Participatory or interactive sessions form an integral core of the fifteen- day workshop in Kolkata. During the Sixth Winter course on forced Migration participants were encouraged to participate in two compulsory workshops, apart from roundtables and panel discussion. The compulsory modules (A-E) had at least one compulsory workshop/ roundtable/ panel discussion each. At least one roundtable or panel discussion was organised for the optional modules (F-H). One-day media workshop - “Media and Forced Displacement of Population” was organised in collaboration with Panos South Asia under Module H on 10 December 2008 which was attended by media practitioners, activists and academics from diverse backgrounds. 

The themes of the interactive sessions under the compulsory and optional modules were: 

1. Humanitarian Institutions and their Task of Care - Experiences of South Asia and Elsewhere (2 December 2008)
2. Camps and Displaced Women – Experiences of Partition Refugees (4 December 2008)
3. Need for a Fresh Look at the 1951 Convention (5 December 2008)
4. Protection Regimes – International and National (6 December 2008)
5. Resources, Women and Displacement in India's Northeast (8 December 2008)
6. Developmental Displacement in South Asia (11 December 2008)
7. Why should we listen to the voices of the displaced - Discussion of a report on Voices of the Internally Displaced in South Asia (13 December 2008)
8.  Partition Refugees and the Right to Return (13 December 2008)
9. Globalisation, Resource Crisis, and Forced Displacement (13 December 2008)
10. Participants’ Evening Discussion with Montserrat Feixas Vihe, Chief of Mission, UNHCR, Delhi, Kiran Kaur, Protection Officer, UNHCR India Amit Sen, UNHCR, Nepal and Pascale Moreau (Bureau of Asia and Pacific, UNHCR, Geneva)

Humanitarian Institutions and their Task of Care - Experiences of South Asia and Elsewhere (2 December 2008) 

The discussion on humanitarian institutions focussed on the international, national and local interventions to resolve some of the ongoing conflicts at the local, regional and international level. It was emphasised that the humanitarian organisations change the nature of their work according to changing concerns of interventions. Often local administrative machineries do not encourage interventions by Humanitarian institutions in no-conflict times, rendering members of these organisations jobless.  Thus, they reinvent their interventions, in terms of general humanitarian activities, conflict or no conflict. They can intervene through social work, healthcare activities and others. 

Various instances of the international interventions like the Safe Third-Party Agreement between Canada and US, activities of Norwegian Refugee Council in Nepal were cited as some of the practices of care that have been adopted in South Asia and elsewhere. The Safe Third-Party Agreement between Canada and US called for the denial of the scope of a person to claim asylum in either of the countries if he/she had already done the same in the other country. This leads to complications as far as preferences of an asylum-seeker is concerned. In such cases, NGOs stand by these people, taking their cases to the courts and helping him/her in the legal procedures. The interventions, in such cases, are mainly of a legal type. In case of India it was pointed out that the non-signatory status of the Indian state to the 1951 Convention makes the work of the organisations for instance UNHCR difficult since they are often denied entry into the refugee camps. As a result, UNHCR has to take the help of other local organisations to obtain data on the conditions of the camp lives. The activities of Norwegian Refugee Council in Nepal cover various aspects of humanitarian work, including legal assistance, return assistance as also co-ordination with the framework of international law.  

Humanitarian assistance towards the IDPs pose a greater difficulty since most of the South Asian states consider the IDP issue as their internal issue and thus deny the intervention of any international humanitarian institution. But on the other hand, they themselves fail to collect proper data on the situation of the IDPs and thus are unable to provide effective assistance to them. The states neither encourage intervention, nor are able to cope with it themselves which adds to the vulnerability of the IDPs. 

Another issue that emerged in the group discussion is what constitutes “care”. Care does mean only responsive action; it includes remedial action and environmental building. There was a consensus among the group that the Humanitarian Institutions are suppose to and engage in denunciation, persuasion, mobilization, support and substitution. The concept of care is encompasses with all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the relevant bodies of law (i.e. human rights law, humanitarian law, refugee law). 

