1. INTRODUCTION
Though India has not ratified the 1951 United Nations (UN) and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, it provides shelter to over 300,000 refugees from neighboring countries. There are over 50,000 Jumma refugees from the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh sheltered in Tripura State of India, over 70,000 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees living in Indian State of Tamilnadu and about 121,143 Tibetan refugees. They are under the protection of the Government of India.
Besides the Sri Lankan, Jumma and the Tibetan refugees, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) provides protection to 22,000 refugees consisting of the Afghans, Iranians, Somalis, Burmese, Sudanese refugees reside in Delhi.
In 1994, India was elected to the Executive Committee of the UNHCR without ratifying the 1951 United Nations (UN) and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre hopes that Government of India would feel encouraged to ratify the Convention and the Protocol.
The non-ratification of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol by the Government of India has reduced the status of fleeing humanities to political arbitrariness. The grant of “refugees status” is discretion of the political authorities. There is no legal framework under Indian constitution to determine the status of refugees and the Government of India has dealt with the refugees on adhoc basis. This led to the use of refugees as pawns in regional geo-politics. Repatriation has always taken place wihout ascertaining the voluntary character by interviewing individual refugees. The UNHCR and other international agencies were denied access as repatriation always took place after bilateral discussions. Bilateral discussion always involve certain amount of geo-political and economic interest and suspicions between India and the country of origin of the refugees. In the process, refugees have become victims of gross human rights violations. A cursory scrutiny of the conditions of refugees makes it crystal clear.
2. JUMMA REFUGEES FROM CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS, BANGLADESH
Over 55,000 Jumma refugees from the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh fled to the Tripura State of India after a series of massacres by the Bangladeshi security forces and illegal plainsmen settlers in 1986. The reoccurrence of more massacres brought more Jumma refugees in 1989 and 1992. The Government of India refused to register the Jumma refugee who fled after the Logang massacre of 10 April 1992, hence denying refugee status to the fleeing refugees.
Several rounds of discussions were held between the Government of India and Bangladesh to repatriate the Jumma refugees. The refugee leaders put forward a set of demands including the political solution of the Chittagong Hill Tracts problem and involvement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the repatriation process to ensure physical safety and security of the returnees. The Jumma refugees were put under pressure to agree with the repatriation. The scale of rations has been reduced and the refugees have been provided with only rice and salt since October 1992 as a part of Government of India’s “Non-violent” pressure upon the helpless Jumma refugees. Medical, sanitation and educational facilities remain non-existent since October 1992.
In 1994, the Government of India initiated a repatriation process reluctantly agreed by the Jumma refugee leadership under “subtle duress” of the Tripura Governor Mr Romesh Bhandari. The repatriation is a follow up of the understanding reached between Indian Prime Minister PV Narashima Rao and his Bangladeshi counterpart Begum Khaleda Zia when the latter visited New Delhi in May 1992. Subsequent to the visit of the Bangladeshi Prime Minister in May 1992, Communications Minister Col(Retd) Oli Ahmed visited New Delhi and the Jumma refugee camps in Tripura in July 1993 to begin the repatriation process. The CHT Jumma Refugees Welfare Association submitted a 13 Point Charter of Demands to Col Oli Ahmed for repatriation.
An estimated 1,846 individual Jumma refugees were reluctantly made to agree to return in the first phase of repatriation in February 1994. The 13 Point Charter of Demands of the Jumma refugees were set aside and Bangladesh Government provided a 16 Point Rehabilitation Package to convince the refugees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other international agencies were not provided access to monitor the repatriation process. The Jumma refugee leadership were pressurized by Governor of Tripura Mr Romesh Bhandari to agree with the first phase of repatriation on an experimentation basis to test the level of normalcy prevailing in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre(SAHRDC) visited the Jumma refugee camps from 5 to 7 February 1994 (please refer “No Secure Refuge”, SAHRDC/7413/1/94). SAHRDC has found that the Jumma refugees were being repatriated “under duress” and the voluntary nature of the individual refugees has not been verified.
