The following study conducted by the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) seeks to examine the services offered by the New Delhi office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) to the refugee population in the Union Territory of Delhi, India. This examination is done keeping in view the provisions of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the UNHCR guidelines as well as other related International instruments.
The study aims to :
- Look into services offered by the Delhi office of the UNHCR to refugees in Delhi.
- Examine the relevance of services available.
- Look into the accessibility of such services.
- Examine such services in the light of Refugee Rights and Human Rights.
- Identify problems faced by refugees in Delhi.
The study was carried out with intensive field investigation as well as information obtained from secondary sources. Field work included meeting and interviewing refugees at their homes and at the offices of the Afghan Union and the Burmese Students League. For the Afghan refugee interviews, SAHRDC was assisted by interpreters who spoke Pushto, Dari and English. SAHRDC obtained sworn affidavits from interviewees for whom the affidavit was translated by the interpreter so that they knew that SAHRDC had written only what they had explicitly stated. SAHRDC met with local UNHCR officials and submitted written questions. The duration of the study was for 75 days.
SAHRDC records it’s deep appreciation to Ms Hekali Zhimoni of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay, India and Ms Ayesha Mago of the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver, U S A, for the hard work put in. Needless to say they had an equally conscentious colleague in SAHRDC’s Research Associate, Mr Sumit Sen, an M Phil Research Scholar in International Law at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
Ravi Nair
Executive Director
16 September 1994
2. BACKGROUND
The suicide committed by Ms Ajalal, a 27 year old Afghan girl, burning herself to death at the back gate of the UNHCR office in New Delhi on 4 July 1994, took place in the midst of the investigation that SAHRDC had been carrying out to examine the services offered by UNHCR to refugees in Delhi. In this specific case, the New Delhi office of UNHCR alleged that Ms Ajalal was driven to suicide allegedly due to harassment she had been subjected to by four Afghani men. The Afghan refugee community in New Delhi at the scene of the self-immolation reject the New Delhi UNHCR office contention. On the contrary, they assert that it was her situation of financial desperation that drove her to commit suicide. The Afghan refugees claim that her precarious financial situation had developed because the UNHCR had cancelled her subsistence allowance. Her deplorable living conditions, the refugee leadership alleges, caused her to take this drastic step. SAHRDC researchers were told how Ms Ajalal had apparently submitted numerous petitions on different ocassions, asking for her allowance to be restarted and it was alleged that she had threatened to kill herself if she was not provided succor.
On the other hand, Ms Ajalal’s brother, Mr Fahim told SAHRDC that his sister was being tormented by four Afghan men. The brother informed SAHRDC that they did not have any financial problems since they were receiving 200 Deutche Marks each month from their mother settled in Germany. The UNHCR has informed SAHRDC that Rahim, brother of Ajalal, had come to India from Australia on hearing about the death of his sister. On carrying out personal investigation, Rahim concluded that Ajalal had been harassed by some Afghan men, which included his brother-in-law.
On the other hand, SAHRDC found Fahim’s contention of having no financial problems, dubious. On a visit to the house of the deceased at F-115 Khanpur Village, New Delhi-110065, SAHRDC found that there were substantial anomalies in Mr Fahim’s contention, which cast serious doubt on the veracity of his testimony. The landlady of the house informed SAHRDC that Ms Ajalal and Mr Fahim had rented her house two years ago but had subsequently left for another accomodation. They had come back to rent the house once again because the rent they were paying at the other accomodation was beyond their means. SAHRDC observed that the single room, in which both Ms Ajalal and Mr Fahim had stayed in, was barely 7 feet by 6 feet and a visual inspection of their belongings did reveal a level of survival bordering on the marginal.
The UNHCR officials told SAHRDC that after the death of his sister, Fahim had approached the Office of the UNHCR, New Delhi, for potection. As an exception to their work in Delhi, the UNHCR provided Fahim with “physical protection”. Fahim has since been resettled in Australia on humanitarian grounds.
SAHRDC has been unable to reach definite conclusions on contending claims in the case of suicide of Ms Ajalal but the wave of anger and bitterness of the Afghan refugee community towards UNHCR officials in New Delhi, is illustrative of the tensions that have been rife between the New Delhi based representatives of the organisation and the refugee community for some time.
SAHRDC has been aware for some time that the situation in New Delhi has deteriorated, to an extent that communication has reached an all time low, between the refugees and the UNHCR. SAHRDC has conveyed it’s disquiet to UNHCR officials in New Delhi on more than one ocassion, to little avail. The refugees view the officials in the New Delhi office of UNHCR with mistrust and suspicion and do not believe that the local UNHCR officials have refugee interests at heart. On the other hand, UNHCR officials claim that the UNHCR global policies and the resulting allocation for India have meant a vitual freeze on refugee subsistence allowance. This has exacerbated resentment and tension among the refugee community. SAHRDC feels the urgent need for a more positive financial input from the UNHCR headquarters in Geneva.
3. THE MANDATE OF THE UNHCR
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was created by the UN General Assembly to assume direct responsibility for international action in favour of refugees. It has been active in this field since 1951 and has established 176 offices in 110 countries.
The two main functions of the UNHCR as mandated by Article 1 of it’s statute are the protection of refugees and the seeking of durable solutions to their problems. The concept of protection is a dual one, accounting for both the legal nature of protection and that of implementing it, which involves establishing and working within the parameters of political relations with governments. According to Mr Sadruddin Aga Khan, the former High Commissioner for Refugees, “international protection meets an urgent need arising from the obviously inferior position in which the refugee finds himself as compared with the ordinary migrant”. The legal basis for the protection of refugees was established by the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and it’s 1967 Protocol. This gave refugees an internationally recognised status and addressed the problems which refugees commonly face including denial of asylum, lack of identification papers, denial of the right to work or to education, among others. One of the primary duties of UNHCR is to supervise the application of the provisions of international conventions relating to refugees.(1)
In relation to the other major function of the UNHCR, that of promoting durable solutions, two are enumerated by Article 1 of the statute, namely, voluntary repatriation and assimilation into the country of asylum. For the former, UNHCR must ensure that repatriation is voluntary, since forced repatriation would be tantamount to violation of the sacred rule of non-refoulement. This would contradict the conventions protecting refugees as well as international customary law. Secondly, they are obliged to facilitate repatriation by attempting to organise tripartite agreements involving the governments concerned and themselves, which would cover issues including amnesty for returnees, rehabilitation provisions and other related issues. UNHCR are also obliged to bear the cost of the refugee’s return and to help refugees to obtain documents where agreements have not been made.
When voluntary repatriation proves impossible, the other solution is assimilation into the country of asylum, which requires the refugee to go through a complex and arduous process of economic, cultural and social reintegration. In this case, UNHCR needs to provide material assistance to the refugees for as long as it takes for them to fully integrate into the country of asylum so that they are truly able to support themselves.
The legal basis for UNHCR’s work is also substantiated by certain underlying principles which are postulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which affirms civil,
political, economic and social rights for all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike. It also provides for the right to seek and enjoy asylum in Article 14.1, the right to freedom of movement in Article 13.1 and the right to a nationality in Article 15.
Additional sources include other international instruments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Bangkok Principles.
4. WHO IS A REFUGEE ?
According to UNHCR mandate and the 1951 convention(2) the term “refugee” shall apply to those who have fled their countries because of a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group and who cannot or, due to such fear, do not want to return. The 1967 Protocol to the Convention altered this definition only insofar as it removed the time limit of the former which only covered refugees who had been displaced as a result of events occuring before 1951.
This definition reflects a strict individualistic approach which prevailed at the time and could be used to exclude from the mandate of UNHCR those groups whose status could not be individually determined. In light of the massive flows of refugeees which were taking place in many regions of Africa and South East Asia during the 60’s, this would not have been a workable classification and the concept of the good offices of the High Commissioner began to expand.
The first step towards the use of “good offices” was taken in 1959 when the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1388 stated, “a distinction was drawn for the first time between refugees within the mandate and those who do not come within the competence of the United Nations”.(3) The High Commissioner was entitled to assist the latter using his good offices. The usage of this expanded during the 60’s and finally in 1965 in General Assembly Resolution 2039, the distinction between mandate refugees and those covered by the UNHCR’s good offices was abandoned. This resolution requested the High Commissioner to carry out his duties with regard to “the various groups of refugees within his competence”.(4) We can observe a departure from the legalistic approach to the refugee problem in favour of a more humane and pragmatic one.
In practical terms, by eliminating any distinction, both categories of refugees were entitled to receive as much protection and assistance as they needed from UNHCR.