Humanitarian Institutions in Sri Lanka are engaged in a variety of activities as far as providing assistance to the refugees are concerned. They not only work from various centres, covering almost all corners of Sri Lanka, but also over numerous aspects including legal assistance, health, education, rehabilitation etc. But since, inspite of such a huge horizon of their work, they have to work under the guidelines of the state and as such cannot initiate any peace process during emergency situations. This remains as one of their limitations. Humanitarian Institutions are active in other countries in South Asia for years, UNHCR activated in Maldives form 1979 and in Sri Lanka from 1992.  The cluster approach is promoted and implemented and most of institutions facilitated the government and CBOs to capacitate themselves. Though Humanitarian Institutions are not closely involved in the security sector, nevertheless, some UN agencies and ICRC undertakes programs to better regulate armed forces and police through education programs on human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL). Recently Humanitarian Institutions entered in to a innovative approach called “ food – for – arms”, where humanitarian food rations are distributed in exchanging for the deposit of small arms and light weapons. This is to promote total care of the society and ensure social security.  

The group also discussed some local humanitarian institutions like YMA which is the most popular face of Humanitarian Institution in Mizoram. The ethics of the code of ‘Tlawmngaihna’ is considered to be the inbuilt mechanism of the YMA. Every Mizo is a member of this institution and life revolves around this philanthropic institution. The numerous songs and poems written on the YMA stand as strong proof of its deep roots in the Mizo/Zo society. The institution is an intrinsic part of the everyday life of the Mizo/Zo society. However the picture perfect public face of the institution has a hidden face. The Humanitarian face has a hidden mask: ‘the mask of Hegemony’. 

Camps and Displaced Women – Experiences of Partition Refugees (4 December 2008) 

Anasua Basu Ray Chaudhury in her presentation “Living Another Life: Women Refugees in Relief Camps of West Bengal” set the background and highlighted the experience of women partition refugees on the eastern side of the border. According to her, three keywords emerge from partition victimhood that of dhon, (wealth), maan (honour) and pran (life). The uprooted and displaced Hindus (refugees) came phase by phase from the erstwhile East Pakistan to West Bengal. The first batch of refugees, mainly the bhadraloks (upper and upper middle strata like the landowning, merchant and professional classes) arrived after the riots in Noakhali and Tippera in October 1946 due to a fear of losing dhon and maan rather than pran. A large educated middle class, did not have enough money with them but had the ‘social capital’ for their survival to reconstruct their lives. 

The question then remains as to what happened to the lower caste agriculturalists. The lower caste poor agriculturalists reached the reception and interception centres at Sealdah Railway Station, Calcutta. At the peak of the inflow of refugees the government mainly set up three types of camps:

i. Women’s camps – Bhadrakali and Bansberia Women’s Camp in Hooghly district, Ranaghat Women’s Home in 24 Parganas district

ii. Worksite camps - 32 such worksite camps

iii. Permanent Liability (PL) Camps: Dudhkundi in Midnapore district, Bansberia in Hooghly, Chandmari, Cooper’s Camp (partially), Chamta and Dhubulia in Nadia district, Habra, Ashoknagar and Titagarh in 24 Parganas district. 

In most cases, originally the military barracks and tunnel-shaped huts made of iron constructed for Allied soldiers (during the World War II) were converted into camps for the refugees and there was certainly no privacy for women. Displacement of women refugees from their desh, their ‘foundational home’ changed their perspectives toward lives. For women, the PL members of existing refugee camps in West Bengal, the ‘present’ only means a fixed amount of cash dole and rations (sometimes irregular) from the camp authorities. Women refugees, as refugees and trauma survivors, live with memories of the past and reality of an uncertain future. Their stories of abundance are sometimes imaginary. Even without witnessing violence, they live with a fear of communal holocaust. The ‘present’ implies very little for them, the ‘past’ envelops their entire existence.  

Ishita Dey in her presentation “On the margins of citizenship: Principles of care and rights of the residents of the Women’s Camp, Nadia District”.  The camp residents are widows and unmarried women. Through the narratives of Bimala Das and Kanaka Das she made an attempt to unravel the dichotomy of “rights”/“care” that occupies their imagination.  

Secondly the narratives are a witness to the changing face of the government’s shifting position as the nation- state makes way for the market state. Thirdly, she also tried to explore how the shifting notions of “citizenship rights” based on “territoriality” and a given moment can create a new category of “us/them” within the marginalized.   

The session concluded with the observations on the history of the refugee rehabilitation policy of the Government of India, the ad hoc nature of the policies adopted and the trauma women who had to forcefully leave their homes had to undergo. 