SAHRDC filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India on 10 March 1994. The NHRC has asked the Union Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary of the Government of India and State Government of Tripura to submit their responses. The Foreign Ministry and Tripura has submitted their replies and the hearing is scheduled to take place on 8 May 1995.
In the meanwhile, a team of 11 members of the CHTs Jumma Refugee Welfare Association visited the Chittagong Hill Tracts from 25 to 29 April 1994 to check the rehabilitation of the returnee Jumma refugees. “The Association found a number of anomalies and 16 Point package offer were not duly implemented as per the commitments of the Government.” The Jumma refugee leaders in its report published on 13 May 1994 on their visit to the Chittagong Hill Tracts demanded that the UNHCR be involved in the further repatriation of the Jumma refugees.
A second batch of 3,323 individual Jumma refugees were again repatriated under duress in July 1994. This followed the visit of Tripura Governor Mr Romesh Bhandari to Bangladesh from 17 to 21 April 1994.
The repatriation has been stopped since then. Several rounds of bilateral discussion took place between the Government of India, Government of Bangladesh and the Jumma refugees. Bangladesh Communications Minister Col (Retd) Oli Ahmed visited the Jumma refugee camps on 1 February 1995. However, the deadlock continues over the non-implementation of 16 Point Package to rehabilitate the returnee Jumma refugees.
A 15 member team of the CHTs Jumma Refugees Welfare Association visited the returnee Jumma refugees on 14 and 15 March 1995. The refugee leaders in its report on the visit has cited 103 families of the returnee Jumma refugees who were not given back the land. Moreover the refugee leaders alleged of infringement of general amnesty offered to the refugees. Mr Kaladan Chakma, S/o-Mr Dibakar Chakma of Kukichara Mukh, under Khagrachari district has been arrested on charge of a false case of 1989 when he was a refugee in Tripura. Mr Kaladan Chakma has been demanding his land and homesteads occupied by the army campy at Kukichara.
Besides the rehabilitation of the returnee Jumma refugees, the refugee leaders demanded involvement of the UNHCR in the process of repatriation of the repatriation and rehabilitation of the Jumma refugees.
3. SRI LANKAN TAMIL REFUGEES
In the past few years, with the heightening hawkish stance of both the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the plight of the Sri Lankan Tamil has considerably worsened. As a result, many Sri Lankan Tamils, fearing for their lives, have taken refuge in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Currently, the Indian Government reports that there are about 1,60,000 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in India of which about 76,000 live in refugee camps in Tamil Nadu and about 30,000 live outside these camps in cities and towns across Tamil Nadu. Other non-governmental sources believe that there are actually closer to 100,000 refugees outside the camp.
Sadly, the plight of Sri Lankan Tamils has not improved in India. For many refugees, the conditions in the Tamil Nadu camps are worse. Essentially, the Indian Government has been and continues to violate key human rights of the refugees. The Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have been stripped of such basic human rights as the freedom to leave the campsites, proper medical assistance, and perhaps most importantly, non-refoulement.
The National Human Rights Commission directed the Tamilnadu Government on 26 October 1994 to provide immediate medical treatment to the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees located at the camp in Vellor and conduct periodic medical check up of these peoples. The follows the Commission’s investigation on a complaint of denial of medical treatment to the refugees.
Earlier in March of 1992, the Indian Government passed an order to “persuade and advise Sri Lankan Tamil refugees to repatriate.” By May of 1993, the Indian Government had placed considerable restrictions on Sri Lankan Tamil refugees and on their campsite operations and privileges. As a result, the conditions of the camps have become nearly unbearable. Throughout 1993, many refugees allegedly repatriated voluntarily. The key issue is the degree of this alleged voluntariness.
The reason why the decision of the refugees who opted to return cannot be termed as purely “voluntary” is that very many of them may have opted for repatriation due to the withdrawal of facilities that had been provided to them before the repatriation process commenced. The deprivations include:
- Stoppage of doles and rations after the 9 September 1993.
