Visit of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
Mrs. Sadako Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, visited the Commission on 4 May 2000. She met the Chairperson and Members of the Commission and held extensive discussions with them. The topics included the current preoccupations of UNHCR in India and the work being done to assist refugees here. Mrs. Ogata was briefed by the Chairperson and Members about the steps being taken by the Commission to promote and protect the rights of refugees, notably Chakmas and Sri Lankan Tamils.
On the occasion of the High Commissioner’s visit, the National Human Rights Commission and the Indian Council of Social Science Research sponsored a lecture, "On the Humanitarian Frontlines", by her, on 5 May 2000 in New Delhi.
Welcoming the High Commissioner on the occasion, Shri Virendra Dayal, who represented the National Human Rights Commission at the function, observed that UNHCR was a remarkable organisation that, twice in 50 years, had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. "The Frontlines indeed are where UNHCR has been in recent years, dealing with the humanitarian aspects of crises as complex as those relating to Afganistan, the Balkans, the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa and East Timor, to mention a few".
Shri Dayal spoke of the rich tradition of India in granting refuge to those fleeing persecution or conflict. He noted, however, that despite such a tradition, India has thus far acceded neither to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees nor to the 1967 Protocol on this subject. The National Human Rights Commission had, accordingly, opened a dialogue on the subject of refugees with the Central Government, just as it had in respect of other international instruments relating to human rights. The Commission had also encouraged and participated in discussions being held to draft a Model Law on Refugees, an effort which was being undertaken under the auspices of SAARCLAW and UNHCR. It had made periodic interventions in respect of Chakma Refugees in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura, Tamil Refugees from Sri Lanka in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and elsewhere, and individual cases fearing `refoulement’ (forced repatriation).
Citing examples of landmark judgements of the Apex Court, Shri Dayal said, "Our Constitution and Courts are clear on the directions that we should take, as a nation, in the protection of human rights, including the rights of refugees". On the wider question of the applicability of UN Conventions to situations in India, the Supreme Court had, in a judgement delivered by the then Chief Justice, Justice J.S. Verma, who is now the Chairperson of NHRC, held that "It is now an acceptable rule of judicial construction that regard must be had to international conventions and norms in constructing domestic law when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law" (Visakha and others vs State of Rajasthan & Others). Further, Justice Verma, in a public statement in May 1997, had observed that "In the absence of national laws satisfying the need to protect refugees, the provisions of the 1951 Convention and its Protocol can be relied on when there is no conflict with any provision in the municipal laws".
Delivering her lecture, Mrs. Ogata said that all over the world, refugee movements are indicative of turmoil. Stating that human rights violations, political persecution and violence are the root causes of population displacements across the globe, the High Commissioner said that poverty, under-development and unemployment are also contributing to population movements. She also observed that States have failed to deal with the aspirations and rights of ethnic minorities and various social groups.
Speaking of the work of UNHCR in Asia, she referred to the historic agreement that had led to the return and rehabilitation of 110,000 Vietnamese to their country of origin. At the same time, the principle of asylum had been upheld and genuine refugees had been protected and resettled elsewhere. The UNHCR was now pursuing a lasting solution for some 250,000 Muslim Refugees from Myanmar who arrived in Bangladesh in the early 1990s.
Speaking of India, the High Commissioner said that, since Independence, India has hosted enormous refugee movements. "Successive mass flows of Tibetans, refugees from former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), of Chakma tribals from the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and of Sri Lankans, have been accommodated with compassion and concern". She said that what the people of India had done for all these people was an example for the world. Refugees, on their part, participated on the progress and the promise that Indian society holds today. However, one of the greatest challenges for all nations including India lies in the proper management of mixed migrations across international borders. She felt that States must ensure that their obligations to the refugees are met. It was important that the management of mixed migration includes clear, recognised and practical mechanisms to separate those fleeing from persecution or conflict, and those seeking economic betterment. She stressed the need for well-regulated national laws, in accordance to international principles, which would provide transparent and fair procedures for those in need of asylum.
While noting that India’s perceptive on the problems of developing societies is unique and that India is progressing rapidly towards greater economic prosperity, the High Commissioner observed that India straddles a region deeply affected by mass population movements. She thus appealed to the people and the Government of India to tackle the refugee and migration issues in a just, balanced and visionary manner. "No democracy is complete if it excludes those whom history has pushed to the margins of society".
Justice P.N. Bhagwati, delivering the presidential address on the occasion, emphasised that refugee protection ought to be based on and derived from a broad based culture of human rights. This should be the concern of all civilized countries since refugees are victims of persecution in their countries of origin. He said that the total number of refugees in India from neighbouring countries is around 200,000 and added that India has always welcomed those who have come to its land and absorbed them as part of the people of India. But all this was done in the absence of any kind of legislation. "This is partly due to a growing concern that those who may have committed crimes against humanity, war crimes or other acts which are incompatible with the humanitarian nature of refugees status may enter and remain on Indian soil under the pretext of being refugees". He, however, was of the opinion that the absence of a specific refugee law and procedures might put the State at a disadvantage in reaching a proper decision regarding the determination of the status of those who arrived in this country.
Justice Bhagwati expressed appreciation of the role of the National Human Rights Commission and the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of refugees and asylum seekers even in the absence of formal legal instruments. He however felt that the role of the Commission and the judiciary was essentially remedial. "There is still need for systematic and predictable legal provisions, statement and procedures for protecting refugees". He, therefore, hoped that all Governments of South Asia, motivated by human rights ideals and in the interest of refugees, would adopt legislation for the proper determination of the status of refugees and for their better protection.