Roundtable – Need for a fresh look at the 1951 Convention (5 December 2008) 

The two main emphases for the roundtable on “Need for a fresh look at the Refugee Convention” were the security perspective and the partition of Indian subcontinent in 1947 into two states and implications of such a historical event on the Convention.  Kinga Janik and Sahana Basavapatna in their presentations addressed these issues respectively. Oishik Sircar moderated the discussion. 

Kinga Janik focused on the Canadian asylum law, particularly the Immigration Act, 2002. In 1998, the Canadian Government changed the immigration law to comply with the constitutional safeguards. Section 7 of the Charter lays down the right to life, security and liberty of a person. Section 12 of the Charter deals with mistreatment. These two provisions were integrated into the Immigration Act and were also codified in the Objectives clause of the Immigration Act. Through these amendments, Canada wanted to highlight how the state respects human rights conventions and hence the state signed and ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention. Similarly, the provisions of the Torture Convention were also incorporated into the domestic law. Thus, under Section 95 of the Immigration Act, a person can claim refugee status under the Convention on the grounds of risk to life or mistreatment or have both. Usually people seek under both these grounds. It is important to understand that under the Convention, a threshold has to be fulfilled to be protected. Under the 'risk to life' provision, there is a different threshold as there is a need to show that on a balance of probabilities you are likely to be persecuted. Although these provisions were incorporated in the Immigration Act, the Canadian Government also included a security angle in the Act. Thus, if the Canadian Government perceives a refugee claimant as a risk to Canada, it would then balance its own interests with the interest of the individual. This is not a new development, as this provision exists in the former Canadian legislation prior to the amendment.  

This norm was illustrated by the case of Suresh, a Srilankan Tamil national who was a Convention refugee in Canada. In 1995 Canadian authorities detained him and deportation proceedings on security grounds were commenced against him. The Canadian Government argued that he was a member and fundraiser of LTTE, an organization alleged to be involved in terrorist activities and members are believed to face torture if returned to Sri Lanka. Under the Immigration Act, where the Minister of Immigration has the power to balance the interests, he ordered deportation even though they had information that he would be tortured. Suresh sought judicial review on three grounds, first that the deportation order was unreasonable, that the procedures laid down under the Immigration Act were unfair and third that this infringed Section 7 of the Charter. The case went before the Canadian Supreme Court (SC) and found that Suresh had provided information to the Minister which he never looked at. The SC therefore decided to send back the case for reconsideration on the grounds that Suresh should be heard.  

Kinga argued that the Supreme Court's conduct throughout the proceedings was also disturbing as it also looked at this balancing of interests. If the State has the power to balance its interests with that of the individual, in certain occasions the security interests will be greater. In such a situation, the person would indeed be deported to situations where she would also face torture. The SC concluded that the Immigration Act was constitutional and that it was within the powers of the State to remove the person from the territory of Canada.  

Suresh’s case was heard in 2000-2001 but the decision was made after 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on USA. It may well be that the authorities changed their minds because of these events. In conclusion, it may be said that the Canadian law rejects deportation to places where people would face torture. It views torture as fundamentally opposed to justice. Under the 1951 Convention, Article 33 does not categorically remove a person to torture, but yet, the Supreme Court gives precedence to security measure, thus defeating the logic of Sections 76 and 97 of the Immigration Act. However, it is however a good step that the Canadian Government has ratified the Convention against Torture and has included it as a ground for protection. However, it is the political structures that defeat the spirit of these provisions. 

Sahana Basavapatna, in her presentation attempted to situate the 1951 Refugee Convention from the partition perspective. Her presentation focused on the possible lessons that can be learnt from the partition experience in the context of forced population flows across boundaries. 

Partition experience in the current context of refugee law debates 

Political events such as the partition did not figure in shaping the definition of a refugee in the Convention during the drafting debates.  The later debates on convention did not take into account the GA resolution which expanded the scope of the Convention.  

Second, the Convention assessment of claims is on an individual basis under Article 1A and does not take have a provision for enmass migration which is characteristic of events such as partition. This would make status determination extremely problematic, if not impossible. 

A third factor is the large-scale humanitarian assistance by the Government of India that became possible following partition. Seen in this perspective, the largely humanitarian prism through which the 1951 Convention looks at the refugee today, needs to be reconsidered, for forced population flow is as much a consequence of, as it is a driver of conflict or war asserting political rights and rights over resources. 