- Not providing proper educational facilities to refugee children.
- Not repairing huts and failing to maintain other facilities in camps.
- Restricting movements of refugees resulting in preventing refugees from going to work to supplement their meager dole to make ends meet.
- Arresting and locking up refugees in sub-jails designated as (special camps) without stating reasons or inquiry or trial.
- Not providing access to information necessary to enable refugees to make a voluntary decision.
- Failing to provide proper medical assistance.
- Prevention of assistance and services to the refugees in camps by Non-Governmental Organizations.
Another key issue that must be considered in the Sri Lankan Tamil refugee situation is the availability of information. A major problem the refugees are faced with while determining whether to repatriate or not is that they are not presented with adequate information or are presented with misinformation concerning the conditions within Sri Lanka. Adequate mechanisms for the dissemination of accurate information on the situation within Sri Lanka are not in place within the camps. Additionally, the Tamil Nadu office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) has been frequently criticized for giving refugees the wrong impression about the status of the war and their ability to aid and protect the refugees once they reach Sri Lanka.
It is important to note that the Indian Minister of State for Home Affairs, Mr P M Sayeed, in a letter to a Member of Parliament in April of 1994 states that many of the aforementioned deprivations have been rectified. Mr Sayeed writes of education, medical assistance, hut maintenance, and basic amenities that have been made available to all refugees. Many letters have been received by the Indo-Sri Lankan Friendship Society in June of 1994 from refugees in the Tamil Nadu camps that completely contradict Mr Sayeed’s assertions. Essentially, the gross deprivations continue and the Indian Government chooses to deny it.
Various cases have come to light which shows the attitude adopted by the Indian Government in dealing with the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees:
In a Habeas Corpus Petition(No 1465 of 1993) filed by one K. Sarojini Sivalingam on behalf of her husband, Mr R R Sivalingam, it has been stated that her husband was confined in the Special Camp for Sri Lankans at Chengalpattu. The wife petitioned the Court to provide constant and intensive medical care and attention to Mr R R Sivalingam. The Court, vide its order dated 9.9.93, directed the Tamil Nadu State Government to admit him in the Government Hospital, Madras, for proper assessment and better management of his ailment (heart disease), based on the opinion of the Medical Board.
Though the order was pronounced on 9.9.93, the Tamil Nadu State Government failed to implement the said order of the Court for nearly 10 days. It was only after a telegram was issued to the Tamil Nadu State Government that Mr Sivalingam was eventually admitted to the Government Central Hospital on 19.9.93. But, shockingly, he was brought hand-cuffed, with a chain initially to the Office of the Commissioner of Police and thereafter, to the Government General Hospital, Madras. But, even after admission, he was kept tied to the bed in the hospital, despite several protests on his part. Initially, he was in Ward 7 and later shifted to ward 3 where he was lodged. At the hospital, he was not allowed to communicate with outsiders and not allowed to write letters, even to his counsel. Whenever, he was taken to other wards or to the X-ray Department, or to the lab for certain tests, he was taken hand-cuffed and tied with a chain. His counsel was also told by the escort policemen to get a court order if they wanted to visit him. Moreover, he was not allowed to speak to his legal counsels in confidence and the police guards, including an official from the Special Branch insisted on hearing every word that was spoken. This was clearly illegal.
The inhuman treatment meted out to Mr Sivalingam was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in various decisions apart from being violative of the order of the Madras High Court in M.C.M.P . No. 210 of 1993, wherein no such directions had been given to handcuff Mr Sivalingam or to chain him to the bed/hospital. Mr Sivalingam has held various high posts in Sri Lanka, including that of Director of Education in Colombo. He has not been accused of any criminal offence. The impugned order merely requires him to reside in the Special Camp and makes no mention of arrest or detention. The power to arrest and detain a foreigner under Sec.3(2) (9) of the Foreigner’s Act is conferred only on the Central Government and the State Government was incompetent to do so. It has been a humiliating experience for Mr Sivalingam.
