The displacement or forced migration of people within their own countries is today a common international phenomenon. According to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights "in more than 50 countries and practically in every world region, more than 25 million people are actually considered as displaced people just as a result of violent conflicts and human rights violations". This number increases by several millions with those who have been uprooted by natural or manmade disasters (HRWF, 2005).

Internal displacement especially the conflict induced internal displacement is emerging worldwide as a burning problem. Study on forced migration is, therefore, becoming more meaningful coming upto 21^st century when incidences of war, violence and cruelty causing tremendous incidences of internal displacement, human trafficking, human smuggling, and so on are taking place. Estimates on number of IDPs are said to be controversial due to debate over definitions, and to methodological and practical problems in counting. The number of IDPs around the world is estimated to have risen from 1.2 million in 1982 to 14 million in 1986. At the end of 2001, there were estimated to be 22 million IDPs worldwide, although this is likely to be conservative figure. As shown by one of the studies, more than 52 countries worldwide have been affected by the conflict induced internal displacement causing around 25 million of people displaced internally in the form of internal refugees[i]. Region-wise, Africa has been the most severely affected region in the world where more than 12 million people of around 20 countries have turned IDPs followed by Asia-Pacific, Americas and Europe where more than three million IDPs each have been living in problems and challenges (Table 1).

Table 1: Number of IDPs (estimates; as of end 2003 in million)

Source: Norwegian Refugee Council 2004

Since region-wise number of the countries accounting for the IDPs are 11, 4, 12 and 5 respectively for Asia-pacific, Americas, Europe and Middle East, it can be said that conflict induced displacement has been approaching worldwide as a burning problem.

The internally displaced often face a far more difficult future. They may be trapped in an ongoing internal conflict. The domestic government, which may view the uprooted people as ‘enemies of the state,’retains ultimate control of their fate. There are no specific international legal instruments covering the internally displaced, and general agreements such as the Geneva Conventions are often difficult to apply. Donors are sometimes reluctant to intervene in internal conflicts or offer sustained assistance.

2. Introduction to UN Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

In April 1998, the Representative of the UN Secretary General on IDPs presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights a set of Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. The Commission in a unanimously adopted resolution took note of these principles whose text is reproduced in Reading V.A (Chimni, 2000). The Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) has included 30 principles to address the problems of IDPs and they have been divided into introduction and other five sections: General Principles, Principles Relating to Protection from Displacement, Principles Relating to Protection during Displacement, Principles Relating to Humanitarian Assistance and Principles Relating to Return, Resettlement and Reintegration.

Introduction describes the scope and purposes of Guiding Principles. This Section stated that the Guiding Principles address the specific needs of internally displaced persons worldwide and they identify rights and guarantees relevant to the protection of persons from forced displacement and assistance during displacement and return. This section also provides the widely accepted definition of Internally Displaced Persons (hereafter IDPs) i. e. “IDPs are persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.”

Section one provides general principles (Principles 1-4) in which IDPs shall enjoy the rights and freedoms under international and domestic law as do other persons in their country (no discrimination), these principles shall be observed by all authorities, groups and persons irrespective of their legal status and applied without any adverse distinction, these principles shall not be interpreted as restricting, modifying or impairing the provisions of any international human rights or international humanitarian law instrument or rights granted to persons under domestic law. National authorities have the primary duty and responsibility to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons within their jurisdiction, certain internally displaced persons such as children, especially unaccompanied minors, expectant mothers, mothers with young children, female heads of household, persons with disabilities and elderly persons, shall be entitled to protection and assistance required by their condition and to treatment which takes into account their special needs have been included.

Section two included the principles relating to protection from displacement (Principles 5-9). Principle 5 stated that all authorities and international actors shall respect and ensure respect for their obligations under international law, including human rights and humanitarian law, in all circumstances, so as to prevent and avoid conditions that might lead to displacement of persons. Similarly, principle 6 affirms that arbitrarily displacement must be avoided and principle 7  provides a list of procedural protection that must be guaranteed, including decision making and enforcement by appropriate authorities, involvement of and consultation with those to be affected and the provision of an effective remedy for those wishing to challenge their displacement. Principle 8 states ‘Displacement shall not be carried out in a manner that violates the rights to life, dignity, liberty and security of those affected and principle 9 articulates a ‘special obligation’  to protection against displacement of a number of groups whose special attachment to territory has been recognized in international law, including indigenous persons, minorities, peasants, and pastoralists.

