MR P.WILSON VALEDICTORY ADDRESS ON THE Need of Refugee Law in India ORGANISED BY UNIVERSITY LAW COLLEGE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

MR P.WILSON VALEDICTORY ADDRESS ON THE Need of Refugee Law in India ORGANISED BY UNIVERSITY LAW COLLEGE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

A very good evening to the guest of honour, my good friend Shri Mohan V. Katarki Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Prof. Dr K R Venugopal Vice chancellor Bangalore University, Prof Dr Suresh V Nadagoudar Principal and Chairman, various Dignitaries who are in this programme , the Faculty of this esteemed college, respected teachers and my dear students present here.

It gives me immense pleasure to give the valedictory address for this Model United Nation Conference 2021 on the Need of Refugee law in india, organised by University Law College & Dept. Of Studies in Law.

I was originally invited for inauguration but due to my predicaments, I was unable to join you.

I am thankful to the Principal and Chairman and the management for having extended their invite to join this Valedictory function and to deliver my key address.

Friends as the topic is about the “Need of Refugee Law in India” in light of recent developments, I would like to say few words on this topic.

The conundrum of the Refugee crisis has garnered unprecedented traction in the recent years in not just India but also around the world. Globalisation being at its far reaching peak, demands for an integrated society that looks beyond the utility of citizenship and sovereignty and calls for a transnational boundary that stimulates understanding and creates a sanctuary for the vulnerable against Wars of ethnicity, religion and race.

It is pertinent to note that India is not a signatory to 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees and the subsequent 1967 Protocol on status of refugees which indicates India’s persistent absence in the fight against the refugee crisis.

In recent years, we have been witness to the emergence of an influx of Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons and Stateless Persons into India, yet no proper law or policy exists to govern this plight. Due to the lack of any legislation to this effects can label all refugees and asylum seekers as “illegal migrants,” regardless of their legal status. Without a clear legal framework in place both at home and abroad, India has been free to adopt a flexible approach to the issue of refugees. According to famous Indian refugee law and international law scholar B.S. Chimni, India’s arbitrary asylum policy is characterised by “strategic ambiguity.”

Over the course of the civil war that broke out in 1983 in Srilanka, about 1,02,300 Sri Lankan Tamils manage to flee and found refuge in Tamil Nadu. They have been detained in camps in Tamilnadu since 1983. Nearly 38 years have gone these Srilankan Tamils are still residing in Tamilnadu as prisoners in the Special camps. Our Hon’be Chief Minister Mr MK Stalin to show that the state is taking care of their humanitarian needs has changed the name of these camps as rehabilitation camps instead of Refugee camps.

Since China’s 1951 takeover of Tibet, India has sheltered around 4,20,400 refugees, including 1,10,000 Tibetans.

After Muslim takeover of Bangladesh country in 1964, around 36,000 Buddhist ethnic Chakmas and Hajongs from present-day Bangladesh migrated to Arunachal Pradesh.

Although the exile government of Tibet was permitted in India, the Tamils who came during the Sri Lankan Civil War were placed in tightly controlled camps, on the contrary India is currently deporting thousands of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar. Refugees from different nations have received varying treatment in India. Bangladesh was the source of two significant refugee influxes. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) found that the Chakmas received substandard treatment when they were deported to their homeland in 1988. Compared to other refugee groups, Tibetans enjoyed superior care. A formal refugee determination procedure has been used for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, and the non-refoulement principle has been adhered to. The underlying problem of the treatment of refugees in India pertains to the inhuman treatment of such people in the camps they reside in. The rules are so severe that inter-mingling between the citizens and refugees are prohibited. A genocide against the Rohingya ethnic group resulted in the displacement of more than 7,00,000 people from Myanmar’s Rakhine state in 2017. Indian officials have maintained that deporting 40,000 Rohingyas who live in India poses a “national security” concern, and they stand by their position. As a result of its non-signatory status to both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol on Refugees, India has claimed that it is not obliged by the international refugee regime’s non-refoulement provisions.