The “OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of the Refugee Problem in Africa” (1969), extended the definition of the term “refugee” having excluded any temporal or geographical limitations and included the further categories of persons who are displaced by external domination or due to events seriously disturbing public order.(5)
Another regional instrument, the “Cartagena Declaration on Refugees” (1984) followed the precedent set by the OAU Convention and additionally includes “massive violations of human rights” as a category under which persons may flee their country and get refugee status.(6)
5. THE SITUATION IN INDIA
India has been subject to periodic influx of refugees, over the last few decades, from countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Burma, Bangladesh, Somalia, Sudan, Sri Lanka and Tibet. Geographical and political factors work together as “pull factors”. In reality, India has open borders with neighbouring countries, where undemocratic forms of government, arbitrarily placed colonial boundaries and ethnic tensions have led to people flocking into India. Additionally, ethnic and religious similarities of some refugee groups with Indians means that India is a feasible direction in which to move, not only in terms of geographical proximity but also in terms of cultural affinity.
India, as an independent sovereign nation has the exclusive right to refuse admittance to any alien but is also obliged to respect international norms and standards. Although not a signatory to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 protocol, a clear indication of India’s fairly liberal refugee policy can be discerned from the large amount of refugees who are sheltered in the country. However, India has little or no national legislation on refugees and there is no defined procedure to determine and recognise refugee status. This is compounded by indications emanating from Indian decision making circles that the old liberal attitude towards refugees may be jettisoned.
As far as international standards are concerned, India has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] in 1976 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [ICESR] in 1976 as well as the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW] in 1974 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC] in 1989. All these impose legally binding obligations on states parties regarding the rights of peoples under their jurisdiction. Provisions which can be specifically applied to refugees include Article 12, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR which states that “everyone shall be free to leave any country including his own” as well as Article 13 of the above stated Covenant which refers to expulsion of aliens only being permitted after a decision has been reached according to law.(7) Relevant articles from the CRC include Articles 3, 24, 37 and 28. CEDAW includes relevant provisions in Article 1.
The Indian Constitution declares that “the state (India) shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations, in the dealings of organised peoples with one another” [Article 51(c)]. Apart from the above mentioned conventions, India voted in favour of the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) and the Declaration on Territorial Asylum (1967).
Unfortunately, there is much to be desired in the implementation of protective mechanisms. For instance, despite the fact that the principle of non-refoulement has been accepted by India during the meeting of Asian countries when the Bangkok Principles were laid down in 1966, refugees continue to be dealt with at borders like ordinary fugitives. According to the Indian Foreigners Act (1946), the authorities have the power to refuse admission to foreigners at any point of entry if valid documents are not held. This requirement is supposed to exclude refugees who, if fleeing war or persecution, are unlikely to have such documents. However, there have been many court proceedings in India against refugeees who have entered illegally. They are treated as illegal entrants and in most cases imprisoned until their official status is decided. Due to the lack of procedures, there is, invariably, a long delay between the time they enter India and the time when they are officially declared as refugees, consequent to which they are offered shelter, food and protection by the Indian Government or the Office of the UNHCR in New Delhi.
Refugees actually have very few rights in India. They tend to be barred from access to owning property and entering into employment. They are also not provided with any sort of travel documents. The reasons cited for this are economic constraints in a country where basic material needs of most of the population are grossly unmet.
This is the reason that international assistance is required and it is apparent that the material resources and protection provided by UNHCR in India is crucial for the refugees concerned. The fact that India has not acceeded to the refugee conventions, and has no specific national legislation to protect refugees or procedures to determine their status is precisely the reason why UNHCR’s presence and work is of extreme importance in India. The local office of UNHCR is not constrained by having to operate within legalistic parameters of refugee classification and thus they are able to offer protection to whomever they choose to. Yet, UNHCR actually does relatively little work in India. This is partly due to Indian Government constraints since they do need a request from the government before they provide material assistance. The question is whether they are operating effectively in the areas where they are working.
Since this report concerns the operation of UNHCR in Delhi, it is important to note the constraints placed on their work by the Government of India.
The countries of the South Asian region as a whole constitute first asylum countries, adjacent to countries of origin and thus carry a heavy burden of asylum which they can ill afford. Thus, UNHCR assistance programmes which channel international funds to these countries are crucial as “a means of relieving some of the material, social and political burdens of providing asylum”.(8) In light of this, one would expect support for these programmes from the governments concerned but in actual fact the UNHCR has faced certain problems in South Asia. None of these countries are signatories to the 1951 Convention. Typically the problems faced include police harassment of the refugees, lack of a regular status and lack of adequate protection of refugee women and children. Additionally, the prohibition on employment of refugees makes the task of UNHCR, of attempting to create self-sufficiency for the refugees, particularly difficult.
UNHCR also faces problems in terms of lack of access to camps in order to assist or supervise. For instance, the UNHCR was not allowed access to camps in the North Eastern state of Tripura where refugees from Bangladesh have been kept in appalling conditions. Their offers of assistance have been rejected by the Government of India and they have not been allowed to supervise the repatriation which began in February 1994. In Tamil Nadu, the state government has withdrawn facilities and rations provided to the refugees in an effort to force them to return to Sri Lanka. The refugees have been subjected to coercion which is contrary to the declared state policy of the voluntary character of repatriation.(9) In July 1992, UNHCR and the Government of India reached an agreement which allowed the former a token presence in Madras. It took several months before UNHCR were allowed to open their own office in Madras and they have only been allowed access to the refugees at their point of departure. UNHCR officials have not been permitted to observe the process by which the refugees have been apparently volunteering to return to Sri Lanka. They have also been unable to ensure that refugees receive enough information about conditions in Sri Lanka upon which to base their decisions to return since the officials are not allowed to visit the camps. Logistical problems such as the distance of Madras from many of the camps and the restrictions on the movement of the refugees also make it difficult for the refugees to visit the UNHCR office to express their concerns or ask for help.
It is apparent that the Indian government is not cooperating with UNHCR and `Asia Watch’ has expressed concern that the UNHCR’s acceptance of it’s limited mission might actually “lend legitimacy to the repatriations while allowing the Indian government to bar the UNHCR from fulfilling it’s protection mandate”.(10)
The Indian government has also come into conflict with the UNHCR on the independent granting of refugee status to some Afghan citizens. In 1984, the UNHCR working under the auspices of UNDP gave refugee status to three airline officials from Afghanisthan against the wishes of the Indian government. The external affairs ministry lodged a formal protest against this saying that the agencies had exceedeed their areas of discretion. The government at this time pointed out that UNHCR had not been given independent status in India precisely because the Afghani and Iranian refugees in Delhi were not officially recognised. The point is that, at this time over 6000 Afghan refugees were on the UNHCR list and the Indian government was allowing them to stay in India on the basis that they recognised the human rights problems involved(11). The issue seems to be one of definition more than anything else. Now there are over 23,979 refugees(12) in Delhi who are being assisted by the UNHCR. Since they are unable to set up hostels and distribute rations in Delhi, because the government will not provide the land necessary, the refugees are given a monthly subsistence wage. One difficulty faced by UNHCR is to administer the funds to a large amount of refugees all living in different parts of Delhi.
Although the UNHCR has organised some vocational training courses, the refugees are not allowed to work legally. Therefore, any kind of self-sufficiency is difficult.
Apart from the Delhi office of UNHCR, which will be discussed further in this report, UNHCR, since August 1992 have also been operating in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu where they are supervising and assisting with the repatriation of the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. However UNHCR are only allowed access to interview the refugees after they have signed a document agreeing to go back to Sri Lanka and been moved to transit camps awaiting repatriation. Local refugee organisations like OFFER and international organisations like Asia Watch have received well founded complaints alleging coercion by officials of the Tamil Nadu Government attempting to force the refugees to sign these documents. Since UNHCR only have access to the refugees at the point of departure, their function of ascertaining voluntariness is not being excercised adequately.(13)
6. EVALUATION OF SERVICES OFFERED BY THE UNHCR TO REFUGEES IN DELHI
The present UNHCR base in Delhi was set up in 1980 and has 3 community centres in the neighbourhoods of Saket, Defence Colony and Vikaspuri. At present, the UNHCR in Delhi looks after the welfare of more than 23,979 recognised refugees in Delhi. The primary objective of the UNHCR is protection and assistance of refugees as long as a durable solution is not available. Repatriation, resettlement and local integration are seen as the best durable solutions for refugees. However, local integration is the last resort, as the UNHCR points out that India is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol.
(a) Emergency Aid
“UNHCR has the capacity to deploy a well equipped and fully supplied emergency team to almost any corner of the world within the briefest possible time. Stockpiles of relief materials and equipment can follow shortly thereafter”.(14) With regard to emergency relief, the UNHCR in India has not encountered any demanding situation as there has been, primarily a smooth flow of refugees into India. The only point at which they were called upon to act in an emergency was during the Bangladesh crisis in 1971. Their response or a lack of it led to their exit from India for many years.
Although there are refugee camps for the Tibetans, Chakmas, Burmese and the Tamil Sri Lankans, they fall directly under the concern of the Government of India and therefore do not come under the jurisdiction of the UNHCR. However, UNHCR has been assisting in the repatriation of Sri Lankan refugees but, as mentioned above, in a limited capacity.