Section three states the principles relating to protection during displacement (Principles 10-23).  This section provides different rights of IDPs (i.e., inherent right to life, protection from genocide, murder, arbitrary executions, and enforced disappearances including abduction, detention, attacks, threatening to death, rights to dignity, mental and moral integrity, protection to rape, mutilation, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, forced prostitution, slavery, sexual exploitation, right to liberty, protection from discriminatory practices of recruitment into any army forces, right to know the fate and whereabouts of missing relatives, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law, protection from arbitrarily deprivation of property and possessions, right to education etc,) during their displacement. Principle 15 particularly mentions the following rights of IDPs;

a. The right to seek safety in another part of the country;

b. The right to leave their country;

c. The right to seek asylum in another country; and

d. The right to be protected against forcible return to or resettlement in any place where their life, safety, liberty and/or health would be at risk.

Similarly, section four included the principles relating to humanitarian assistance (Principles 24-27). These principles particularly focused that humanitarian assistance should be provided to the IDPs in accordance with the principles of humanity and impartiality and without discrimination and these assistance should not be diverted for political or military reasons. The government is primarily responsible for providing humanitarian assistance to the IDPs, however, international humanitarian organizations and other appropriate actors have the right to offer their services in support of the IDPs. Persons engaged in humanitarian assistance, their transport and supplies should be protected from the attacks and other acts of violence. Moreover, humanitarian organizations and actors should respect relevant international standards and codes of conduct.

At last, in section five the Guiding Principles (Principles 28-30) provide that competent authorities have the primary duty and responsibility to provide the means, which allow IDPs to return voluntarily in safety and with dignity to their habitual place of residence. Furthermore, these authorities have the duty and responsibility to assist returned and / or resettled IDPs to recover their property and possessions. Moreover, Principle 30 emphasizes that all authorities concerned should grant and facilitate for international humanitarian organizations and other appropriate actors in IDPs’ return or resettlement and reintegration.

According to Cohen “the Guiding Principles consolidate into one document all the international noms relevant to IDPs, otherwise dispersed in many different instruments. Although not a legally binding document, the principles reflect and are consistent with existing international human rights and humanitarian law. In re-stating existing norms, they also seek to address grey areas and gaps. An earlier study had found 17 areas of insufficient protection for IDPs and eight areas of clear gaps in the law. No norm, for example, could be found explicitly prohibiting the forcible return of internally displaced persons to places of danger. Nor was there a right to restitution of property lost as a consequence of displacement during armed conflict or to compensation for its loss. The law, moreover, was silent about internment of IDPs in camps. Special guarantees for women and children were needed” (Cohen, R., 1998 Cited in Chimni, 2000).

 The Guiding Principles are soft laws and they are not legally binding, but the 30 recommendations—which define who IDPs are, outline a large body of international law already in existence protecting a person’s basic rights and the responsibility of states—were designed to help governments and humanitarian organizations in working with the displaced.

3. Relevancy of the UN Guiding Principles for different Countries in South Asia

In South Asia, each and every country is facing the problems of IDPs. Their situation is more vulnerable than that of refugee because refugees are protected by international humanitarian and human rights law but unlike the refugees they are never able to move away from the site of conflict and have to remain within a state in which they were forced to migrate in the first place. The following section briefly describes the situation of IDPs of some South Asian countries and the relevancy of UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

Afghanistan

There has been on-going conflict in Afghanistan for the last twenty years, leading to massive displacements both within Afghanistan, and as refugee movements, into Iran and Pakistan. In Afghanistan, the causes of internal displacement are Soviet invasion in 1979, start of civil war in 1993, drought and famine of 1996, US air strikes in 2001 and anti-Pushton violence since Northern Alliance regained power in 2001. The total numbers of IDPs is estimated as 11,60,000 persons (DFID, 2001: Cited in Qadeem, 2005).  The situation of IDPs in Afganistan is more vulnerable. On top of the political unrest, the regional drought too emerged as one of the dominating factors affecting the socio-economic situation. This economic decline has exacerbated the level o poverty and economic hardship throughout the country.  Serious human rights violations continued to occur and citizens were precluded from changing their government or choosing their leaders peacefully.