Despite several protests and representations, the State Government failed to take off his handcuffs and chains. As he was not allowed to write any letters, he was unable to submit a representation in this regard. However, when his counsel visited him on 24 September 1993, at about 5.30 p.m, he forwarded a representation to the Commissioner of Police through him. When his counsel went to submit the representation to the Police Commissioner, he was not present; his Personal Assistant received the representation but refused to give any acknowledgement. In any case, several officials of the police establishment including the Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) visited him and had seen him chained to the bed; he also complained to them; but no action was taken. It also had a deleterious effect on Mr Sivalingam’s health. It is therefore proper that Mr Sivalingam should claim appropriate damages and compensation in respect of the illegal detention and all further illegal acts perpetrated upon him.
The above is just a single instance of many more horrifying cases perpetrated by the Indian Government. The police, without giving any reasons for their arrest and detention in special camps, have arbitrarily and illegally acted in a manner by which the refugee protection given to these persons is withdrawn. Most of these persons are languishing in sub-jails for periods upto two years. In most cases, such detention was followed by the serving of orders under the Foreigner’s Act without adherence to the principles of natural justice. This is against Indian and International Humanitarian norms and is a complete travesty of justice. That this should happen in a country like India which observes the Rule of Law and which adopts and follows international norms relating to treatment of refugees is heart-rending.
4. TIBETAN REFUGEES
There are an estimated 121,143 Tibetan refugees, mostly sheltered in Dharamsala of Himachal Pradesh, Ladhak of Jammu and Kashmir and in Mysore in Karnataka. More than 25,000 Tibetan refugees have arrived since His Holiness Dalai Lama crossed the border with more than 85,000 followers in 1959. Individual Tibetan refugees continue to trickle in to escape from the Chinese oppression in Occupied Tibet.
The Tibetan refugees are dependent on agriculture, handicrafts like carpet weaving, sweater selling and other tradings. The Tibetan Central Administration has been able to establish schools for the Tibetan children to preserve their culture. Primary health care centres have been established in every settlement camp and traditional Tibetan Medical clinic operate in many settlements with physicians trained by the Tibetan Medical and Astro Institute. However, in 1994, the Tibetan refugees were victims of xenophobia of local people in Arunachal Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh.
5. BHUTANESE REFUGEES
Since the ethnic conflict between the ruling Drukpas of Bhutan and the ethnic Bhutanese of Nepali origin started in 1990, around 15,000 Bhutanese refugees of ethnic Nepali origin took shelter in Shiliguri and Jalpaiguri districts of West Bengal and Kokhrajhar district of Assam.
If one is to go by categorization of over 86,000 Bhutanese refugees of ethnic Nepali origin in Nepal after bilateral discussions between Kathmandu and Thimpu, the Bhutanese refugees does not fall under any category. The Government of India does not recognize them as refugees and hence, provide no assistance. However, under the 1949 Indo-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, they are allowed to stay in India and can engage themselves in employment activities and other facilities.
Nepal and Bhutan continue with bilateral discussions as an attempt to find an amicable solution of the problems. However, Bhutanese refugees in India does not figure in India. While they have been allowed to stay in India, there is no way these “Lhotshampas” could return to their country of origin.
6. ETHNIC BURMESE AND TRIBAL REFUGEES IN NORTH EAST INDIA
A few hundred refugees belonging to the ethnic Nagas have sought shelter in Manipur and Mizoram in 1991 after the Burmese military started a crack down on the Naga and other insurgents on the side of Burma. They were not recognized as refugees by the Government of India but allowed to stay in India.
A large number of ethnic Chin and other tribal refugees also sought refuge in Indian State of Mizoram to escape from repression by the Burmese military authorities. However, State Government of Mizoram has allegedly forcibly repatriated many Chin refugees living in the State in 1994. While it was not reported in the press, a senior official of the Mizoram State Government confirmed on animosity to a SAHRDC representative that a large number of the Chin refugees were forcibly repatriated by the State Government in 1994.