Emergency relief focusses on 2 important factors : (a) protection and (b) supply of adequate food and water, health care, shelter and sanitation. This includes registration of people coming forward for assistance, to enable proper membership for services and ensuring the civilian character of refugee camps. Emergency Relief Teams are to provide the necessary aid required. During emergency situations cooperation between the UNHCR and Governmental and Non-Governmental Organisations is encouraged.
In classic refugee emergencies, UNHCR has a clear mandatory responsibility within the United Nations system of protection and assistance.
(b) Health Care Facilities
The UNHCR provides medical aid and health care services through the outreach community centres set up at Saket, Defence Colony and Vikaspuri. The UNHCR, in affiliation with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Government-run hospitals and the Public Health Care (PHC) at its community centres provide medical aid to the refugees. Medical cards are issued at the PHC to refugees requiring medical assistance. At AIIMS, there exists a special Refugee Counter, complete with interpreters.
Special financial assistance is provided to the handicapped and the terminally ill. They receive financial aid for transportation, house rents and allowances for round-the-clock attendants. One such refugee supported by the UNHCR is Gul Mohammad, who is suffering from cancer. The UNHCR officials have stated to be pursuing his case with their headquarters in Geneva, for a resettlement in a third country, where he could be provided for with better medical care.
The UNHCR claims to reimburse 100% of the private medical expenditure that is borne by the refugees on the rationale that the expenditure should have occured in a case of emergency. Otherwise, the officials of the UNHCR maintain that the refugees should make use of the facilities of the PHC and the government hospitals.
The refugees allege that the UNHCR reimburses between 80% to 100% of the medical bills. The further claim that with their monthly allowance, which in any case is a pittance, it becomes extremely difficult when they have to pay for a portion for medical care. But on the other hand, Mrs Sivadas, Social Services Officer at the UNHCR, New Delhi stated that due to large scale fraud, UNHCR has stopped reimbursing medical bills relating to private treatment unless it is absolutely necessary. She cited that an Afghan woman had suffered a road accident and was taken to the Manchanda Nursing Home (a private hospital). The UNHCR had paid the entire bill of Rs 18,000 (15) because of the urgency of the issue. On the other hand, she stated that the UNHCR refused to reimburse the Rs 8,000 bill for a refugee who had some problem with his finger and had gone to the Sharma Nursing Home (a private hospital) for treatment. Apart from the bill being outrageously high, the UNHCR objected to the reimbursement since that particular refugee could have gone to the Moolchand Hospital (a government hospital), much nearer to his place of residence.
It has often been brought to the notice of SAHRDC that getting medical reimbursement is cumbersome, long drawn out and ends in outright refusal. An Iraqi refugee, Mr Saad Kazemi (IQ 0049), gave SAHRDC testimony on the issue. In 1990, Saad had a stone in his kidney and went to the Defence Colony community centre and was asked to come back after a week. He claims that his condition was so bad that he could not wait for a week. “I had to visit a private hospital, my Sudanese friends paid the bill. After discharge, (from the hospital) I needed money for food. (The Subsistence Allowance of) Rs 830 is too little. The UNHCR refused to reimburse the hospital bills because I went to a private hospital. I did not have (an) option. I would have died, since my condition was so bad.”
Ms Laila Azad, an Afghan refugee woman (AF 009862), told the research team that “My husband’s back is completely burnt after a bullet hit a petrol tank in Afghanistan. Medical assistance has been stopped by the centre. I have a heart disorder and was receiving medication previously but not anymore. We cannot afford to treat ourselves”.
Dr Assadullah, (AF 006203), said, “My mother was sick in St Stephen’s Hospital. I went to the Defence Colony Centre and the UNHCR main office (in Jor Bagh). I was offered money/reimbursement for medicines but no subsistence allowance (He had received the lump sum amount). One needs food while having medicines and for recovery for (from) grave illness”.
An Afghan refugee, Mr M A Assadi (AF 008254), further corroborates that his wife was infertile and submitted medical bills along with medical prescriptions for reimbursement to the UNHCR, the two amounts approximately being Rs 6,800 and Rs 2,000. Mr Assadi claims that neither the money was reimbursed nor were the bills returned to him despite repeated requests. The UNHCR clarified that their Office could not reimburse bills for second infertility (the wife of Mr Assadi had already borne their first child), since the available resources with the UNHCR is grossly insufficient to carry out existing health care programmes in New Delhi.
The UNHCR offers pre-natal and post-natal care and health education at the community centres. They also have a scheme wherein, a refugee certified by the doctor at the PHC requiring supplementary diet, is eligible to receive Rs 450 from the UNHCR. The UNHCR also claims to network with several psychiatrists in the city, in order to make phychiatric services available to the refugees.
The refugee community have conveyed to the SAHRDC that health care and medical aid is an area where there has been negligence on the part of the local office of UNHCR and that refugees have not benefited from the UNHCR (Delhi) Health care and medical aid scheme. On the contrary, the UNHCR claims that to facilitate better interaction and treatment, the PHC have three lady doctors – Dr Gita Prakash (Defence Colony), Dr Pingley (Saket) and Dr Suri (Vikaspuri). Social workers employed by the UNHCR also offer counselling services to the refugees.
The UNHCR officials further maintain that the social services are staffed by well qualified social workers and the cumulative staff including two senior social workers, three medical social workers, three education social workers, six community social workers and nine assistant social workers, all of whom are stationed at the UNHCR and the PHCs.
Health education, as imparted by the lady doctors, is on an “informal basis” but some refugee women admit that they actually benefit little since they are conducted in English. The communication gap is a major problem as most refugees do not speak either Hindi or English well enough and are therefore unable to explain their problems well, to the medical professionals. The refugee claim that in the absence of a proper diagnosis, the chances of misinterpretation are high and the result is that many refugees complain about the services offered. The UNHCR, however, refutes the allegation of the refugees by stating that the Refugee Counter at AIIMS is staffed by interpreters which include one woman, that each of the PHC have women interpreters and the reception at the Office of the UNHCR in New Delhi have two Afghan and one Burmese women interpreters.
The practicality of the health education services offered at the community centre can be questioned as it is difficult for refugees to attend these classes because their meagre allowances do not allow for extra travelling expenditure. This must be understood from the fact that refugees prefer to live on the outskirts of the city where the house rents are relatively cheaper. The UNHCR claims that apart from using the assistance of the interpreters in imparting health education, health education aids are also prepared in the language of the majority of the refugee community.
Refugee communities have tried to come up with their own alternatives to the services offered by the UNHCR, as the Burmese refugees run their own Primary Health Centre. On the 7 July 1993, the Burmese refugees set up their own primary health centre with the objective of providing medical care to Burmese refugees, health education and medical aid. The centre is run by a refugee who is qualified doctor. He is assisted by two health assistants who have been trained by the doctor. Field investigation by SAHRDC revealed that the Burmese refugees utilize the services of their own Primary Health Centre (PHC). The centre operates from one of the rooms of the refugees and is short of medical equipment as well as finances. Health education is imparted at this PHC through meetings. Particular emphasis is laid on sanitation and seasonal diseases such as cholera and malaria, among others.
Although the PHC is financially assisted by the Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI), which provides Rs 1,000 monthly and the Burmese Students League, which pays the room rent of Rs 750, it constantly faces financial problems. The PHC is in need of basic surgical instruments and sterilizers. The doctor has been actively involved in the health care of his community. He has been making trips to India’s north eastern border areas where there is a larger Burmese refugee population, not under the care of the UNHCR, in order to give basic training in health care. This PHC functions independent of the UNHCR.
Health care services and medical aid are guided by the principles laid down in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”.
The 1951 Convention, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Guidelines on Refugee Children and Refugee Women and other international instruments, lay emphasis on health care and medical aid for vulnerable groups. Assistance, treatment and rehabilitation form the core of all UNHCR activities.
(c) Subsistence Allowance
A Subsistence Allowance (SA) of Indian Rs 880 is provided by UNHCR to each individual refugee. However, for those with families, the head (Principal Applicant) of the household receives Rs 830, the next three dependants receive Rs 415 and two dependants after them receive Rs 210 while the last dependant receives Rs 140. In the case of a refugee woman who chooses to marry a fellow refugee, her subsistence allowance is reduced by half, to Rs 415 per month. Unaccompanied minors are put under the care of identified refugees who can collect Rs 830 on behalf of the minor. UNHCR claims that if a refugee is unable to collect his SA, an authorised family member or friend can collect it on his/her behalf. Sometimes, the UNHCR can even keep the money and maintain it on behalf of the individual. The UNHCR states that “Subsistence Allowance are intended to be of a supplimentary nature. The majority of Afghan refugee families in India assisted by the UNHCR comprise between 4 to 7 members. In accordance with the existing rates of Subsistence Allowance (and the size of the family), they receive between Rs 2000 and Rs 2700 per month. This is not a meagre amount in comparision with the local population.”