In this context it is important to examine how India viewed the problem of refugees in the context of partition; refugees were not a liability but active participants in the nation building exercise. This meant making available resources to ensure that refugees become independent individuals who would then contribute to the development of the state. Did the countries ever perceive the relevance of the economic and social rights as equally central in protecting people's rights?  If the 1951 convention truly claims to be relevant after 60 years of its existence, what is the extent to which it would be able to push forward this view.  

The events of partition have endured beyond partition itself and allude to the still continuing process of state formation and state identity in the region; the struggle of a large number of Bangladeshi “migrants” in trying to eke out a living in India is enough evidence that there is a need for a broader canvas within which to view the phenomenon of forced migration. Thus, to view the refugees/migrants merely as a liability, illegal and worthy of a minimum humanitarian assistance is to deny the relationship of migration with political conflict and the inherent dynamism of state formation.  

In conclusion, she noted that political events such as these once again bring into focus how states use and frame laws that give precedence to the interests of States than the refugees. This has to be kept in mind for the “rethinking project”.  

Oishik Sircar, the moderator of the session made a few observations where he noted that the 1951 Convention was one of the most important documents that came into being after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The crisis is not so much the text of the Convention but the political and cultural context that is the point of contestation. He wondered if one should critique the Convention or understand how this translation of the Convention into reality takes place. For example, when asylum seekers reach the borders of a perceived safe country, does he or she get perceived as refugees? The categories of moving people having changed, so what use will the standard come of use in a situation like that? Also, under asylum law, the problem is with the scantified idea of the genuine and innocent refugee; if not, one is considered a security threat. This standard of presenting evidence is problematic because when people flee, they do not follow an extremely innocent path. This further raises the question of establishing genuineness. This has been interestingly illustrated by Paul Farmer, in the case of Haitian refugees trying to enter US, who were perceived to be a potential health threat. What Farmer tried to establish was the politics around the history of AIDS; Haiti is considered to be a source of AIDS to USA. Thus, if an asylum seeker was considered a potential AIDS carrier, this denied her refugee status. A more recent illustration relates to US Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a legislation that came into force in 2000 passed by the Bush administration with the objective of stopping trafficking. The Act says that if a victim of trafficking is trying to flee and ends up in US, she will be given a temporary visa and will be protected but she would qualify for protection if she can establish that she never gave consent. If in the process of determination, it is established that she was involved in sex work, she would be denied refuge.  The question then is, what will be her identity, a trafficked person or a refugee under the 1951 convention? So the tension that emerges requires that we look at the standards of refugee rights as they exist in practice. 

Studies have focussed on the question of why the South has not ratified the Refugee Convention. The question to be asked is whether it would be helpful to have a national or regional law? It would possibly help refugees to have this regional or national law. We have seen instances of obsessive securitization in countries such as Australia, with its policy of indefinite detention. Would setting up the regional regime contribute to the further disenfranchisement of the refugee? 

The categories that we have now have taken a different shape; one's identity as a forced migrant is layered. So for instance, one can be an illegal migrant who is protected under the Convention on Migrant Worker, but she may also be persecuted. Then how would standards of refugee protection be enforced? 

Protection Regimes – International and National (6 December 2008) 

The central question in discussing the national and international regimes of protection in the context of forced migration is the question of security. While one may assume that question of security is easy to define, there is always the politics of security that is important to grasp. Because the politics of security is subjective, when we look at the politics of protection, the exclusions that are necessary that are claimed to secure, entails the production of another body that is dangerous. Thus this concept is paradoxical.  

Modern western states are founded on the possibility of securing life. The claim to be able to secure humanity produces the category of the inhuman. So when we talk about regimes of protection, by definition we are examining regimes of insecurity and insecure bodies. It is also important to remember that permanent exclusions, are not stable but are locational. Also when thinking about exclusions, the more vulnerable are the minorities. The institutions that are meant to protect fail to protect. Additionally, it is also necessary to think of the institutional structures and the histories behind the history of structures. The creation of these institutions did not change the human rights regimes. 

The group discussion focussed on this question of protection regimes at the national, regional and international levels in the way that they could be applied to different categories of forced migrants. It would not be incorrect to suggest that in the first place, countries view immigration foremost as a problem, evident from examples across jurisdictions. Asylum is placed between security and border management one hand and the need to address the question of adequate workforce on the other. The development of asylum law in Europe tells us that in adopting laws for protection of refugees, States in Europe have not come up with anything new. Refugee policies are within the security framework.  

