist-affected areas, the northeastern states and Gujarat. The 2018 annual report of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center asserted 806,000 individuals were displaced because of conflict and violence as of December 2017, with 78,000 new displacements due to conflict in 2017.

Estimating precise numbers of those displaced by conflict or violence was difficult, because the government does not monitor the movements of displaced persons, and humanitarian and human rights agencies had limited access to camps and affected regions. While authorities registered residents of IDP camps, an unknown number of displaced persons resided outside the camps. Many IDPs lacked sufficient food, clean water, shelter, and health care.

National policy or legislation did not address the issue of internal displacement resulting from armed conflict or from ethnic or communal violence. The welfare of IDPs was generally the purview of state governments and local authorities, allowing for gaps in services and poor accountability. The central government provided limited assistance to IDPs, but they had access to NGOs and human rights organizations, although neither access nor assistance was standard for all IDPs or all situations.
NGOs estimated Gotti Koya tribe members displaced due to prior paramilitary operations against Maoists numbered 50,000 in Chhattisgarh and 27,000 in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. In October 2017 the Hyderabad High Court directed the Telangana government not to displace the Gotti Koya tribal members or demolish their dwelling units.

Refoulement: The government detained Rohingya in many of the northeastern states of the country. For example, after serving the allotted time for illegal entry into the country, the government obtained travel permits for seven Rohingya refugees from Burmese authorities and, according to media reports on October 4, the seven Rohingya were transported from prison to the border town of Moreh in Manipur state to be deported.

In July, Minister of State Kiren Rijiju informed the lower house of parliament that the Ministry of Home Affairs instructed state governments to identify Rohingya migrants through the collection of biometric data. The Ministry of Home Affairs directed state governments to monitor Rohingya and restrict their movements to specific locations. The government advocated for the return of Rohingya migrants to Burma.

Access to Asylum: Absent a legal framework, the government sometimes granted asylum on a situational basis on humanitarian grounds in accordance with international law. This approach resulted in varying standards of protection for different refugee and asylum seeker groups. The government recognized refugees from Tibet and Sri Lanka and honored UNHCR decisions on refugee status determination for individuals from other countries, including Afghanistan.

UNHCR did not have an official agreement with the government but maintained an office in New Delhi where it registered refugees and asylum seekers from noncontiguous countries and Burma, made refugee status determinations, and provided some services. The office’s reach outside of New Delhi was limited, however. The government permitted UNHCR staff access to refugees in other urban centers and allowed it to operate in Tamil Nadu to assist with Sri Lankan refugee repatriation.

Authorities did not permit UNHCR direct access to Sri Lankan refugee camps, Tibetan settlements, or asylum seekers in Mizoram, but it did permit asylum seekers from Mizoram to travel to New Delhi to meet UNHCR officials. Refugees outside New Delhi faced added expense and time to register their asylum claims.

The government generally permitted other NGOs, international humanitarian organizations, and foreign governments access to Sri Lankan refugee camps and Tibetan settlements, but it generally denied access to asylum seekers in Mizoram. The government denied requests for some foreigners to visit Tibetan settlements in Ladakh.

After the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, the government ceased registering Sri Lankans as refugees. The Tamil Nadu government assisted UNHCR by providing exit permission for Sri Lankan refugees to repatriate voluntarily. The benefits provided to Sri Lankan Tamil refugees by the state government of Tamil Nadu were applicable only within the state. The central government approved the extension of funding to run the camps until 2020.

Employment: The government granted work authorization to many UNHCR-registered refugees, and others found employment in the informal sector. Some refugees reported discrimination by employers.

Access to Basic Services: Although the country generally allowed recognized refugees and asylum seekers access to housing, primary and secondary education, health care, and the courts, access varied by state and by population. Refugees were able to use public services, although access became more complicated during the year because many refugees were unable to acquire the digitized identity (Aadhaar) card necessary to use some services.

In cases where refugees were denied access, it was often due to a lack of knowledge of refugee rights by the service provider. In many cases UNHCR was able to intervene successfully and advocate for refugee access. The government allowed UNHCR-registered refugees and asylum seekers to apply for long-term visas that would provide work authorization and access to higher education, although the rate of renewal for long-term visas slowed significantly. For undocumented asylum seekers, UNHCR provided a letter upon registration indicating the person was under consideration for UNHCR refugee status.