If the refugee chooses to go out of Delhi, his/her SA is cut. UNHCR points out that it is difficult to monitor the movements of the refugee students. Refugee students can go elsewhere for studies but other refugees are asked to remain in Delhi.
A newly introduced scheme is the Lump Sum scheme wherein a refugee can be granted Rs 10,000 to Rs 30,000, depending upon the size of the family, to establish themselves. After they are granted this amount, the subsistence allowance is stopped altogether. The Lump Sum scheme is discussed in the following section.
The UNHCR says that the subsistence allowance is more of a “supplementary assistance” since, it alleges, most refugees get help from relatives and friends, who are settled in Western Europe, North America and Australia. This UNHCR averment is dismissed contemptuously by the refugees.
An Afghan refugee (name withheld on request) stated, “UNHCR had said that any refugee who has relatives abroad should not claim the subsistence allowance since they (UNHCR) were having budgetary problems. This excuse is not valid. I have myself witnessed that at the end of the year in the budgetary calculations there was an excess fund of Rs 30,000 at the Mukherjee Nagar (community) centre (now unoperative). They are trying to conserve the money but were told by the main office that it was to be spent by the end of the financial year in any case. The result was that the money was spent on office equipment such as a water cooler and a bicycle for the peon but the refugees who were needing better health care and more financial assistance were not given the money”.
The subsistence allowance provided is insufficient to meet the basic necessities. Despite rapid inflation, the subsistence allowance provided remains the same. When the UNHCR was confronted about the insufficient allowance, it was stated that rather than “subsistence allowance” they considered, it as “Supplementary Assistance” as they claimed that most of the refugees had other sources of income. This meagre allowance for the refugees has tremendous implications on their living conditions, their health and psychological state. Since rent rates are high, a considerable amount of their SA is spent on rent, which leaves very little for expenditure on food, clothing and other necessities.
Ms Laila Azad, (AF 009862), mentioned that “We live a very tough life. We cannot afford to repair our shoes. We have heard that bombs have destroyed everything in Afghanistan and we have no relatives abroad. We have not paid the rent for one-and-a-half months. We have Rs 1,100 left from the Lump Sum (of Rs 20,000 in their case) and we do not know what we will do when this finishes”.
Mr Saad Kazemi, (IQ 0049), a refugee who came to India from Pakistan said, “In Pakistan, they (UNHCR) pay Pakistani Rs 2,000 per month (16), Taka 2780 per month in Bangladesh (17), in India why is it Rs 830 ?” The UNHCR, however, maintains that the Afghans in Pakistan are assisted in refugee camps and are not paid any allowance.
As compared to the Rs 830, when a group of refugees actually calculated what would possibly be the ideal amount to meet their monthly individual necessities, the following estimates were arrived at:
Rent (Rs 1600 for a 4-member family) Rs 400.00
Transportation Rs 150.00
Food (Rs 25 per day * 30 days) Rs 750.00
Toileteries Rs 50.00
Kerosene (Rs 6 per head * 30 litres) Rs 300.00
(for cooking)
Miscellaneous (clothes, medicines etc) Rs 150.00
———-
Grand Total Rs 1800.00
The given estimate would meet the requirement of each individual refugee. For families, the subsistence allowance would the total amount multiplied by the number of family members.
SAHRDC would like to make one qualification. If an individual refugee has to rent a room, s/he obviously cannot survive within the proposed Rs 400. Therefore, s/he should be paid an additional Rs 400, thus enabling her/him to pay Rs 800, the minimum amount required for the payment of rent for a single room in Delhi in a non slum environment.
One condition laid down with regard to subsistence allowance is that, a refugee woman who is entitled to Rs 830 per month, on marrying another refugee would be entitled to receive only half the amount i.e Rs 415. This tantamounts to discrimination on the basis of sex. The UNHCR has defended on the contrary, stating that if the wife is the Principal Applicant, then the husband, in turn, would receive Rs 415.
The UNHCR is alleged to have told refugees that since married refugee couples would be staying together they would be sharing expenditure and therefore the reduction in the subsistence allowance. This alleged explanation does not hold ground, as the low subsistence allowance hardly meets the bare necessities of each individual refugee. In any case, such conditions can only discourage marriage as an institution which, could possibly ensure some amount of security to refugees, who are lonely and insecure, in a strange land.
It has been recently communicated by the UNHCR that the level of subsistence payments are undergoing revision with the proposal that the Principal Applicant would receive Rs 1200 and the next three dependents Rs 500 per month. SAHRDC is of the opinion that the increase for a family of four would result in an additional allowance of Rs 675 per month.
(d) The Lump Sum Amount
The experience of the UNHCR, in recent years, has tended to suggest that the majority of the refugees did not subsist on the UNHCR assistance alone. “Refugees manage with UNHCR Subsistence Allowance and an independent source of income”.
In May 1993, the New Delhi Mission of the UNHCR decided to conduct a survey of the refugee case load in order to identify the following:
- Those refugees who could not manage without UNHCR assistance and for whom subsistence payments needed to continue.
- Those refugees who could be assisted to become self-sufficient through a lump-sum grant equivalent to one year’s Subsistence Allowance.
- Those refugees who did not require UNHCR financial support and to whom Subsistence Allowances could be fully phased out.
Till date, the UNHCR has identified 888 refugee families comprising 3,500 persons who were either assisted with a lump sum grant or whose financial assistance was phased out, since “they stopped reporting to the UNHCR for a prolonged period and can be assumed to have found their own solution”.
The Lump-Sum scheme was introduced in November 1993. The scheme offers a one-time grant varying from Rs 10,000 to Rs 30,000 to refugees depending upon the size of the family in order to aid them towards self sufficiency. This is given in lieu of the subsistence allowance, with the end result of establishing himself/herself with this amount. The sum offered is too meagre to establish any business and therefore, to the refugees, the offer of this scheme is akin to being asked to make a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.
The Afghan refugees allege that this is a ploy of the UNHCR to covertly force them to repatriate to Afghanistan. The refugees claim that many local UNHCR officials believe that the situation has improved with the coming of the Islamic Government. The refugees further state that, on the contrary, the situation has worsened.
Mrs Mina Sarahang, (AF 10849) (18), widow of Mr Ustad Mohammed Hussain Sarahang, a classical singer of international repute, lives with her three children in a single room with a roof made of asbestos sheets. SAHRDC found the make-shift room extremely hot and wondered what the situation of the five family members was when the temperature touched 46.5 degrees celsius as it did this summer in New Delhi. Mina Sarahang said, “I was widowed eleven years ago. Eight months ago the Subsistence Allowance was cut and we were given Rs 20,000 as Lump Sum. We did not want to accept the Lump Sum but we were told that it was this or nothing”.
Upon clarification, the UNHCR officials stated that “this policy (of granting the Lump Sum amount) is essential to break (the) prolonged dependency and motivate the refugees to become self-sufficient”.(19) The UNHCR claimed to have given the Lump Sum to Afghans who had certificate numbers till AF 11483, primarily because it was an effort to “motivate the refugees to become self-sufficient” and also, the existing low financial resources were now needed to rehabilitate the newer Afghans refugees who came to India after the clan warfare in Afghanistan had became more intense.
The Social Services Officer, Mrs Sivadas told SAHRDC about the “Eastablishment Grants” scheme, which came to be discontinued in 1991 since the number of takers were small. The Establishment Grants were to the tune of Rs 4,000 for the purchase of equipment but there were instances where embroidery machines worth Rs 6,000 were bought for the refugees. She stated that Subsistence Allowance of the grantee used to discontinued after 4 to 6 months of receiving the grant. She cited the case of Timur, who having received an Establishment Grant, had been able to begin a motor mechanic workshop in Jamrudpur, near East of Kailash, and now employs 20 other Afghan refugees.
The Chief of Mission, Mr Shamsul Bari told SAHRDC that even if 20% to 30% of the refugee population are able to resettle themselves fruitfully in India with the Lump Sum grant, the UNHCR believes that then the rest of the refugees could be better provided for, within the existing available resources.
“UNHCR is aware that (the) monthly Subsistence Allowance may need to be re-started for some lump sum grantees who are unable to make it on their own.” (20)
(e) Accomodation
Field investigations by SAHRDC revealed the precarious living conditions of refugees in Delhi. Many of the refugees interviewed stated that the New Delhi office of UNHCR was inaccessible to them and that the UNHCR was apathetic to their plight. Field investigation also revealed rampant violation of not only the housing rights of refugees but also of basic human rights.
An Afghan refugee (name withheld on request) said, “Five of us live in one room and when the rain starts the room floods. The kitchen also leaks. Our rent is constantly increased (by the landlord) and we do not have money to buy enough food.”
Karima Ahmadzay (AF 007196), mentioned, “I am a single woman with 4 young children and have no independent source of income. We are really in a bad state because now the landlord wants us to leave and threatens to cut off the electricity and water.”