The rights of immigrants and foreigners have also deteriorated after September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in America. The rights of foreigners have deteriorated because of connections made between immigration and criminality following these attacks.  The increasing security perspective by States have led to stricter migration laws and regulations and have affected human rights overall. Thus, we have a paradoxical situation where there has been an explosion of rights based standards of protection on one hand and securing borders. Similarly there are two parallel mobilisations happening. While on hand there is huge funding for campaign against xenophobia; on the other hand, with time we are witnessing more policing on migrants.  

These examples point to several important issues. To begin with, they bring out the flaws in the international protection systems. It is also often said that there is a need for the agencies like the UNHCR and others to manage refugee flows. Agencies such as these also often claim that they take their cue from the States and are restricted in their role due to this. Be that as it may, these agencies also replicate the internal-external divide and are therefore a part of the problem. It is important to think of who is left outside and why.  

To conclude, what these instances of how security is conceptualized and how is it related to protection of refugees. The real problem is the religion of security becomes hegemonic. And in such a situation, the rights of the refugees are forever subordinated to the security of others. A point to ponder over is that while we assume that security is the fundamental basis, it is a fact that this way of conceiving community came during the 17th century in Europe to the point where we are not able to conceive of an alternative way of politics. This is the real challenge.  

Resources, women and displacement in India’s Northeast (8 December 2008) 

The North-East is connected to mainland India through a stretch of 56 kilometres which is ironically called the chicken’s neck, representing the desire for autonomy which is so often expressed in this much contested area. The continuous conflict has led to making women the most vulnerable. Many of them have become widows, lost their sons to the underground or become victims of the draconian Armed Forced Special Powers Act (AFSPA). The conflict and the rampant corruption affects access to services and negatively impacts the functioning of government schemes. Much of the funding received for government schemes are siphoned to pump the arms trade and underground militias. In Manipur, the fear of one’s life is so severe that teachers no longer want to go to teach in the hilly areas and there are more sudden disappearances of people than arrests. Many parents think that their children will be earning and hence, technically it cannot be termed as trafficking. Typically, children who “voluntarily” join the underground belong to single mother families or those where their father’s had been killed, demonstrating the multi-dimensionality of such violence.

Sunita Akoijam, highlighted the psychological impact of displacement and termed it as “invisible displacement” as commonly only physical displacement of persons is discussed. Women are viewed as “righteous property” which increases their vulnerability to violence and are refugees in their own homes. Women’s household responsibilities centre around the usage of common property resources (CPR) and their loss due to development activities has its biggest impact on women. In development projects, women are refused work on the grounds that they lack the required skills. As a result of this changing economic scenario and highly monetised economy there are increased instances of domestic violence in these communities. The T.N. Singh formula deemed that only a male member in every family should get a job and not women. Pre-displacement, women essayed the role of providers with a greater control over resources. Even after displacement despite lesser access to resources she has to fulfil her responsibilities and is forced to be prostituted. Many women are separated from their families at the time of displacement and lose their identity as they are no longer with their husband or maternal family. Thus, their unique situation makes it necessary to understand women as a separate entity within a larger context. The debate centred on the UN Guiding Principles where it was felt that greater definitional clarity is needed especially as most people’s experiences of displacement haven’t been documented. Further, a woman earning need not mean that she is economically empowered. For example, though a Bangladeshi woman maybe earning she does not have control over her earnings and ends up being economically exploited. Though some societies in the North-East are matrilineal, yet the decision making powers often lie with the patriarchy. In Manipur, the wives of unemployed men run tea and paan shops more as a compulsion rather than because of being empowered to earn their own income. The chronic situation has forced women to offer consensual sex in lieu of food, protection and shelter.  

Developmental Displacement in South Asia (11 December 2008)  

Development induced displacement ration is very high in Asia.  Development induced displacement is preventive and the damages done can be minimized to a very great extent. The state has the duty and authority to safeguard the rights of its people and uphold freedom of expression as enshrined in the constitution of all democratic countries. Therefore the state should be sensitive to its people and their basic needs. The South Asian countries are in the phase of developing or underdeveloped. The states primary duty and responsibility is to safeguard its own people.  

In the colonial age, people were displaced due to loss of sustenance through technological, economic and legal changes. Thousands of handicrafts workers and textile workers were left jobless. People continued to be displaced in the name of national development. 