On the occasion of the High Commissioner’s visit, the National Human Rights Commission and the Indian Council of Social Science Research sponsored a lecture, "On the Humanitarian Frontlines", by her, on 5 May 2000 in New Delhi.
Welcoming the High Commissioner on the occasion, Shri Virendra Dayal, who represented the National Human Rights Commission at the function, observed that UNHCR was a remarkable organisation that, twice in 50 years, had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. "The Frontlines indeed are where UNHCR has been in recent years, dealing with the humanitarian aspects of crises as complex as those relating to Afganistan, the Balkans, the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa and East Timor, to mention a few".
Shri Dayal spoke of the rich tradition of India in granting refuge to those fleeing persecution or conflict. He noted, however, that despite such a tradition, India has thus far acceded neither to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees nor to the 1967 Protocol on this subject. The National Human Rights Commission had, accordingly, opened a dialogue on the subject of refugees with the Central Government, just as it had in respect of other international instruments relating to human rights. The Commission had also encouraged and participated in discussions being held to draft a Model Law on Refugees, an effort which was being undertaken under the auspices of SAARCLAW and UNHCR. It had made periodic interventions in respect of Chakma Refugees in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura, Tamil Refugees from Sri Lanka in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and elsewhere, and individual cases fearing `refoulement’ (forced repatriation).
Citing examples of landmark judgements of the Apex Court, Shri Dayal said, "Our Constitution and Courts are clear on the directions that we should take, as a nation, in the protection of human rights, including the rights of refugees". On the wider question of the applicability of UN Conventions to situations in India, the Supreme Court had, in a judgement delivered by the then Chief Justice, Justice J.S. Verma, who is now the Chairperson of NHRC, held that "It is now an acceptable rule of judicial construction that regard must be had to international conventions and norms in constructing domestic law when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law" (Visakha and others vs State of Rajasthan & Others). Further, Justice Verma, in a public statement in May 1997, had observed that "In the absence of national laws satisfying the need to protect refugees, the provisions of the 1951 Convention and its Protocol can be relied on when there is no conflict with any provision in the municipal laws".
Delivering her lecture, Mrs. Ogata said that all over the world, refugee movements are indicative of turmoil. Stating that human rights violations, political persecution and violence are the root causes of population displacements across the globe, the High Commissioner said that poverty, under-development and unemployment are also contributing to population movements. She also observed that States have failed to deal with the aspirations and rights of ethnic minorities and various social groups.
Speaking of the work of UNHCR in Asia, she referred to the historic agreement that had led to the return and rehabilitation of 110,000 Vietnamese to their country of origin. At the same time, the principle of asylum had been upheld and genuine refugees had been protected and resettled elsewhere. The UNHCR was now pursuing a lasting solution for some 250,000 Muslim Refugees from Myanmar who arrived in Bangladesh in the early 1990s.
Speaking of India, the High Commissioner said that, since Independence, India has hosted enormous refugee movements. "Successive mass flows of Tibetans, refugees from former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), of Chakma tribals from the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and of Sri Lankans, have been accommodated with compassion and concern". She said that what the people of India had done for all these people was an example for the world. Refugees, on their part, participated on the progress and the promise that Indian society holds today. However, one of the greatest challenges for all nations including India lies in the proper management of mixed migrations across international borders. She felt that States must ensure that their obligations to the refugees are met. It was important that the management of mixed migration includes clear, recognised and practical mechanisms to separate those fleeing from persecution or conflict, and those seeking economic betterment. She stressed the need for well-regulated national laws, in accordance to international principles, which would provide transparent and fair procedures for those in need of asylum.
While noting that India’s perceptive on the problems of developing societies is unique and that India is progressing rapidly towards greater economic prosperity, the High Commissioner observed that India straddles a region deeply affected by mass population movements. She thus appealed to the people and the Government of India to tackle the refugee and migration issues in a just, balanced and visionary manner. "No democracy is complete if it excludes those whom history has pushed to the margins of society".
Justice P.N. Bhagwati, delivering the presidential address on the occasion, emphasised that refugee protection ought to be based on and derived from a broad based culture of human rights. This should be the concern of all civilized countries since refugees are victims of persecution in their countries of origin. He said that the total number of refugees in India from neighbouring countries is around 200,000 and added that India has always welcomed those who have come to its land and absorbed them as part of the people of India. But all this was done in the absence of any kind of legislation. "This is partly due to a growing concern that those who may have committed crimes against humanity, war crimes or other acts which are incompatible with the humanitarian nature of refugees status may enter and remain on Indian soil under the pretext of being refugees". He, however, was of the opinion that the absence of a specific refugee law and procedures might put the State at a disadvantage in reaching a proper decision regarding the determination of the status of those who arrived in this country.
Justice Bhagwati expressed appreciation of the role of the National Human Rights Commission and the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of refugees and asylum seekers even in the absence of formal legal instruments. He however felt that the role of the Commission and the judiciary was essentially remedial. "There is still need for systematic and predictable legal provisions, statement and procedures for protecting refugees". He, therefore, hoped that all Governments of South Asia, motivated by human rights ideals and in the interest of refugees, would adopt legislation for the proper determination of the status of refugees and for their better protection.