The government did not fully complete a 2012 Ministry of Home Affairs directive to issue long-term visas to Rohingya. It has reportedly slowed renewals for those with long-term visas significantly, limiting access to formal employment in addition to education, health services, and bank accounts.

Sri Lankan refugees were permitted to work in Tamil Nadu. Police, however, reportedly summoned refugees back into the camps on short notice, particularly during sensitive political times such as elections, and required refugees or asylum seekers to remain in the camps for several days.

Government services such as mother and child health programs were available. Refugees were able to request protection from police and courts as needed.

The government did not accept refugees for resettlement from other countries.

Stateless persons
By law parents confer citizenship, and birth in the country does not automatically result in citizenship. Any person born in the country on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1987, obtained Indian citizenship by birth. A child born in the country on or after July 1, 1987, obtained citizenship if either parent was an Indian citizen at the time of the child’s birth.

Authorities consider those born in the country on or after December 3, 2004, citizens only if at least one parent was a citizen and the other was not illegally present in the country at the time of the child’s birth.

Authorities considered persons born outside the country on or after December 10, 1992, citizens if either parent was a citizen at the time of birth, but authorities do not consider those born outside the country after December 3, 2004, citizens unless their birth was registered at an Indian consulate within one year of the date of birth. 

Authorities can also confer citizenship through registration under specific categories and via naturalization after residing in the country for 12 years. Tibetans reportedly sometimes faced difficulty acquiring citizenship despite meeting the legal requirements.

The Assam state government began a process to update the NRC to determine who has legal claim to citizenship in the country, and who is determined to have migrated illegally per a 2014 Supreme Court order. According to official reports, the government has excluded an estimated four million persons from the NRC draft list published on July 30. 

The central and state governments indicated that all persons not listed were able to file claims and objections for 60 days from September 25. The future legal status of those excluded is not clear. Many individuals may be declared citizens at the end of the process, while others may be at risk of statelessness.

According to UNHCR and NGOs, the country had a large population of stateless persons, but there were no reliable estimates. Stateless populations included Chakmas and Hajongs, who entered the country in the early 1960s from present-day Bangladesh, and groups affected by the 1947 partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan. 

In September 2017 the central government stated it would appeal to the Supreme Court to review its 2015 order to consider citizenship for approximately 70,000 Chakma and Hajong refugees. Media quoted Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju saying the Supreme Court order was “unimplementable.”

Children born in Sri Lankan refugee camps received Indian birth certificates. While Indian birth certificates alone do not entitle refugees to Indian citizenship, refugees may present Indian birth certificates to the Sri Lankan High Commission to obtain a consular birth certificate, which entitles them to pursue Sri Lankan citizenship. 

According to the Organization for Eelam Refugees’ Rehabilitation, approximately 16,000 of 27,000 Sri Lankan refugee children born in the refugee camps have presented birth certificates to the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission in Chennai. According to UNHCR, the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission issued 2,858 birth certificates during the year.

UNHCR and refugee advocacy groups estimated that between 25,000 and 28,000 of the approximately 90,000 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees living in Tamil Nadu were “hill country” Tamils. While Sri Lankan law allows “hill country” refugees to present affidavits to secure Sri Lankan citizenship, UNHCR believed that until the Sri Lankan government processes the paperwork, such refugees were at risk of becoming stateless.
 

The post Amit Shah called out for calling Bangladeshis ‘termites’: US Govt Report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Once again, xenophobia got the better of reason

The quality of political discourse has been in steep decline of late in India. Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has accused the very reputed Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) of waging war against India. 

And that is not all. In a recent broadside against Rahul Gandhi, who described Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a chowkidar who has turned into a chor — a sentry who is now a thief — Sitharaman let out the tweet that the entire family of the Congress president was a bunch of thieves. 

“Rahul Gandhi ka khandan chor hai,” as she put it. 

Gandhi’s ire at the prime minister was aroused by what has come to be known as the Rafale affair, implicating the government in a questionable purchase of 36 Rafale jets for the air force from France. The firm authorized to handle the purchase was Anil Ambani’s Reliance group. Apparently the Indian authorities attempted to depict the choice of Reliance as a French initiative. 

