Frontline October 2017 - Rohingya Crisis

The Rohingya are often described as "the world's most persecuted minority".

They are an ethnic group, majority of whom are Muslim, who have lived for centuries in the majority Buddhist Myanmar. Currently, there are about 1.1 million Rohingya who live in the Southeast Asian country.
The Rohingya speak Rohingya or Ruaingga, a dialect that is distinct to others spoken in Rakhine State and throughout Myanmar. They are not considered one of the country's 135 official ethnic groups and have been denied citizenship in Myanmar since 1982, which has effectively rendered them stateless.
Muslims have lived in the area now known as Myanmar since as early as the 12th century, according to many historians and Rohingya groups.
The Arakan Rohingya National Organisation has said, "Rohingyas have been living in Arakan from time immemorial," referring to the area now known as Rakhine.
During the more than 100 years of British rule (1824-1948), there was a significant amount of migration of labourers to what is now known as Myanmar from today's India and Bangladesh. Because the British administered Myanmar as a province of India, such migration was considered internal, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW).
The migration of labourers was viewed negatively by the majority of the native population.
After independence, the government viewed the migration that took place during British rule as "illegal, and it is on this basis that they refuse citizenship to the majority of Rohingya,"
In 1982, a new citizenship law was passed, which effectively rendered the Rohingya stateless. Under the law, Rohingya were again not recognised as one of the country's 135 ethnic groups. The law established three levels of citizenship. In order to obtain the most basic level (naturalised citizenship), there must be proof that the person's family lived in Myanmar prior to 1948, as well as fluency in one of the national languages. Many Rohingya lack such paperwork because it was either unavailable or denied to them.
As a result of the law, their rights to study, work, travel, marry, practice their religion and access health services have been and continue to be restricted. The Rohingya cannot vote and even if they jump through the citizenship test hoops, they have to identify as "naturalised" as opposed to Rohingya, and limits are placed on them entering certain professions like medicine, law or running for office.
Since the 1970s, a number of crackdowns on the Rohingya in Rakhine State have forced hundreds of thousands to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh, as well as Malaysia, Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries. During such crackdowns, refugees have often reported rape, torture, arson and murder by Myanmar security forces.
Prior to the violence that began in August, the UN estimated that there are as many as 420,000 Rohingya refugees in Southeast Asia. Additionally, it said there were around 120,000 internally displaced Rohingya.
Since the violence in Myanmar's northwest began, more than 400,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh, UNHCR said. It added that more than 1,000 people, mostly Rohingya, may have been killed in Myanmar.
The latest violence began when the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (a militant faction) attacked the Mynamarese security forces thereby leading to a counter on Rohingya settlements by the armed forces.

Situation in India

There are 16,500 Rohingya registered with the UNHCR in India, and the government claims there are 40,000 of them in the country. Most of them have been living in Delhi.
The recent violence in the Myanmar has led to Rohingyas fleeing to Bangladesh mainly but India is also worried and that worry can be seen in the government's recent declaration that it will deport the Rohingyas. The reason is primarily related to security of India . As per several intelligence inputs the Rohingyas are being radicalised by the Terror groups and that can pose a security threat to India.
This development has led to unsettlement and concern among not just the Rohingyas living in India but also among other refugees in India.
Also, some people have expressed the opinion that Article 21 is applicable to all and not just citizens and hence deporting Rohingyas against their will is a violation of the article.
India not signatory to the UN convention
India has signed neither the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol, which has 140 signatories, an overwhelming majority of the world’s 190-odd nations.

Why won’t India sign the Convention or the Protocol?

• The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) won’t officially say why, but the reasons are chiefly security-related. The line of argument is that borders in South Asia are extremely porous and any conflict can result in a mass movement of people. This can have two results: first, a strain on local infrastructure and resources in countries that are poorly equipped to deal with sudden spikes in population.
• Second, it can upset the demographic balance, a tinderbox in South Asia.
• Another argument is that India already does its duty, so where’s the need to sign this piece of paper? It mostly doesn’t even take UN money to look after the refugees. (India has largest population of refugees in whole of South Asia)
India is home to diverse groups of refugees, ranging from Buddhist Chakmas from the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, to Bhutanese from Nepal, Muslim Rohinygas from Myanmar and small populations from Somalia, Sudan and other sub Saharan African countries. According to the UNHCR, there were 204,600 refugees, asylum seekers and “others of concern” in India in 2011. They were made up of 13,200 people from Afghanistan, 16,300 from Myanmar, 2,100 from various other countries and the two older populations of around 100,000 Tibetans and 73,000 Sri Lankan Tamils. The UNHCR financially assisted 31,600 of them.
• If India signs, it will be bound by law not to repatriate a single refugee against their will. It’s known as the non-refoulement principle—no forcible repatriation. This means that India even if witnessing stresses on its economy or demography will not be able to repatriate the refugees. (According to academic Shreya Sen, a researcher on South Asian issues, India in any case is bound by this principle because it is contained in the 1984 Convention against torture, to which India is a signatory.)

Why the need for Refugee/Asylum Seeker Law?

• Till now the successive governments have dealt with refugee question on case by case basis. The Tibetan refugees were given the Registration Certificates and the Identity Certificates.
The Sri Lankan Tamils, who fled their country to escape persecution by the government forces when the island nation was battling with the LTTE insurgency, were classified as "camp refugees" and "non-camp refugees".
The minority refugees - Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians - from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan were allowed to stay in India on Long Term Visas.
Hence there is lack of a coherent policy on dealing with the refugees which can lead to arbitrariness and unpredictability.
• Presence of a definite policy can help in dealing with security threats or any other issues posed by the refugees.
• Problems have arisen in the absence of any policy framework on the treatment of refugees is when vulnerable refugees try to find work or when they are exploited by unscrupulous businessmen because they remain unintegrated.
In 2015, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor introduced a Private Member's Bill titled the Asylum Bill, 2015 in the Lok Sabha. The Bill seeks to provide for the establishment of a legal framework to deal with refugee problem. But, the Bill has not yet been taken up for consideration.

By: Deepak Hooda