In Taliban areas, the Taliban’s religious police and the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtues and Suppression of Vice (PVSV), enforced their extreme interpretation of Islamic punishments, such as public execution for adultery or murder, and amputation of one hand and one foot for theft. Furthermore, the Taliban government imposed a strict version of sharia, Islamic law, on the country, prohibiting a wide range of public activities. Many of these prohibitions were particularly designed to restrict the freedom and rights of women. Tens of thousands of women effectively remained prisoners in their homes, with no scope to seek the removal of these restrictions. Women who violated these restrictions were punished severely and their families held responsible for their behaviour. Displaced women who had no shelter in which to maintain their privacy were doubly disadvantaged. Moreover, women IDPs are facing sexual violations, such as abuse, rape etc.

In Afghanistan, IDP families, whether settled in the city or camps, continue to feel insecure. They are facing various problems, such as food shortage, human rights violations, no privacy, malnutrition problem particularly among children, no schooling facilities, no income generating activities, forceful return to their home etc.

IDPs come from different backgrounds and experiences. The changes brought about by loss of status, death of loved ones, loss of valuable property and life’s savings, in addition to being displaced, result in immense adjustment difficulties. Children and women are particularly vulnerable in such turbulent times as they are faced with multiple burdens and have a lower social status. The majority of IDP families in Afghanistan, having no potential breadwinner (i. e. with female or disabled head of household), find life too hard to cope with. The widespread loss of assets and sources of livelihood has required IDP families to find manual work to obtain cash.

According to UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, the primary responsibility to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons within their jurisdiction, however, Afghanistan government is yet to develop the mechanism to support IDPs due to the political instability. Similarly, I/NGOs could not reach to support IDPs in Afghanistan and women, children and elderly/disabled people are more vulnerable. Therefore, UN Guiding Principles is more applicable and relevant to provide support and care to IDPS in  Afghanistan.

Burma (Myanmar)

For years, Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Myanmar have been subjected to horrific human rights abuses. Yet their misery remains largely invisible to the outside world. Although the international community has condemned the situation from afar, insufficient action has been taken to protect those in need. IDPs in Myanmar are entitled to a number of protections under international law; however the inadequate realization of these protections calls into question the role and efficacy of law in safeguarding human freedom and dignity.  There are an estimated 600,000 to one million IDPs in Myanmar. Statistics are inexact because the government tightly restrains outside monitoring. Like refugees, IDPs are profoundly vulnerable in every aspect of their lives and legal entitlements are particularly important to them. Their vulnerability is linked to a lack of social, humanitarian and human rights protection and is often caused by conflict and regime victimization.  Nowhere is this more true than in Myanmar, where a succession of cruel military regimes has had a stranglehold on the country since the 1962 coup. Like its predecessors, the current military junta (called the State Peace and Development Council [SPDC]) continues to perpetrate large-scale human rights abuses.

Myanmar’s IDPs live in sorrowful conditions. Those who are victims of forced relocation are placed under the direct control of the military in relocation centres where they endure untold exploitation as forced labourers, porters for the military and landmine sweepers. Those who escape this fate usually become internal exiles, hiding in the mountains or jungles with only what they can carry in a small bag; they are constantly on the run. They exist in the shadows and silence, moving and cooking only in the mist, constantly afraid that their children will alert the junta by crying out from hunger. While an increasing number of people in the country face a deteriorating humanitarian situation, Burma’s internally displaced are particularly vulnerable and face acute humanitarian problems in health, nutrition and education. In December, the UN Security Council received a briefing on the human rights situation in Burma and the Association for South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) openly showed concern for the first time by sending a delegation to the country in March 2006. International and regional actors should take every opportunity to raise the need for humanitarian access with the military regime and should develop a common policy vis-à-vis the government in order to improve protection and assistance to Burma’s internally displaced.
Displacement is limited largely to ethnic minorities, however ethnic Burmese are not immune. The Karen, Karenni, Shan and Mon ethnic groups in eastern Myanmar are most intensely affected. There are also chilling reports of displacement and other abuses committed against minorities such as the Muslim Rohingya people along the western borders with Bangladesh and India. Whether Buddhist, Animist, Muslim or Christian, these people are deeply spiritual. Part of what makes the military oppression so barbaric is that it shows utter disrespect for their lifestyle and worldview. The junta’s extreme and disproportionate violence forms an unconscionable contrast to the profound peace of most Burmese.