In general, the UNHCR’s New Delhi office provides no assistance to refugees to find accommodation. “However, particularly vulnerable cases are assisted in finding suitable accommodation.” (21) The refugees are scattered in little pockets all over the city. Refugees, who cannot offer to pay the exorbitant house rents, seek accommodation on the outskirts of the city where rent rates are lower. But again, they face mounting travelling expenses which becomes a major problem as they have to commute to the city for language courses, to the bank to collect their subsistence allowances as well as to the community centres for their monthly reporting.
Very often refugees face problems in finding accommodation. The local people assume that people coming from the Islamic countries are wealthy and the genuinely needy refugees have to bear the brunt of greedy Indian landlords demanding exorbitant rents from them. There is no denying that some refugees, particularly from the Afghan community, are well off and quite a few of them own property in New Delhi.(22) But an overwhelming majority of the refugees are genuinely needy and cannot afford to pay what is demanded of them. The refugees allege that landlords demand twice the amount of rent in advance as a security deposit.
Refugees in Delhi allege that they are not allowed to travel out of the city. Although many of the refugees have travelled to neighbouring states, they do not inform the local office of UNHCR as they are unsure of the consequences. An issue that was brought up in the course of field investigation by SAHRDC was that of the cost of living in the capital city. Refugees, time and again, have questioned the practicality of living in New Delhi where the cost of living is considerably higher, whereas on the other hand, their subsistence allowance is meagre. The cost of living in other cities and towns in India is relatively much lower. The refugees fail to comprehend as to why the UNHCR does not permit them to stay in other cities of India. The official position of the New Delhi office of UNHCR is that refugees need to reside in New Delhi for the purposes of monitoring and also for the social services that are provided to the refugees. However, students studying in universities outside Delhi are allowed to reside there and in addition, receive the subsistence allowances.
The New Delhi office of UNHCR faces hurdles, as regards providing accommodation to the refugees. “The Government of India does not recognise the Afghan refugees in India as refugees and treats them as foreign nationals temporarily in the country. The Government, therefore, does not assist Afghan refugees recognised as refugees by UNHCR. It permits our Office to assist them on an informal basis provided such assistance does not become institutionalised and does not provide a basis for group activity detrimental to Indian interests. We are, therefore, not permitted to assist the Afghans as a group in a refugee camp or hostel. Assistance has to be on a individual basis.” (23)
(f) Employment
Although, the refugees are officially not permitted to work, they take up odd jobs to supplement their subsistence allowance. However, refugees told SAHRDC that they had the fear of their subsistence allowance standing to be cancelled, should they take up a job, outside the knowledge of the UNHCR. On the other hand, UNHCR clarified that this contention of the refugees is incorrect. “The occupation and level of remuneration of refugees who are employed are taken into account in determining financial need.”
With regard to employment, the 1951 Refugee Convention has laid down extensive provisions in Chapter III for “gainful employment of refugees” under Article 17, 18 and 19. However, since India has not ratified the 1951 Convention, refugees informed SAHRDC that they find it extremely difficult to get work. Refugees who have the necessary qualifications are unable to practice their professions. Mr M A Assadi, an Afghan refugee (AF008254) stated that he was an aeronautical engineer with the Ariana Afghan Airlines at Kabul Airport. After coming to India, he had approached Mrs Sivadas, the Social Services Officer at UNHCR Delhi, for permission to work “free of charge … so that I would not loose touch in (with) my career”. I was told six months later that the Government of India did not give permission. SAHRDC acknowledges the efforts made by the UNHCR to seek permission for employment.
Given this inability to engage in productive work and unable to help their families and friends, many of the refugee men have fits of depression. The refugees claim that the UNHCR does not help the refugees in any way, as far as work is concerned, as the UNHCR claims that the Government of India does not permit refugees to work and therefore the UNHCR can do nothing. SAHRDC suggests the setting up of community income generation projects for the refugees, so that the vocational training provided by the UNHCR can be put to good use.
Some refugees have tried to supplement their subsistence allowance in their own way. An Iraqi refugee gave Arabic tuition to fellow refugees. One Burmese refugee, Mr Thun Thun, worked as a part-time computer operator in a voluntary organization and the Burmese refugee students have their own income generation activities like printing cards, catering Burmese food and printing newspapers.
One major difficulty, as envisaged and faced by refugees, is that they face the threat of their subsistence allowance being cut off by the UNHCR if they are found to be working. The clarification of the UNHCR has been stated above. Thus, even if the salary offered is low, the refugees prefer not to take up the jobs because they prefer the security of the subsistence allowance, no matter how meagre it may be, for jobs are often temporary.
(g) Vocational Training
The UNHCR has been assisting vocationally trained refugees and those refugees possessing skills, to find employment in the last eleven years. However, the UNHCR concedes that many skilled and trained refugees are unable to obtain employment.
The UNHCR is of the view that most refugee students find education in India very difficult and prefer vocational training.(24)
The refugees can take up vocational training in tailoring, air ticketing, tourism, refrigeration and in the automobile industry as mechanics, among others. The UNHCR directs refugees to recognized vocational training institutes wherein they can benefit from such services. The UNHCR permits refugees to take up only one course, within a budget of Rs 2,000 during their entire stay in Delhi. However additional financial assistance is provided in a few exceptional cases. The UNHCR offers courses in English language for the refugees, the duration being 6 months.
Refugees, on completing their vocational training are asked to submit the addresses of any 3 units in which they would like to work in, in the vicinity of their residence. The UNHCR negotiates with these units on behalf of the individual refugees.
Karima Ahmadzay, widow of Mr Haj Daud Ahmadzay, narrated the following case to illustrate the apathy of the local officials of the UNHCR. Her daughter, Marzia, had done the beautician’s course but was unable to find work because her photograph on her cerificate did not bear the UNHCR seal. Karima stated she herself had done the tailoring and embroidery course but did not have any work. Being an Afghan, she was unable to find employment. She had requested the UNHCR for a sewing machine. UNHCR had initially agreed on the condition that Rs 50 per month would be deducted from her subsistence allowance, till the cost of the sewing machine is covered. Karima agreed to the proposal but the UNHCR later withdrew the offer without assigning any reason.
Although vocational training is provided by the UNHCR in affiliation with recognised training institutes in the cities, a good number of refugees were not aware of such services. However, the UNHCR claims that notices of UNHCR’s vocational training facilities are put up in the Refugee Community Centres on a regular basis. Some refugees, who had gone through such vocational training courses found it difficult to put their skills to use as they were unable to get employment.
More recently, the UNHCR is stated to have had discussions with refugee leaders regarding an expansion of vocational training facilities.
(h) UNHCR Guidelines on Refugee Women
The UNHCR has recognized the need for special protection and assistance of refugee women. The UNHCR policy on refugee women was adopted by the 41st session of the UNHCR Executive Committee and has formed the framework for the subsequent guidelines which have been brought out on this issue. The underlying principle of this policy is to “integrate the resources and needs of refugee women into all aspects of programming to ensure equitable protection and assistance activities”.(25)
Other international instruments which have a bearing on the UNHCR guidelines and on the protection of refugee women include the 1951 Convention, 1967 Protocol, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as related instruments dealing more specifically with women such as the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women”(CEDAW). CEDAW explicitly states that no distinction is to be made on the basis of sex which would impair for women the enjoyment of ” human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, social, cultural, civil or any other fields”.(26) India has ratified this convention.
The UNHCR has recognised that international protection of refugee women must be understood in it’s widest sense and must go beyond mere adherence to legal principles. It recognizes that those refugee women who are unable to feed, clothe and shelter themselves and their children will be more vulnerable to manipulation and to physical and sexual abuse in order to obtain these necessities. The guidelines on refugee women, therefore, address protection and planning concerns of refugee women. The guidelines have also stressed the importance of monitoring the situation, reporting about the individual cases and conducting follow-up investigations on problems and projects.
In order to illustrate the situation in Delhi, it is useful to look at some specific guidelines and consider the extent of their implemention. Field investigations by SAHRDC have revealed some anomalies regarding refugee women in Delhi.
Health education is imparted by the UNHCR but the refugee women admit that they benefit little, as the classes are conducted in English, a language with which they are not very familiar. The UNHCR officials claim that health education is imparted on an informal basis, whereby the doctors at the Community Centres teach the women about various aspects of health care. This is also followed up by the social workers of the UNHCR.
Since the time the subsistence allowance has been stopped, those women who singularly head their households have the full burden of caring for their families. One such case is Mrs Mina Sarahang (AF 10849), a resident in the Bhogal, Jangpura neighbourhood of New Delhi, who was widowed eleven years ago in Afghanisthan. She supports herself and her three children by washing clothes for other households and she supplements her own income by the remains of the lump sum which UNHCR gave her 8 months ago. Her rent for 1 small room on a terrace with an asbestos roof is Rs 1,100 per month.
