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
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.