The domestic laws of Myanmar provide grossly inadequate protection for the displaced and there is no overarching regional protection structure in Asia. Hence, it is necessary to look to international law for assistance. Under international law, protection derives from a combination of human rights law, humanitarian law and, to a limited extent, analogy with refugee law. The application of these bodies of law, however, pre-supposes either ratification of relevant treaties or customary international law. The international community should now use its full armoury to secure greater protection for Myanmar’s internally displaced. It must strike a careful balance between promoting national responsibility, condemning abhorrent practices and intervening through negotiation or might.

India

Since the partition in 1947, India had its own share of communal riots displacing millions of peoples. Yet, India often dealt with such conflict induced displaced persons with ad hocism and apathy. There is no standard on providing basic humanitarian standards — adequate housing, food, health care, education and protection. It depends on the whims of government of the day. Consequently, the programmes for humanitarian assistance suffer from favouritism and discrimination.

At present, India has over half a million conflict-induced Internally Displaced Persons respectively — 200,000 consisting of the Adivasis, Bodos, Muslims, Dimasas and Karbis in Assam; 2,62,000 Kashmiri Pandits from Jammu and Kashmir; 35,000 Brus/Reangs from Mizoram and about 50,000 displaced persons in Tripura (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060101/edit.htm).

Children who are caught in armed conflict situations in 14 out of 28 States are worse off. Hundreds of children are subjected to arbitrary arrest, torture, rape, custodial death, and extrajudicial executions every year at the hands of both the security forces and the armed opposition groups (http://www.achrweb.org/press/2003/October2003/IND-CRC011003.htm). Displaced people, without proper rehabilitation and resettlement often become vulnerable to many hardships including HIV/AIDS. It is a generally known fact that the increase in the CSW population, the number of rickshaw pullers, crimes along the state and national highways, child labour are some of the direct and indirect fallout of conflict-induced displacement in India (http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=1359&typeid=0). Women IDPs are subject to torture, economic hardship, sexual violence and lack of privacy,

In this context, the Government of India must develop a policy for providing humanitarian assistance and access to essential food and potable water, basic shelter and housing, appropriate clothing and essential medical services and sanitation to the conflict induced internally displaced persons considering the provision and mechanisms provided by UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

Nepal

Conflict induced displacement is a new phenomenon in Nepal which started in 1996 when the internal armed conflict between Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) and the Government of Nepal began. In Nepal, 12,865 people have lost their lives due to the conflict between the Maoist and the government (INSEC, 2006). Reports from various organizations over the last few years have quoted figures that could range from approximately 37,000 to 400,000 excluding those who may have crossed the border into India (SAFHR, 2005). The official estimate of the government is just 7000-8000. IDD Mission to Nepal Reported that the best reliable estimate of Nepalese internally displaced by the conflict should be up to 200,000 (cited in Aditya et. al, 2006).

Many recorded incidents have revealed that many children are forced to associate with armed forces and armed groups as militia, porters, kitchen helpers, messengers/postmen and spies. According to CWIN, around 40,000 children have been displaced in Nepal due to the armed conflict. During this period (1996-2006) 419 innocent children have lost their lives, 454  have been physically injured, total of 29,244 children along with teachers have been "abducted" while 230 children have been arrested by the state security forces, 150 children are reputed to have been exploited in the worst forms of child labour, and 224 children are facing health problems after being displaced due to armed conflict (http://www.cwin.org.np/press_room/factsheet/fact_cic.htm).

The UN expert on IDPs mentioned in his mission report that human rights problems and violations faced by IDPs in Nepal are related to: poor security and protection; discrimination; inadequate food, shelter, health care or access to education for children; a lack of personal and property identification documents; and gender-based violence, sexual abuse and increased domestic violence (www.un.org/News/Press/Docs/2005/hr4830.doc.htm).  

The youth are leaving their home due to threat of force recruitment in the militia. Most of the youth are staying in the city centre. Some of them have fled to India to seek employment and Gulf countries. According to report of Save the Children Norway, about 10,000 young people crossed the border under the age of 14-18 during the July and August 2004 (Save the Children Norway, 2003).  