In the UNHCR Guidelines, paragraph 46 states, “Within the female refugee population are women who are particularly vulnerable to protection problems: for example elderly women and disabled women. Elderly and disabled women may need to be assigned space in closer proximity with services”.
SAHRDC spoke to one woman who lost her right leg in a bomb attack in Afghanisthan and also lost one of her kidneys. Despite the above guideline, this lady, Jamila (AF 009777), wife of Peer Mohammed, who currently resides in Bhogal, Jangpura, New Delhi, has received no care apart from the provision of an artificial limb. She lives in a room with 8 others and has to manoeuvre two precarious flights of steps to go out. She told us that, “I did receive an artificial limb from the (UNHCR) office but it was not properly fitted and when I attempted to use it, I fell and broke my arm. Now I do not use it”. This case illustrates a certain lack of care and neglect of the monitoring and follow-up duties of the social workers employed by the local office of UNHCR which is to the detriment of both the individual, who has not benefitted from the care administered and also the UNHCR office, whose resources are wasted away if they are not being sufficiently utilised.
The UNHCR has stated that “the Staffing of UNHCR’s medical assistance programme takes into account the particular needs of the refugee women. Home visits and monitoring by social workers provides special emphasis in addressing the needs of refugee women. Special facilities are available, for example, for pregnant and lactating mothers. Their cases are addressed by PHC doctors, monitored and followed up by medical social workers. Cases of high risk pregnancies receive special attention during antenatal and post natal phase”.(27) In addition, the UNHCR has facilities for cancer detection and home consultation for refugee women. The UNHCR is planning to set up creche facilities for women engaged in employment. The logistics of the creche facility is being worked out on the basis of demand from each locality.
Many of the refugee women interviewed expressed their dissatisfaction about the services offered to them by the New Delhi office of UNHCR. They have been especially dissatisfied about the fact that when they get married their subsistence allowance is halved. As one refugee woman put it “just because I get married, it does not mean that I or my husband need less food or less clothing. On the contrary, I as a wife and mother, assume more responsibilities to the family that I set up. This rule serves to discourage us from setting up a family”.
(i) UNHCR Guidelines in Refugee Children
UNHCR recognises that usually over half of any refugee population are children and that an essential consideration is that refugee children have certain rights as children and certain additional rights as refugees. Thus, refugee children are entitled to special protection and assistance from the UNHCR. The legal grounds for special action on behalf of refugee children are well established in both national and international law. International treaties are important because they set standards which signatories are obliged to conform to and those referring specifically to children tend to be regarded as a part of customary international law and are thus binding on non-signatories states.
Although the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol do not make a distinction between the rights of child and adult refugees they do make a specific reference which is of special importance to children. Article 22 states that refugees must receive the same treatment as nationals with regard to primary education and treatment at least as favourable as that given to other aliens with regard to secondary education. The 1969 OAU Convention and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration make no distinction between children and adults.
The most important treaty with regard to refugee children is The UN Convention on the Rights of The Child (1989) which covers all children under the age of 18 (Article 1), without discrimination of any kind (Article 2)(28). The principles enumerated in this treaty also form the basis of the UNHCR guidelines. The guidelines on refugee children are concerned with granting refugee status to accompanied as well as unaccompanied children; birth registration, reduction of statelessness, promoting and ensuring the safety and liberty of refugee children, ensurement of an environment which can adequately sustain healthy development of the children and establishing adequate systems for monitoring the nutritional state of children, promoting their mental health and related issues. In planning educational schemes, field officers are to keep in mind accessibility quality and relevance. In addition to the above guidelines, the UNHCR Executive Committee in conclusion No.47 (XVIII) adopted in 1987 and conclusions No.59 (XL) 41 of 1989, recognizes and reaffirms the rights and needs of refugee children.
As regards health, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that “Each child has the right to the highest attainable standard of health” (Article 24). On accomodation, the UNHCR Guidelines 1994 state: “Field offices are expected to take strong positions in defence of a humane standard of shelter, accomodation and size of individual family homesteads”.
The living conditions of most refugees in New Delhi are not at all conducive to the proper growth and development of the children. Families live in tiny overcrowded rooms. In some cases, a partition is made which cordons off a section of the room and serves as a kitchen. Thus, unhealthy cooking fumes from the kerosene stoves fill the room. SAHRDC acknowledges that there are many children in India who, not being refugees, live in similar or worse conditions. It is self evident that the notion of a `national standard’ must be taken into consideration while framing local UNHCR standards for refugee children in India. This `national standard’ must adhere to a tenable standard of living. The point must be reiterated that unlike other organisations, UNHCR’s mandate is specifically the protection of refugees.
Obviously in these circumstances there is no privacy for the members. One refugee dwelling which SAHRDC visited, 48 Masjid Lane, Bhogal, New Delhi consisted of 1 small room in which 9 people including 6 children resided. To reach this room, two flights of steep stone steps needed to be climbed which had no safety railing on the sides, thus leaving a long fall and presenting a particularly dangerous hazard for children.
In another dwelling, I-88, Lajpat Nagar Part 2, New Delhi, 4 families resided in 4 rooms on 2 terraces. There was no kitchen, 1 bathroom to be shared by all inhabitants and the two rooms on the upper terrace had corrugated iron sheets as the roof which caused the rooms to be uninhabitable in the summer heat. The children had to climb an iron ladder to reach the upper terrace which was so steep that SAHRDC researchers had difficulty in climbing it.
These are conditions far from being safe, healthy or in any way desirable for the refugee children. (N.B: See also the section in this report on accomodation.)
(j) Education
Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states,”Each child has the right to education. The goal is free and compulsory primary education, secondary education (general and vocational) available to all, and higher education on the basis of capacity”.
The Office of the UNHCR in New Delhi, under the Project CM 201, provides educational facilities at the primary and secondary levels. At present, there are 7,600 children who are beneficiaries at the primary level and the lower secondary level. The UNHCR, on granting refugee status to the family, gives them information regarding schools located in their locality. Under the educational assistance scheme, each child at the primary level is entitled to a monthly allowance of Rs 175 for tuition fees, an annual amount of Rs 1000 for other fees and a yearly allowance of Rs 1,000 for scholastic material. Students at the Lower Secondary level receive a monthly tuition fee of Rs 225, Rs 1000 for admission and Rs 1000 for scholastic material. UNHCR phased out assistance for higher secondary education in 1992 due to lack of credible students.
The refugees allege that Rs 1000 per year is insufficient for uniforms, textbooks and note books and other stationery. The expenditure for school shoes are reimbursed by the UNHCR. An Afghan refugee woman, Mrs Karima Ahmadzay told SAHRDC that the local office of the UNHCR had even regulated the kind of shoes that should not be bought by the refugees by stating the brand names. She said that the poorer quality of shoes obviously did not last long enough.
Financial assistance is monitored strictly. No advances are paid to parents as the UNHCR Delhi office alleges that some parents do not put their children in school. The refugees, on the other hand, allege, that to pay out of their own pockets often becomes a major problem since the reimbursement is made much later. The following are problems faced by refugees in terms of education:
- The Rs 1,000 per year educational allowance is not sufficient to meet increasing educational costs.
- The refugee students face the language problem in Delhi because the Rs 175 tuition fee barrier is inadequate to get education in a school where the medium of instruction is in the English language.
- The refugee children often study in a grade which is not comparable to their age, because they have to face a totally new system in India.
It is important to realise that a majority of the Afghan refugees in Delhi belong to the erstwhile middle class in Afghanistan. UNHCR must make an effort to provide educational facilities commensurate with their former status, which they enjoyed in Afghanistan.
With regard to education, recognized refugees are entitled to elementary education like any other nationals in India, since India is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Educational assistance at the primary and secondary level are made available under the UNHCR General programmes. At higher levels, asssistance is given through UNHCR’s refugee education account. The UNHCR also cooperates with UNESCO and with other governmental and non-governmental organizations in several countries to provide educational asssitance. Language courses are organized and offered free of cost to refugees by the UNHCR as well as by the Government in several countries. Educational counselling is also offered in several countries such as Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom. Vocational training is also provided in order to enable the assisted refugees to become self supporting. The UNHCR educational guidelines at the primary and secondary as well as for vocational training are clear and comprehensive.
Despite UNHCR’s Delhi office claim of providing educational facilities, field investigation by SAHRDC revealed that refugee dissatisfaction over provisions in this area is likely to intensify.
The financial assistance given is meagre. A sum of Rs 1,000 is given annually for stationery and school uniforms, apart from Rs 175 given monthly for tuition fees. UNHCR also reimburses admission fees. Although these provisions are commendable, it is impractical because only Hindi medium schools would be accessible to the children as English medium schools are more expensive. If the aim of UNHCR is eventual resettlement or repatriation, SAHRDC wonders how practical it is to provide such education to these refugee children, which would be of no future benefit to them.
There are no schemes or grants that encourage young refugees to go in for higher studies. A grant scheme which existed till June 1992 was dropped because UNHCR claims, there were no creditable refugee students.