7. THE REFUGEES PROTECTED BY THE UNHCR, DELHI
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Delhi looks after around 22,000 refugees of various nationalities like the Afghans, Iranians, Somalis, Burmese and Sudanese. There are 22,015 Afghan refugees, 228 Iranian refugees, 349 Somali refugees, 257 Burmese refugees, 109 Sudanese refugees and 107 other refugees as of 28 February 1995 as recognized by the UNHCR.
There have been allegations concerning the social welfare policy of the UNHCR in Delhi towards the refugees. South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) have received numerous allegations about the arbitrariness of the UNHCR to cancel the refugee status and allowances. SAHRDC has done an study of on the conditions of the refugees protected by the UNHCR in Delhi. For details, please see SAHRDC report “The Status of Refugees under the Protection of the UNHCR in New Delhi”, SAHRDC/01310/1/95 of 1 May 1995.
8. THE INTERNALLY DISPACED PERSONS IN INDIA
The low intensity armed conflict in Jammu and Kashmir and inter-ethnic strife coupled with armed conflict in the North East India have resulted large internal displacement. While the internally displaced Kashmiri pandits received some assistance from the Government, no initiative has been undertaken to alleviate the conditions of the victims of “Naga-Kuki” ethnic conflict in Manipur State of India.
Internally displaced Kashmiri Pandits
An estimated 26,000 families numbering over of 200,000 Hindu Kashmiri Pandits have been internally displaced. There are many controversies surrounding the internally displaced Kashmiri pandits, be it their number or the reasons for their flight from Kashmir. While there is no doubt that the Kashmir Pandits were at the receiving end of the various armed opposition groups in Kashmir, it is alleged that a large number of the Kashmir pandits left the valley on the initiation and instigation of Mr Jagmohan, the then Governor of Jammu and Kashmir.
Most of the internally displaced Kashmir Pandits live in Delhi and Jammu. Around 12,000 families have been provided shelter at Purkhu, Mutti, Mishriwala, Nagrotam Udhamput and Jammu city. The families were provided an allowance of Rs 1000/- per family till 1994. The Government has raised it to Rs 1500 for a family of four or more members. For a family having less than four person, allowance is given at the rate of Indian Rs 425.
The internally displaced Kashimiri pandits allege that Government measure are not adequate. Malnutrition and lack of sanitation facilities have been reported.
The Nagas and Kukis of Manipur
Over 1,000 individuals have been killed since inter-ethnic strife between the Nagas and the Kukis started in mid 1992 in India’s little Bosnia, Manipur. Thousands of houses and villages have been brunt down on both sides. Both the National Socialist Council of Nagaland and Kuki National Army, the two armed opposition groups have allegedly been involved in the killings. Though both the groups have denied their involvement, the role of the mercenaries and bigots can not be ruled out. The ethnic conflict resulted in large numbers of internal displaced person in the State.
The killings continues at times subtle way of sabotaging in jungles. The analysts of the Naga-Kuki conflict invariably analyzed the ethnic conflict from a historical perspective holding the British colonial power responsible for the present hatred. The British settled the Kukis in the Naga inhabited areas in the 19th century to bring the Nagas under its control. There is no doubt that without such a sound historical basis the conflict can not be analyzed or it would not have swelled to such an extent. However, historical distortions notwithstanding the relevant question is why the conflict resurfaced almost after a century of peaceful co-existence. That is where one attempts to point the needle of suspicion. The Indian Central Government and its agencies have allegedly aiding, abetting and stocking the Naga-Kuki conflict. Indian press has extensively reported about the alleged help of the Indian intelligence agencies to the Kukis. And since the seeds of ethnic hatred have been shown, it has shown no respited. The State was President’s rule in the whole 1994. Elections were held in the State Legislative Assembly but both the Central and State Governments are yet to show political will to end the ethnic conflict.
The exact numbers of internally displaced persons in Manipur is unavailable. However, there is no doubt that the number of internally displaced person continue to rise with the continuing killings in a more subtle way and destruction of properties.