That prompted a quick retort from Francois Hollande, who was French president in 2015 when he and Modi met in summitry, to the effect that his government had no choice over the Reliance decision. Indeed, said a statement from Hollande’s office, it was the Indians who proposed the name.

Sitharaman apart, prominent political figures in the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have been causing tremors in the South Asian region. Amit Shah, the president of the BJP, has been speaking of his worries over “illegal migrants” from Bangladesh. In his reflections on the subject, he focuses on the tens of thousands of Bengalis from Bangladesh, in his view, who have infiltrated India and taken up jobs which could well have gone to Indians. 

In an age of increasing xenophobia, all the way from Donald Trump’s America to increasingly right-wing-dominated Europe to Hindutva India, such outlandish nationalism is only to be expected. But what did shock people in India and Bangladesh was the facile manner in which Amit Shah referred to “illegal” Bangladeshis as termites who needed to be picked one by one and flung out of India. 

His tone was one of fury, an attitude which Indian politicians usually reserve for Pakistanis. But describing Bangladeshis as having entered India in unauthorized manner and insulting them as termites hits a new low even for the BJP.

Our sense of history reminds us, in light of Amit Shah’s termite-related politics, of the evil which Rwanda’s Hutus perpetrated against its Tutsis in 1994. The Tutsis were referred to as cockroaches which needed to be crushed if Rwanda was to be a pure country for its majority Hutus. 

What followed was predictable: Within a matter of days, as many as 800,000 Tutsis were done to death through a cheerful wielding of knives and machetes. The pogrom would not have stopped had Paul Kagame, himself a Tutsi, not entered Kigali forcefully in triumph and steered the country back to a semblance of civilized order. 

In Rwanda today, no one can speak of those dark times without feeling deep pain over the cockroach approach to murder. And now, we have men like Amit Shah spot in their advocacy of a nationalism that has been a subtle but absolute rejection of the political liberalism which underscored India till the advent of the BJP administration in Delhi.

For Bangladesh, the truth today centres around factors which call for vigorous diplomacy on its part to be handled. The BJP government in Assam has already muddied the waters through coming forth with the ill-advised National Register of Citizens, a weapon which, once it has identified real Indian citizens in the state, will go after those whose names did not make it to the NRC. 

Once again, xenophobia got the better of reason when the Assam authorities coolly informed the world that as many as 4,000,000 illegal migrants from Bangladesh had been identified. The implication was not hard to miss: These 4,000,000 people are now aliens, foreigners, or interlopers who cannot stay in India but will have to leave it. 

And go where? Silly question, that. There is Bangladesh, which is their home, say these purveyors of the new politics playing out in India. And what if Bangladesh refuses to accept them as its own, indeed, seals its borders with Assam?

That last question has not had a response, save for some right-wing Indian politicians to suggest that they will try to convince Bangladesh into accepting these 4,000,000 people whose names are missing on the NRC. It really does not matter for the Assam authorities that among the individuals whose names have not figured on the NRC and who now face the prospect of becoming stateless are a former chief minister of the state, and a Muslim at that, and a former judge of the High Court. 

Topping it all are the innumerable cases of Indians whose ancestors have lived, worked, and died in Assam for generations, and who have the documents to prove that they are not Bengalis.

Their stories have not been taken into consideration. For the BJP-wallahs in Assam, they are Bengalis from Bangladesh who have lived, married, and worked in the state in illegal manner and must now have their comeuppance.

Amit Shah’s termite politics has taken a big page out of Assam’s NRC textbook. One cannot be quite sure others in India will not follow in his footsteps.

For Bangladesh, already burdened with the weight of over a million Rohingya on its frail shoulders, the imperative today is for an initiation and practice of smart diplomacy. 

With Aung San Suu Kyi and her generals cheerfully putting the finishing touches to the genocide against the Rohingyas; with Assam’s NRC stealthily working away to deport 4,000,000 of its people on flimsy grounds; and now with a leading politician of the ruling BJP coming down hard on the illegal migrants issue, policy-makers in Bangladesh have a tough job on their hands. 

They need all the ingenuity and all the diplomatic skills they can muster in reassuring their people that matters will not go out of hand.

Will they do that? Can they do that? 

Syed Badrul Ahsan is a journalist.

First Published on Dhaka Tribune

The post View from Bangladesh: Amit Shah and his termite politics appeared first on SabrangIndia.