Under international human rights law, the principle of non-refoulement guarantees that no one should be re- turned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other irreparable harm. This principle applies to all migrants at all times, irrespective of migration status. The principle of non-refoulement forms an essential protection under international human rights, refugee, humanitarian and customary law. It prohibits States from transferring or removing individuals from their jurisdiction or effective control when there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be at risk of irreparable harm upon return, including persecution, torture, ill- treatment or other serious human rights violations. Under international human rights law the prohibition of refoulement is explicitly included in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED). In regional instruments the principle is explicitly found in the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention of Torture, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. International human rights bodies, regional human rights courts, as well as national courts have guided that this principle is an implicit guarantee flowing from the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. Human rights treaty bodies regularly receive individual petitions concerning non-refoulement, including the Committee Against Torture, the Human Rights Committee, the Com- mittee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

This is a mere example of the fact that refugees are not treated with the same respect given to other people in India, despite the fact that at the end of the day, we are all humans. It is also important to recognise in a catena of judgments the courts believe that non refoulement is encompassed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the protection is available so long as the presence of the refugee is not prejudicial to the national security. This principle was applied by the High court of Manipur in the case of Nandita Haksar Vs State of Manipur which was recently decided in May 2021. In 1999, the case of Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union of India Gujarat High Court invoked the same principles.

The recent crisis in Afghanistan with the takeover by Taliban which lead to the natives fleeing to various countries is also not just a refugee crisis but a humanitarian crisis.

At the moment, there are only four methods to become a citizen of India: by birth; by registration; and by naturalisation. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) proposed by the Union Government says it will aid India’s neighbouring oppressed minorities by granting citizenship by naturalisation within six years to individuals who fall within its jurisdiction. To be sure, the statute only applies to the three Muslim-dominated nations of south Asia, where the majority of the migrants come from. For many, the CAA violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which promises “equality as a fundamental right to every individual” and clearly discriminates against persecuted Muslims (and Jews and atheists) from countries with Muslim majorities, like the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan by denying them the same access to citizenship as other Indian citizens.

Due to the fact that the legislation does not distinguish between real refugees and other types of foreigners, refugees who enter India without a valid passport or travel documents risk being arrested and prosecuted. If a refugee is found without proper travel papers at one of the specified sea ports, airports, or entrance points at the international border, he may be deported without his will under the terms of these laws. He might potentially be held and questioned while the administrative authorities decide whether or not to grant his request for refugee/asylum status. Another possibility for a refugee is that they might be prosecuted for violating the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 or the Rules promulgated thereunder. If they are, they could face imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine, or both.

Many times, however, courts have been punishing people for illegally entering India or engaging in unlawful activity while they are there. In addition, by releasing people while their refugee status is being determined, preventing them from being deported, and allowing them to contact the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (hereinafter referred to as UNHCR), refugees are still at risk of being apprehended, detained, and charged with violating Indian law. With the government’s aim to create a national Population Register (NPR) similar to Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC), the CAA might lead to large-scale deportations and detentions. All minorities who lack the proper documentation will be labelled “illegal migrants” under a national NPR. Non-Muslim refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, on the other hand, will be protected under the CAA and be able to naturalise like that of U.S. citizens.
You are all aware that a massive and violent exodus of people to and from Pakistan followed India’s creation as a nation during Partition. Because of the financial and political risks associated with refugee relocation and rehabilitation, as well as the international duties imposed, New Delhi has refused to ratify the 1951 Conventions. Refugees are now at the mercy of whoever is in power in New Delhi when it comes to their care and treatment.

This momentous occasion we have gathered here for today, proves the worth of having Model United Nations and I am very ecstatic to see so many students taking part and wanting to be part of the global dialogue surrounding the different aspects of refugee law and other such topics. It really warms my heart to see that there is plenty of budding interest and enthusiasm by students about global and national politics and this allows me to believe that our future is in good hands . Today, please remember it is not about winning or losing. All gathered here should look as to how the problem of refugees could be sorted out on an humanitarian grounds without compromising on our security. No doubt this session is a learning opportunity and the knowledge gained will take what you learnt today far in your careers. I would like to once again congratulate the participants.

Thank you very much.