The refugees have tried to come up with their own alternatives by taking up courses independent of the UNHCR but their acute financial position causes the greatest obstacle. The refugees allege that the English language course provided by the UNHCR is sub-standard. The UNHCR was unable to inform SAHRDC of the qualifications of the English teachers of such courses.
The UNHCR needs to re-examine its education scheme as well as the aims in providing such “assistance”.
(k) Legal Aid
Article 16 of the 1951 UN Convention states that refugees shall have free access to courts in their country of asylum and that they will enjoy the same treatment as a national in matters pertaining to legal aid. The UNHCR has laid down that legal assistance should be provided to help individual refugees with administrative problems in their country of residence as well as to assist with court cases. The services of experienced lawyers are to be made available to refugees. In several countries, legal aid is provided by the UNHCR whereas in others, it is provided by the state itself.
In legal matters, the UNHCR’s services have been efficient and satisfactory with regard to its function of protection. However it is imperative that legal aid provided by the UNHCR, should extend beyond determining the status of refugees. Where refugees are involved in cases unrelated to their status it becomes difficult for them to seek outside help since they are unable to bear the financial costs.
(l) Counselling
Counselling services have been recognized as important for refugees and are to be provided under various UNHCR programmes in order to help refugees to seek solutions to their problems as well as avail themselves of facilities that may be open to them. In some countries, the UNHCR itself provides counselling services directly whereas in others support is given to the establishment and development of refugee counselling services operated mainly through voluntary agencies. (Is this feature also present in India ? )
Special welfare programmes for divided families, women and children have been laid down by the UNHCR. Included in the vulnerable groups, identified by the UNHCR as requiring special assistance and protection are, refugee women, children, the disabled and abuse victims. An important function of the UNHCR is also the reunification of families. Guidelines laid down for Refugee women and children have been elaborate. SAHRDC has seen little evidence of these guidelines by the New Delhi office of UNHCR.
(m) Travel Documents
Article 28 of the 1951 Convention states, “The contracting states shall issue to refugees lawfully staying in their territory travel documents for the purpose of travel outside their territory”
The above guideline, in brief, directs UNHCR activities according to international standards. SAHRDC does acknowledge that this provision is a complex one, in the Indian context, since it is not within UNHCR’s discretion to compell a non-signatory to the Convention to issue travel documents. However this does not detract from the plight of those refugees who desperately need these documents.
One case illustrating the difficulty of the refugees in Delhi with regard to travel documents was provided by Mr Saad Kazemi, residing in Madangir in New Delhi who informed SAHRDC that, “Since 1989, I have approached almost all the European, North American and Australian embassies, but they all directed me to the UNHCR. The Israeli embassy asked for a passport. Since I had escaped from Iraq due to politial persecution, I do not have a passport. I have asked Ms Lim, Legal Officer of UNHCR for a UN passport or any sort of travel document but my request was refused. Without a travel document, I cannot be resettled and without the subsistence allowance I will starve. I cannot live like a beggar. I am a human being. I want a travel document. The UNHCR is doing nothing for us here.”
As with the provisions on employment, this problem of documents for travel reifies the fact that active persuasion of the Indian Government is needed for them to reconsider acceeding to the Convention.
(n) Resettlement
As the case of Mr Kazemi illustrates, resettlement poses a major problem for refugees and UNHCR alike. This is especially true in the current global climate of increasingly restrictive asylum policies being implemented by much of the developed world.
Although a large number of refugees have applied for resettlement, there is considerable insecurity about their future. Their present situation is conditioned by their attitude towards their future. These who hope and wait for resettlement manage to survive on their subsistence allowance whereas those who have given up hope, seek desperately for ways to supplement the allowance. Refugees have alleged that the local office of UNHCR has been inefficient in giving them accurate information about their prospects for resettlement or repatriation. False hopes and assurances have been given and letters written by the refugees concerning their resettlement, have often remained unanswered.
The problem seems to be that only those refugees who have a “first degree family link” abroad, that of immediate relatives, have the slightest hope of being resettled and this policy is extremely discriminatory, to say the least.
(o) Monitoring Mechanism
Field investigations by SAHRDC revealed that internal monitoring mechanisms at the UNHCR leave much to be desired. UNHCR maintains that social workers file records on each refugee and that “Home-visits” and “survey” reports are maintained. The UNHCR also claims to have regular professional staff meetings chaired by the Chief of Mission as well as regular meetings with social workers.
The research team is of the opinion that the “home visits” of the local office of UNHCR are conducted by young post-graduate students who have completed their degree in Social Work. They are inexperienced about the cultural affliations of the refugee communities they are supposed to serve. As a case in point, SAHRDC was told that carpets in the houses of the Afghan refugees (though extremely varied in quality) were cited as indications of wealth by the UNHCR. The point is that a carpet, coupled withn rugs are essential components of Afghan homes, in lieu of seating or other furniture.
Nafisa Ghani Zadah (AF 010609) claims that “I am a married woman with 3 children, a son and two daughters. I get no support from my husband who lives in Afghanistan with a second wife. They (UNHCR officials on home visits) saw our furniture and decided that we did not need help, but we have this (the furniture) because an old friend who lived in Delhi moved abroad and left it with us.”
The UNHCR needs to furnish information about the process of monitoring and give statistical information quanitifying official investigations carried out as part of the social welfare programmes. SAHRDC is appreciative of the fact that the members of the “home visit” are courteous to the refugees.
(p) Accessibility to the UNHCR
Refugees allege that the local office of UNHCR is not accessible to them. They have complained about guards who deal harshly with them. While ostensibly scrutinizing their documents and letters, refugees are subject to a barrage of verbal abuse. They have also alleged that those at the reception of the local office of UNHCR, as well as the social workers are not helpful. That these personnel lack understanding and patience. Although the local office of UNHCR claims that letters from refugees are handed over to the concerned officers, the refugees claim that sometimes, they are not given appointments. Such an attitude of indifference by the local office of UNHCR can only lead to a further alienation from the very people it exists to serve. A spokesperson of UNHCR stated to SAHRDC that only those cases who had already been informed of the futility of their particular application were refused appointments.(29)
Saad Kazemi (IQ 0049), said, “Accessability in Pakistan is easy. Here meeting the Legal Officer is impossible. I have met only once”. This was in connection to an incident of police harassment in Nizamuddin, a neighbourhood of New Delhi, when Mr Saad Kazemi went to the local office of UNHCR to seek protection.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite claims by the New Delhi office of UNHCR that the objectives of its social services is the welfare of the refugees, the living conditions of the refugees indicate otherwise. A few questions need immediate perusal.
- The New Delhi office of UNHCR may profess to carry out a variety of activities for the benefit of the refugees but does it evaluate the quality of such activities ?
- If the services offered by the UNHCR are for the refugees, why do they feel so alienated and even ignored?
- If the UNHCR aims to “help the refugees to help themselves” through the Lump-Sum system and lead them to self-sufficiency, why does it encourage a system wherein the refugees actually become dependents steeped in debt rather than become the beneficiaries ?
This was starkly brought out by what an Iraqi refugee had to say, “In India, we only learned to open our hands to beg.”
This study, by SAHRDC, on the services offered by the New Delhi office of UNHCR to the refugees in Delhi is based on a 75 day-long intensive field investigation. It must be acknowledged that this study is but the tip of the iceberg and therefore it is essential that an indepth follow-up study be carried out by the Geneva office of UNHCR to obtain a complete picture. The recommendations given are but a few ways in which UNHCR can strive to improve, to some extent, the quality of life of the refugees.
Public Awareness :
The Executive Committee of UNHCR in its 40th session of the High Commissioner’s Programme (59 XLCi) urged UNHCR “to intensify efforts to increase public awareness of the situation and needs of refugee(s)…”
Very little has been done to create public awareness about refugees and their problems. It is imperative that attempts be made to sensitize the Indian public. In New Delhi, the refugees have to pay twice the amount of money that Indians would, for necessities ranging from shelter to food since the general assumption is that all foreigners are well to do which is not so in the case of refugees. Social Communication and the media can help dissipate prejudice and arouse public sympathy and concern for refugees.
Refugee Participation :
The extent of refugee participation in any project will determine the degree of its effectiveness and thereby its success. Refugee participation is one way of “helping refugees to help themselves” thereby working towards the goal of self sufficiency. Women refugees, especially, should be encouraged to participate in the various UNHCR programmes.
Income Generating Projects :
Income generation projects should be identified and carried out by the local office of UNHCR or by NGOs supported by UNHCR for the benefit of the refugees. Such schemes would not only supplement the refugees allowance but would also engage them in productive work during their stay in India.
In terms of employment, rather than asking the refugees for addresses of 3 units where the refugee proposes to work, the UNHCR should have a job-placement cell. This would ensure that the refugees find “gainful employment” after their vocational training is over.