In India due to the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) projects huge numbers of people were displaced. In the first phase, the Indian Government started the SEZ project with 5,200 hectares of land. So, entire population of Dharui Island in India was displaced. 60% of the land belongs to the government and 40% belongs to the people. 60% of the land of the Island was used for fishing and people were displaced with their occupation. The various resistance movements against proposed SEZ; for example in Nandigram, West Bengal and various other corners of the country were cited as instances of people’s resistance towards a skewed notion of development that the government wants to execute through private players. 

The boom in real estate has been triggered by two reasons: the liberalistaion of the Indian economy in 1991 and the passing of SEZ Act in 2005. The main objectives of the SEZ Act are Generation of additional economic activity, Promotion of exports of goods and services, Promotion of investment from domestic and foreign sources, Creation of employment opportunities and Development of infrastructure facilities.  

The discussion ended with the two pertinent issues that plague the future of development in South Asia- “Can we take this violence as development” and the “current issues of development”. 

Panel discussion – Why should we listen to the voices of the Displaced

Discussion was based on the report on “voices of internally displaced in South Asia” 

The discussion was based on the already written study report on voices of IDPs in South Asia (Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and India). It is important to know IDPs voices so that the humanitarian and protection measures become participatory, these measures can be improved upon, and the human rights community and the public get to know if the measures are effective, if they reach their target at all, and what measures are necessary to make the human rights and humanitarian protection more effective. 

The report is a compilation of the focus group discussion, interviews and surveys in four countries includes 528 respondents; 235 were displaced due to armed conflict, 34 due to army occupation, 91 due to development projects and 66 due to natural disaster.  

The discussion focused on issues IDPs of Sri Lanka and India. According to the Sri Lanka chapter of the report; Economy – monthly income, multiple displacements, Health facilities, No knowledge of local and international mechanisms, Women & Children issues and personal document issues were discussed. In addition to that Life with dignity, Second Generation of IDPs, Education, Displacement of social values and structures and special protection seekers also were discussed.  

Certain observations regarding the methodology of forced migration studies came to the forefront in this discussion. First and foremost, the position of the researcher, and how does the researcher’s ethnic identity is bound to influence the research work. Secondly, how to do justice to narratives? Refugee narratives are an integral component of the study on forced migration.  

Partition Refugees and the Right to Return (13 December 2008) 

Uttam Kumar Das proposed a reflection on the category of "refugee" in the context of the 1951 Convention. The most important focus of this reflection are the great debate around the definition of "prosecution" and the consideration of the "right to return" from the perspective of refugees themselves. In the UN resolution N° 194 of 1948, regarding the Partition of Palestine, the right to return is submitted to the willing of o a peacefully living and conceived as a right to peacefully return, where is stated that "the refugees wishing to return their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so" (Art. 11). It is thus a limited right to return. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 13, states that "everyone has the right to leave any country, including in his own, and to return to his country". But then arise a question: what  if there is no country for the individual? What about stateless refugees, or people who are not recognized by any State? If we look for durable solutions to these problems, we must take into the account that a State-centred perspective leaves many people aside. In the eyes of international conventions, a durable solution is conceived as a process of going back, that involves nationalization and resettlement. Repatriation, again, is left aside while we talk a bout "return". This difficult definition is also conditioned by the fact that in the statute of UNHCR there is no formulation about the right to return. Uttam Kumar Das underlined that the article 36 of the Constitution of Bangladesh guarantees the freedom of movement inside the country, but under the condition of possible restriction "imposed by law in the public interest". Thus, the right to move freely in a wider perspective is viewed, both by international conventions and the Constitution of Bangladesh, with a double restriction: the first one defines the physical space of the State as the place where to move freely, the second one gives to the State the capability to restrict this right under the definition of "public interest". Besides the vagueness of concepts as "return" and "prosecution", we are thus confronted with the power of the States-system and his capability to fill this vagueness with meanings that often are inconsistent with the task of protection, care or reparation, in the case of refugee flows in the context of Partition.  