New paradigm has been emerged after Nepal’s latest political change (Jana Andolan II). Top level negotiations between the government and the Maoists have been initiated. However, the fate of the IDPs is yet to be decided. Both the rebel Maoist and the government are not serious about the problems of IDPs. In this context the relevancy of UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement is felt more acute for the protection and care of IDPs in Nepal. 

Pakistan

Army operations targeting insurgent groups in Waziristan and Balochistan are the main causes of conflict-induced displacement in Pakistan today. There is no official information on the number of people displaced and access of journalists and aid workers to the affected areas is tightly restricted. But best estimates from the media and aid agencies are that at the very least many tens of thousands of people have been forced to flee their homes in both areas, though most of these will have returned home within a matter of weeks.

In Balochistan, the fighting has been between tribal rebels and the army. Apart from longstanding demands for increased political autonomy, development projects are fuelling the current conflict in Balochistan as the local population demands increased control over and more benefits from the exploitation of natural resources. The current unrest started in 2003 and has intensified during 2005 and 2006, bringing 40,000 army troops to the region to fight local militant groups. Estimates of the number displaced at its peak are as high as 200,000.

In Waziristan, a government-led operation started in March 2004 against militants connected to Taleban and al-Qaeda hiding on the Pakistan side of the border. Since then, search operations and fighting between rebel groups and the army have displaced an unknown number of civilians. As many as 80,000 army troops are deployed along the border with Afghanistan. The presidents of the two countries swap accusations of not doing enough to prevent Taleban and al-Qaeda activities along the border.
Despite the large numbers displaced due to the conflicts, humanitarian aid from outsiders has been rejected so far. As no one is allowed in to assess the situation in the conflict-affected areas, it is not possible to verify the little information that has trickled out about the displaced populations. However, both national and international actors must insist that the conflict-affected populations be granted basic assistance and protection during displacement, as well as a safe and voluntary return to their homes when the situation permits.

Sri Lanka

Conflict-induced internal displacement in Sri Lanka has occurred on a massive scale. Official estimates show that the number of IDPs peaked at over one million people in late 1995, nearly half of the north-east region's population. By early 2002, just before the signing of the ceasefire, there were estimated to be some 683,286 IDPs, including 174,250 people at the 346 welfare centres around the island (Gomez 2002). More recently, there is evidence to suggest that more than four-fifths of the current population of the LTTE-controlled area has been displaced (CPA 2003). However, it is clear that official figures do not cover the sizeable population of former north-east residents who have not formally registered as IDPs and now live in and around Colombo.

IDPs in Sri Lanka can be classified according to a number of measures. Most importantly, some IDPs have spent all or some of their displacement in camps or welfare centres set up by the government or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Others chose not to enter these camps or centres, and fended for themselves within the north-east, in the border areas surrounding the north-east or in other parts of the island, particularly Colombo. Some IDPs are returnees from other countries, usually from India (via transit camps set up to receive them) or occasionally repatriated asylum seekers from the West.

In a situation somewhat different from the bulk of Sri Lanka's IDPs, there are approximately 100,000 Muslims who were evicted from homes in Jaffna and Mannar by the LTTE in 1990. Most of this group settled in the districts in Puttalam, Anuradhapura, and Kurunegala, and many remain there even after the ceasefire. Their long-term residence and participation in local economic activities has led to major changes in the local socio-economic context.

However, this group has yet to achieve political inclusion in their new homes and the resettlement of those amongst this group who are prepared to return will need particularly sensitive handling.

There are also various human rights violations of IDPs by both parties_ state and nonstate.  However, considering the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement the Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP) for Sri Lanka is a stand-alone humanitarian strategy document, time framed by the end of 2006. As such, it is an agreement of humanitarian stakeholders on the:

_ definition and analysis of the humanitarian context;

_ scenarios;

_ humanitarian consequences; and

_ priorities for humanitarian response.

4. Conclusion

Above discussion clearly shows that each and every country of South Asia is suffering from conflict induced IDPs’ problem. In this region, IDPs’ livelihood condition is vulnerable. There is a need to address the problems of IDPs and make a separate mechanism and law to provide the protection and care to the IDPs. For this, the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement is a milestone and more applicable to conceptualize the IDPs’ concerns in the context of South Asia.