Right to Information:
The refugees have a right to accurate information concerning their rights and responsibilities, the present situation in the country of origin and the possibilities for durable solutions to be found, be it repatriation, resettlement or local integration. Additionally, they require information regarding accessibility to social services.
Refugees should be oriented intensively on facilities and schemes that would help them during their stay in the country of residence. They should be made aware of their rights. Refugees have alleged that they have been uninformed about their resettlement prospects for years at a time.
The UNHCR office should be accountable to people whom it exists to serve and to this end the local office of UNHCR must reduce the alienation of the refugees.
Qualified and Experienced Counsellors :
The services of qualified and experienced counsellors are required at the UNHCR centres. In dealing with refugees, one must keep in mind the fact that refugees, with their painful past, need special care and attention. The services of such professionals would bring individualised attention into services offered at the UNHCR, to some extent.
Increase in Subsistence Allowance:
It is essential that the subsistence allowance for refugees be increased. Inflation and the cost of living in New Delhi must be taken into consideration when determining a reasonable amount that a refugee could be expected to survive on. The paltry sum given to the refugees at present is not sufficient to meet the bare necessities. Unless this allowance is increased, refugees cannot be expected to take advantage of the various services offered. As one student refugee put it, “How can we study, when there is nothing in our stomach?”
SAHRDC approves of the proposal of the UNHCR, New Delhi to increase the Subsistence Allowance for the refugees. At the same time, SAHRDC urges UNHCR, Geneva to increase allocation for their mission in New Delhi where the latter has to meet the needs of an increasing refugee population.
Special Community Workers:
The appointment of special community workers who would be concerned with a particular refugee community. The special community worker would be the liaison agent between the community and the local office of the UNHCR. This would perhaps make the local office of the UNHCR more accessible to the refugees who not only feel alienated but have also expressed their doubts about the New Delhi UNHCR office’s concern for their welfare. It would be useful if these workers had particular knowledge and awareness about the cultural norms of the community in question as well as an ability to speak the language.
Refugee Hostels:
It is considered that the local office of UNHCR should, in light of the problems of accommodation faced by refugees, set up refugee hostels. For the new arrivals, finding accommodation is difficult and refugee hostels should be made available, at least for a few months while the person or persons orientate themselves to their new surroundings. Such facilities would also benefit unaccompained minors and single refugee women.
SAHRDC realises that the provision of hostels may constitute a `pull factor’, thus attracting more refugees. Although this would need to be guarded against, the genuine necessity for such facilities in Delhi (at least for the most vulnerable of the refugees) cannot be ignored.
Follow-up Services:
These are important because they ensure that services offered reach the appropriate groups. The monthly reporting of refugees at community centres is an inadequate and inefficient monitoring mechanism. Instead, home-visits, regular meetings with refugees and community visits should be part of follow-up services.
It is not the quantity of services that counts but rather the quality which ensures efficiency and effectiveness of the entire service system. Refugees have alleged that the local office of UNHCR is merely interested in doling out their subsistence allowance and that it is indifferent to their living conditions. Follow-ups are essential to maintain effectiveness and to incorporate a certain amount of individual attention in these existing services.
Internal Monitoring Mechanism:
The UNHCR office in Delhi, needs to have an internal monitoring mechanism wherein it is not only accountable to itself or to the head office in Geneva but, to its very beneficiaries too. Reports and statistics should be made accessible. Unless the present rigidity and closed system of functioning is dispensed with, the very purpose of its existence is nullified.
8. CONCLUSION
“Guidelines are not mere suggestions that can be ignored when it is not convenient to follow them. Guidelines are tools for reaching policy objectives, so there must be good reasons for not following them in a specific situation”.(30)
It is commendable that despite the fact that India is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol, UNHCR has been able to function thus far. However, it is important to realise that the local office of UNHCR is at the moment unable to adequately meet the needs of the Afghan and other refugees in New Delhi. In Delhi, guidelines for treatment of refugees have been flagrantly ignored and if assistance from the international community is insufficient to meet the funding needs of the organisation then perhaps an active networking with NGOs would enhance the quantity as well as quality of services offered to the refugees.
According to the local office of UNHCR, they would be willing to engage in more active cooperation with local NGOs but plans for this are still only at the drawing board stage.
SAHRDC is aware that in comparison to the refugees in camps in other parts of the world, the local office of UNHCR may feel that those in Delhi are well off. However, since they have not allowed the refugees to settle in other areas of India, where less money would be required to survive, they do have the responsibility to ensure that the refugees can fulfill their basic needs in Delhi. The urban overcrowded, dirty and cramped conditions in which most of the refugees live are not necessarily any better than rural camps and in many cases the quality of life is infinitely worse.
Protection and assistance are more likely to succeed with the cooperation of governments and this necessitates the UNHCR concentration on the question of how it can elicit such cooperation and consent from the Indian Government. This may necessitate an overhaul of present UNHCR policy in the wake of Indian Government obduracy on the issue of UNHCR being able to exercise it’s complete mandate in India.
The number of refugees in India will continue to grow relentlessly as long as there are widespread human rights violations in the region. As is evident in this study, the lot of the refugees in Delhi, has so far been dismal. The local office of UNHCR needs to make more of an effort towards improving the lives of these people in the process of upholding the rights of refugees.
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
- A Compilation of International Instruments, United Nations, New York, 1988.
- Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
- Status and International Protection of Refugees, UNHCR, Geneva.
- Refugee Children: Protection and Care, UNHCR, Geneva, 1993
- Information Paper, UNHCR, 1992
- Palaudan, P., Asylum in Europe, A Handbook for Agencies assisting Refugees,
- Kelly, N., Working with Refugee Women, A Practical Guide, Geneva, 1989.
- Guideline on Refugee Children, UNHCR, August 1988.
- Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women, UNHCR, Geneva, July 1991.
10. ENDNOTES
1. Article 8, The Statute of the UNHCR.
2. Article 1, Paragraph 2, Section A.
3. Khan, Sadruddin Aga, Lectures On Legal Problems Relating to Refugees and Displaced Persons, Hague Academy of International Law, 1976.
4. Ibid.,
5. Article 1, OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of the Refugee Problem in Africa, 1969.
6. Conclusion 3, Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, 1984.
7. UNHCR : The State of The World’s Refugees, Penguin, 1993.
8. UNHCR: Background Note on Protection in South Asia
9. SAHRDC; Note on conditions of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in camps in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu
10. Asia Watch, Halt repatriation of the Sri Lankan Tamils, Volume 5, No 11, August 1993
11. TELEGRAPH NEWSPAPER; CALCUTTA `No decision on Afghans yet’ (27 October 1984)
12. Figures as on 31 August 1994.
13. Asia Watch, Halt Repatriation of Sri Lankan Tamils, New York, 1993.
14. The Core of UNHCR Activities: The General Programmes Information Bulletin No 1, 29 September 1993.
15. One US $ is equivalent to Indian Rs 30
16. One US $ is equivalent to …Pakistani rupees.
17. One US $ is equivalent to … Bangladeshi Taka.
18. The number denotes the refugee certificate (identification) number with the New Delhi Office of UNHCR.
19. The comments of the UNHCR on the draft report on “State of Refugees under the Protection of UNHCR, New Delhi”, Reference HCR/21.2/293, 22 August 1994.
20. The comments of the UNHCR on the draft report on “State of Refugees under the Protection of UNHCR, New Delhi”, Reference HCR/21.2/293, 22 August 1994.
21. The comments of the UNHCR on the draft report on “State of Refugees under the Protection of UNHCR, New Delhi”, Reference HCR/21.2/293, 22 August 1994.
22. It should be noted that in the New Delhi localities of Duggal Farm, Khanpur, Hari Vihar, Palam, Sanjay Nagar and Laxmi Nagar, there are numerous Afghans who own property. The UNHCR officials stated, as an example, that Mr Kuldip Singh, an Afghan national, lived in 502 Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi. Mr Singh maintained the above stated property to be in the name of “Komal”. Upon investigation, UNHCR found that Komal was the wife of Mr Kuldip Singh. The legalality and implied complications of how some refugees own property, being foreign nationals, is dubious. SAHRDC urges the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to investigate such cases.
23. Bari, Shamsul, The comments of the UNHCR on the draft report on the “State of Refugees under the Protection of UNHCR, New Delhi”, Reference HCR/21.2/293, 22 August 1994.
24. Guidelines : Assistance for Vocational Training Programme, UNHCR, New Delhi.
25. UNHCR Guidelines : The Protection of Refugee Women, Geneva, 1991.
26. Article 1, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
27. The comments of the UNHCR on the draft report on “State of Refugees under the Protection of UNHCR, New Delhi”, Reference HCR/21.2/293, 22 August 1994.
28. Refugee Children, Guidelines On Protection and Care, pp. 18, UNHCR, Geneva, 1994.
29. Interview with Ms. Lim: Legal Officer UNHCR
30. Refugee Children : Guidelines on protection and Care, Geneva, 1994.