Following this remarks, Shahind Fiaz spoke about the relation between literature and Partition, giving the example of the Punjabi writer Amrita Pritam, after that the Tasleema Nasreen case was quoted in the previous discussion. Amrita Pritam wrote on Partition and on how Partition defined human relations in the following years, a theme we can find in other works like the ones by Quarrantulain Haider and by the film writer Saadat Hasan Manto. Literature is an important tool if we want to know how ordinary people deal with Partition, and what do they have to say, as in literature the voices that are left outside from the historical and political narrative can come out. This is important because ordinary people were the subjects and victims of Partition. In 1947 different flux of people originated a huge cross-borders migration: the ones that wanted to move in separate country; the ones who left under fear, violence, or force; the large numbers that temporarily migrated, and who thought that temporarily they needed to move, but had the idea that they would come back one day. But then, with the process of Partition, the border became a strong border, a restrictive line. Thus the process of Partition changed his face from the first moment to the following years. For Pakistan the double Partition of 1947 and 1971 changed the situation twice. If we consider the people from Bangladesh, people that after 1947 left India to Bangladesh, they became after 1971 unwanted alien in the new Pakistan State. That does not means at all that they left the country, but rather that they now leave in city like Karachi, where a number around three million is close to reality, in this underprivileged position. The shadow of Partition covers the reality of population movements, as one can see in a law that India passed in 2005 (The Citizenship Amendment Ordinance), and who allowed people who migrated outside India to come back and to obtain nationality, but not who migrated to Pakistan or Bangladesh. This is the problem with Nation-States in this part of the world: for a Pakistani is easier to go to United States that to Bangladesh or India. The visit VISA for Pakistani going to India or South Asia is only one that implies the divided families: to obtain it one must demonstrate that is going to visit a member of his family that lives in the other country. This is an example of how States, in the name of the nation and national security, tries to define personal relations in legal terms.

Samir Kumar Das delivered the third contribute to the roundtable, raising the question: is the ghost of Partition still alive? The answer is that the spectre of Partition keeps hunting us, because we cannot forget the sources of fear. From this point Samir Kumar Das made four observations: 1. Do Partition refugees have the right to return? And what kind of rights are they? At first we mean claims, and a right comes from claims recognized by law, but we refer also to conditions that make the claims possible, the "rights to have rights"; 2. Why do we necessarily associate Partition with refugees? There have been reigns Partition in the past, but not always associated with population movements: why? After Partition, the imperative was to settle in the right side of the border. The "seductive utopia" of the right side of the border, the new land, involved a change in the meaning of fear itself. Quoting from Corey Robin, Samir Kumar Das noted the difference between a pre-modern fear, that destabilizes and destroys communities, and a modern fear that contributes to the renewal of the community, it brings to his strengthening. More than simply renew, it rebuilds communities and redefines their boundaries and the relation between home and homeland: it is only after Partition that one need to relocate himself or herself into his or her homeland, and once the homeland is decided there is no option; 3. Do Partition refugees want to return? Initially yes, there was this expectation, but then Partition created a new logic and there is no way to came back from this new social reality. The way in which Partition refugees tell their stories reflects an "imagined" past that never happened, but is shaped by Partition itself. And then, do they have the right to return? There are some conditions if we want to take it seriously, and the States of South-Asia have to transcend the Partition. But then, once those conditions are here, the return itself will not be needed anymore. 

In the discussion following the roundtable, Subhas Ranjan Chakraborty noted that before the enforcement of new borders there were no refugees, and that initially the borders were not secured, leaving a relative space for the movements of population between the two sides. That adds another element in our analysis, that is the fact that securitized borders are a specific way to manage borders and not the only one. This is true also considering what Shahid Fiaz noted about the continuous drawn and redrawn of borders as part of the power game in the area. Samir Kumar Das agreed, adding that there is an "emigration policy" that is developed with and around borders, that involves recent decades (so called) development of India. Borders are a tool in the management of Indian skilled workers that goes abroad, and unskilled workers that cross borders in the area. Coming back to the relation between Partition and the right to return has been noted in the discussion that the loss involved in it cannot be denied and cannot be undone. Subsequently, instead of focusing on the right to return, shall we talk about freedom of movement and right to stay wherever the refugees are? Again, the elusiveness of the right to return arise, and focusing on that we forget the subjectivity of the refugees: is their will to return, or is their will to enjoy rights where they are? It is relevant to note that in the 1990 Migrants Workers Convention and in the 1951 refugee convention there is no mention for the right to stay, but there are provisions, for the State, for the "return" of migrant workers in their own country of citizenship. In conclusion, what we learned from this discussion is that conditions are more important than the right itself, and unless we address the social hierarchies and social stigmas, the right to return will remain a sentence in paper with little sense. 

