Seeking asylum is a human right

By – Vishal Agarwal

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
— Emma Lazarus

India hosts more than two lakh refugees and is at the centre of refugee movements in the South Asian region. It has been a home to refugees from numerous neighbouring countries.

Since India’s independence and partition, it has had an influx of migrants from its neighbours, and this incident is not pertinent to the partition of India. The issue of the economic burden India has to bear and the significant demographic changes brought about by this inflow were frequently raised. In addition to economic and demographic problems, the refugee crisis also endangers India’s security. The legal demands of migrants, internally displaced people, and refugees have all been controlled by existing laws, although this has not yet been formally acknowledged. Although the matter has been partially addressed by current law and court involvement, there are still significant obstacles to resolving the bigger issue. Existing domestic laws regulating foreign nationals’ entry, stay and exit in normal circumstances are inadequate to deal with refugees. In the absence of domestic law for refugees and asylum seekers, there should be a domestic protocol on their status, assigning specific responsibilities to specific agencies. This will ensure prompt response and enhance accountability.

India follows the principle of dualism when it comes to Refugees; that is, international law is not directly applicable domestically and must be implemented through law by Parliament. But in the light of current international situations, we need to review the current scenario from a legal and humanitarian perspective. It is high time that a proper legal framework is set up for the same!
Refugees and illegal immigration are also two distinct concepts. However, both groups are treated equally under Indian law because of the Foreigners Act of 1946.

An individual seeking international protection from persecution is called an asylum seeker, and a country may grant refugee status to an asylum seeker. But sadly, there is no clear definition in India regarding this! Moreover, India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol – vital legal documents about refugee protection in International Law. As a result, the government’s policies and solutions to address these problems lack clarity and policy value. This leads to India’s refugee policy being guided primarily by ad hocism! This enables the government in office to pick and choose ‘what kind’ of refugees it wants to admit for political or geopolitical reasons. This is sad; ultimately, the refugees end up suffering.

However, India has signed numerous Human Rights Instruments that articulate a commitment to the protection of Refugees. India is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 and has joined the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) -1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)- 1966 since 1979. India is also a signatory to -the convention on eliminating all forms of Radical Discrimination (CRED in 1965), which ensures equal human rights to all human beings without discrimination.

Moreover, Article 51(c) of the Indian constitution directs the state to respect and uphold International Law. Keeping all this in mind, we can say that a Refugee law has been awaited for a long time.
With the recent enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA), India further fails to address the real issue of refugees and exclusively addresses the issues of illegal immigrants, which are not the same as refugees. Furthermore, the CAA act goes against the basic principles of our democracy, like equality and religious non-discrimination enshrined in the constitution!

With traditional knowledge and values, progressive nations and economic behemoths like India might function as impetuses for international aid and asylum management.

By passing national refugee legislation, India may better calibrate its treatment of asylum claims in light of the global humanitarian and economic crises.

Thailand’s Rubber Duck Protests

Thousands of young adults crowded the streets of Bangkok on 18th November attempting to reach the parliament. Most of them even bought their trusty rubber ducks along to use the river behind the parliament as their transport to set an example of what a good citizen should do. On the flip side, the Thai Supreme Court has given orders to a pro-democratic opposition  party to dissolve. Thailand is the world’s last military dictatorship. A military dictatorship is the rule of a military officer who comes into power through a coup. Unlike most military coups which are historically known for the amount of violence they involve in, military coups in Thailand are quite the opposite. When the Thai military seized power on May 22, 2014, not a single drop of blood was shed. Military tanks and battalions of soldiers were patrolling the streets while taking over TV and radio stations to announce the coup. A speech by the new head of state ended the coup in Thailand. 

So why was there no opposition to the military coup and the non-democratic form of government in Thailand? Why did the people not protest against the military rulers? It is because of the way Thai people are brought up. The monarchy in Thailand is sacrosanct and regarded by many as the bedrock of national identity. They are asked to respect their King. The people  have been gossiping about the monarchy in private for years while teaching their children to praise it lavishly in public. Infact, most of the military coups in Thailand have full support of the monarchy. A royalist was quoted saying, “I see a coup as not a bad thing,” two weeks ago after publicly calling for a military intervention to quell anti government rallies in Bangkok and to protect the monarchy. Even the 2014 coup was supported by King Bhumibol and the military rulers were offered an audience with the royal family in front of the cameras. Most of the coups in the modern day including the ones in Morocco are directed towards the King and not the Prime Minister or the President. Thailand has a dictatorship like no other – a military dictatorship under royal command.

The main demands of the rubber ducky protesters in Thailand include Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha and his government to step down, the constitution to be amended to be more democratic, and the monarchy reformed to make it more accountable. Their demands regarding the monarchy are the ones that are raising eyebrows among the older population in Thailand. The protesters believe that King Maha Vajiralongkorn holds more power than is appropriate under a constitutional monarchy and have made it the central point of their protests. As a result the police and military, which is controlled completely by the royals, have resorted to use of force to stop these protests. Two people were fatally injured in the recent protests. According to some reports, the police force used water cannons loaded with a teargas-like liquid to force the protesters back when they tried to cut through the razor wire barricades.

What next?

With most of the high profile activists detained by the military outside of Bangkok, and crackdown on public gatherings, the movement’s ability to continue to hold mass rallies will be difficult. Some students are ignoring the government’s “emergency” measures and continuing with their demonstrations. Small “flashmob” style protests that are easy to organise and can quickly disperse have been mobilised in smaller cities, driven by social media.

Obviously no intervention by international agencies is possible in a country which  is being ruled without any human rights violations or doing anything bad or questionable to their citizens. The government, composed mostly of conservative, military and royalist figures should carefully respond to these protests now that the whole world is watching them. An over-harsh reaction risks angering a public already frustrated over other issues.