In view of the present quandary in the world due to the ongoing crises in South Sudan and Syria, the humanitarian importance of the World Refugee Day, June 20, stands validated more than ever before. The observance of the World Refugee Day was started at the behest of the United Nations from 2001 to commemorate the abject distress faced by the forcefully displaced persons and raise awareness about their situation worldwide.
As per the Global Trends Report on Forced Displacement in 2016 published by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), 65.6 million individuals stood forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, or human rights violations by the end of 2016. There were 65.3 million of them worldwide at the end of 2015. That was an increase of 300,000 people over 2015, and the world’s forcibly displaced population remained at a record high.
The UNHCR defines a refugee as
“someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.”
The main difference between the terms “refugee” and “migrant” is that migrants choose to move to improve their lives as opposed to evading a direct threat of persecution or death. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government.
At the international level, the most comprehensive legally binding policy detailing the standards for the treatment of refugees is the ‘United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees’, popularly known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, ratified by 145 state parties on 28th July 1951.
The 1951 Convention was initially designed as a post World War II instrument, protecting persons fleeing events that predated January 1st, 1951 and within Europe. So far, it has undergone only one amendment in the form of the 1967 Protocol which removed these temporal and spatial limitations, thus giving the Convention universal applicability.
While majority of the world are parties to the multilateral agreement, India continues to desist acceding to it. However, the Indian government largely abides by the principle of non-refoulement, which is the cornerstone of the Convention.
It prevents any form of expulsions or non-admittance at the frontier by state machinery of the asylum country against the will of the refugee or stateless person, unless such measures are dictated by reasons of national security or public order.
Though India does not have any legal documentation of its refugee policy, the Indian course of action has largely been a liberal one, allowing political asylum seekers to settle within the Indian borders.
For example, Dalai Lama had been provided political asylum in India at the risk of deterioration in relationships with China. At the end of 2016, according to the UNHCR, there were 2,07,070 persons of concern in India, out of whom 1,97,851 were refugees and 9,219 were asylum seekers.
Over the years, thousands of refugees, including Tibetans, Afghans, Bangladeshi Chakmas and Sri Lankan Tamils have been provided shelter within India. But in view of the permeability of the international borders, it is difficult to pin down the exactitude of the very limited data available.
The Indian approach continues to be a de facto one, where the contemporary government devises its asylum policy on an ad hoc and case-to-case basis, at times motivated by local electoral goals. The Asylum Bill, 2015, a private member bill introduced in the Parliament by M.P. Shashi Tharoor, seeks “to provide for the establishment of an effective system to protect refugees and asylum seekers by means of an appropriate legal framework to determine claims for asylum and to provide for the rights and obligations flowing from such status and matters connected therewith”.
This however, is yet to receive legal status. Though there is no formal declaration from the UNHCR or from the Indian government stating precise reasons for not signing the Convention, the existing opinion in academia is that the looming threat on political stability, internal security and international relations mainly prohibit India from ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The highly porous nature of the international borders in South Asian countries poses a major impediment to the implementation the Eurocentric formulations in the policy. It would be extremely difficult to put in place effective border control measures to supervise population entry that the 1951 Refugee Convention demands.
These issues are effectively dealt with by most of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) members through bilateral agreements. Furthermore, there remains a concern for the socio-economic and cultural composition within the border states of India. Most South Asian nationalities harbour deeply embedded cultural identities.
Although on one side, the already existing stress on the available infrastructure and employment opportunities makes it difficult for developing countries to accommodate sudden spikes in population, on the other, cross-border movement of population has been a historically accepted phenomenon. Given the problems that India faces with respect to international migration, it would be difficult for the Indian government to guarantee fair treatment to the multitudes whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically linked beyond boundaries, which would be binding under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Petrol in India is cheaper than in countries like Hong Kong, Germany and the UK but costlier than in China, Brazil, Japan, the US, Russia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Bank of Baroda Economics Research report showed.
Rising fuel prices in India have led to considerable debate on which government, state or central, should be lowering their taxes to keep prices under control.
The rise in fuel prices is mainly due to the global price of crude oil (raw material for making petrol and diesel) going up. Further, a stronger dollar has added to the cost of crude oil.
Amongst comparable countries (per capita wise), prices in India are higher than those in Vietnam, Kenya, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Countries that are major oil producers have much lower prices.
In the report, the Philippines has a comparable petrol price but has a per capita income higher than India by over 50 per cent.
Countries which have a lower per capita income like Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Venezuela have much lower prices of petrol and hence are impacted less than India.
“Therefore there is still a strong case for the government to consider lowering the taxes on fuel to protect the interest of the people,” the report argued.
India is the world’s third-biggest oil consuming and importing nation. It imports 85 per cent of its oil needs and so prices retail fuel at import parity rates.
With the global surge in energy prices, the cost of producing petrol, diesel and other petroleum products also went up for oil companies in India.
They raised petrol and diesel prices by Rs 10 a litre in just over a fortnight beginning March 22 but hit a pause button soon after as the move faced criticism and the opposition parties asked the government to cut taxes instead.
India imports most of its oil from a group of countries called the ‘OPEC +’ (i.e, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Russia, etc), which produces 40% of the world’s crude oil.
As they have the power to dictate fuel supply and prices, their decision of limiting the global supply reduces supply in India, thus raising prices
The government charges about 167% tax (excise) on petrol and 129% on diesel as compared to US (20%), UK (62%), Italy and Germany (65%).
The abominable excise duty is 2/3rd of the cost, and the base price, dealer commission and freight form the rest.
Here is an approximate break-up (in Rs):
a)Base Price | 39 |
b)Freight | 0.34 |
c) Price Charged to Dealers = (a+b) | 39.34 |
d) Excise Duty | 40.17 |
e) Dealer Commission | 4.68 |
f) VAT | 25.35 |
g) Retail Selling Price | 109.54 |
Looked closely, much of the cost of petrol and diesel is due to higher tax rate by govt, specifically excise duty.
So the question is why government is not reducing the prices ?
India, being a developing country, it does require gigantic amount of funding for its infrastructure projects as well as welfare schemes.
However, we as a society is yet to be tax-compliant. Many people evade the direct tax and that’s the reason why govt’s hands are tied. Govt. needs the money to fund various programs and at the same time it is not generating enough revenue from direct taxes.
That’s the reason why, govt is bumping up its revenue through higher indirect taxes such as GST or excise duty as in the case of petrol and diesel.
Direct taxes are progressive as it taxes according to an individuals’ income however indirect tax such as excise duty or GST are regressive in the sense that the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich have to pay the same amount.
Does not matter, if you are an auto-driver or owner of a Mercedes, end of the day both pay the same price for petrol/diesel-that’s why it is regressive in nature.
But unlike direct tax where tax evasion is rampant, indirect tax can not be evaded due to their very nature and as long as huge no of Indians keep evading direct taxes, indirect tax such as excise duty will be difficult for the govt to reduce, because it may reduce the revenue and hamper may programs of the govt.