Globalisation, Resource Crisis and Forced Displacement (13 December 08) 

Economic crisis unfolding today resembles the happenings of 1930s. In this situation what it means for movement of people. The evidence emerged is somewhat mixed- it gets worse than better since South is tied more with global economy which might be at the receiving end. Limited employment often forces migrants to move to newer places and one such instance is the slowing down of construction industry which resulted in migration to Mexico. Majority of the migrant workforce will choose to migrate because of the increasing oil crisis.  

Globalisation and its impact on migration will have impacts on a longer run. Situation of Forced migration is different that of labour migration since push backs are different. But economic instability might lead to political instability which strengthens factors for forced migration. Complexity of forced migration becomes even greater challenge in a globalised community. For example, Persecution, Conflict, Development induced trafficking etc are reasons for people to migrate and the reasons of migration is complicated so as the response. In this situation what would be the global community response? Norms, institutions needs to be in place so that States are accountable in such situations. 

In this context, it is important to understand how global regimes govern migration. Different kinds of regimes are followed since the very nature of “migration” is diverse.  

• The 1951 convention on Refugee, Persecution and State accountability is very strong. The reason traces back to League of Nations history. On the other hand while the convention of Trafficking of Persons is the strongest since it is ratified by a large number of states, yet it is weaker because of its normative framework. Little is talked about rights of trafficked and internal movements. Sovereignty is again an unresolved issue in this convention.
• Measuring Conflict Induced Displacement varies across the world. There is Regional and UN declaration and UNHCR uses its offices to influence the countries. Often conflict-induced refugees are at the mercy of the states.
• Guidelines for development-induced displacement have no universal agreement. No UN agency is responsible for assisting and protecting internally displaced.
• The convention on Labour migration is very weak, as no major countries have signed this convention except 37 ratified States.
• There is no framework to deal with migrants due to climate change.

The following examples will illustrate how the one refugee convention paradigm can be adopted to provide the assistance to various dimensions of migration.

1.       County of origin is willing and able to protect its residents. Responsibility lies with state.

2.       States that are willing but unable to support since financial resources are less. In such scenario the international community can assist and not necessarily UNHCR.

3.       Problematic ones: if govt unwilling to protect even if they are able due to many reasons for example it is a conflict zones, groups are unwilling and unable.  

It is against this background we need to ponder on what would be the Role of international society and commitment of individual if no state presence. Here one needs to be lot more creative in creating system of protection.  

Participants' Evening Discussion with UNHCR

Panelists: Montserrat Feixas Vihe, Chief of Mission, UNHCR India, Amit Sen, UNHCR Nepal, Pascale Moreau, Bureau of Asia & Pacific, UNHCR Geneva, Kiran Kaur, Protection Officer, UNHCR India, Nayana Bose, UNHCR India 

In the context of Canadian asylum policy, Kinga Janik, course participant from Canada asked if it is better for Canada to give money for resettling refugees near the country of origin or get them to Canada? 

Ms Montserrat Feixas Vihe responded by saying that there is a need to think if resettlement is the best option? There are numerous instances where refugees living in Camps refuse resettlement such as the Burmese living in Camps in Thailand and Bhutanese refugees living in Nepal. (She mentioned a few more points about Balkans but cannot remember) 

Sahana Basavapatna, a course participant from India asked two questions; why is UNHCR asking India or other South Asian states to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention at a time when countries in Europe and elsewhere are violating it and adopting restrictive asylum policies? 

Montserrat Feixas Vihe pointed out that the temporal and geographic restrictions were removed by the 1957 Protocol so the argument that the Convention is euro-centric does not hold good today.

Secondly, the South Asian states have a good record of protecting refugees in their countries; they are not deported and so there is no reason for them not to ratify the Convention. Thirdly, signing the Convention also aids in arguing better for burden sharing. 

In relation to Refugee Status Determination, Sahana Basavapatna, one of the course participant asked that considering that UNHCR takes on the responsibility of protection of refugees in countries where the Governmental mechanism does not exist, should not its Refugee Status Determination mechanism be under scrutiny and oversight as the Governmental mechanism would have to be? 

Ms Pascale Moreau and Ms Montserrat Feixas Vihe pointed out that UNHCR's RSD mechanism seeks to fill the gap and nothing more. Secondly, UNHCR wants to push for national procedures and therefore UNHCR RSD cannot be compared to the Governments' structures and processes. Thirdly, RSD standards have improved over time and finally merely focusing on UNHCR RSD also distracts from Government taking on responsibilities.