5. References Cited

Human Rights without Frontiers Int. (HRWF), 2005, Internally Displaced Persons in Nepal: The Forgotten Victims of the Conflict, Avenue Wiston Churchill 11/33, 1180, Bruxelles

Chimni, B. S., 2000, International Refugee Law: A Reader, Sage Publications, New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London

Gomez, Mario, 2002, National Human Rights Commissions and Internally Displaced Persons Illustrated by the Sri Lankan Experience, Brookings Institution – SAIS Project On Internal Displacement

Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2003, Land and Property Rights of IDP

On the basis of a close reading of Internal Displacement in South Asia write an essay on how development have often led to displacement in South Asia.

We had tongues but could not speak, we had feet but could not walk, Now that we have land, we have the strength to speak and walk[1].

The term “Development” envisages a battery of changes, changes for the betterment of the community. It involves the notion of progress, growth, upliftment and welfare of the collective. This multifaceted term carries different meanings to different people. For economists, it is an increase in the growth rate and per capita income; for politicians, it is the acquisition of symbols of the modernization and progress; for administrators, it is the achievement of the targets; and for social anthropologists, it is the enhancement of the quality of life, standard of living and satisfaction of basic needs. ‘Displacement is a move which is effectively permanent, in the sense that the area where people used to live has been transformed by the intervention, and there is no going back’[2]. Involuntary population displacements entailed by development programmes have reached a magnitude and frequency that has been demanding a strong policy guided solution in the present century. Involuntary displacement can be defined as displacement of people (with coercion rather than cooperation) from a specific area and reconstruction of their livelihood; sometimes can be called as rehabilitation. There has been a record where 10,000,000 people each year are displaced worldwide by infrastructural development programmes that may be dam construction, urban development or transportation.

Historically social science has been a discipline, which has taken a strong note in tune with recording the effect. As Cernea puts it, “Public policy responses to hard development issues can gain much from listening better to social research. But it is important to state that social scientists themselves have to much more to equip governments and public organizations with adequate practical and public advice”[3]. The present task of finding a long lasting sustainable solution to the problem has shifted over to the arena of public policy. On the other side there has been an inability of social science research to acknowledge the full impact of the process of displacement. The real challenge has come now, as this has to be grounded in a larger and structural critique of development.

What constitutes adequate and appropriate resettlement and rehabilitation of people displaced by development projects has been a subject of considerable debate. “The involuntary displacement destroys productive assets and disorganizes production systems, and creates a high risk of chronic impoverishment that typically occurs along one or several of the following dimensions: landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, food insecurity, morbidity and social disarticulation”[4]. The whole problem deserves the attention of the civilized population. The violations of individual or group rights that have occurred due to the development projects and resettlement have shattered the lives of thousands running in number. Displacement is increasingly understood as a multidimensional phenomenon, affecting not only the economic but also the social and cultural sphere. Development projects cannot take the education, health facilities and progressive feature for granted. Participatory planning in displacement is severely restricted and what planning does take place is effectively reduced to preparing for the actual relocation of the people. Any preparation and planning for the long term needs of those who are moved, tends to be delayed, or even abandoned, thus fields are not prepared properly before move is clearly seen and which has successfully led to failures of the resettlements.

There is also a large section of the society that is of the view that the displaced can never be compensated and taken care to the fullest. Having a strong and sustainable public policy can contend this. There is also a view that the very concept of taking up a development project which affects people can be used as an opportunity for creating overall sustainable feature for the affected people. “It is universally accepted that every human being has a right to just and sustainable development and it can be taken as a strong base in development projects”[5]. Most of the time displacements leading to resettlements have failed to keep up the “standard of living” of the people as they were there previously. The renowned economist Amartya Sen defines “standard of living” as “at a general level, the standard of living of an individual can be seen to depend on his or her ‘entitlements’ to the commodities that make the relevant activities possible”[6]. In wake of the definition we have not reached this position. The debate on displacement can not be held in isolation. The problem has to be seen against the background of our whole economy and in light of the needs of our country for at least one generation. The essence of any displacement and resettlement must be comprehensive enough to put them on a sustainable development basis rather than just giving relief and a place to live.

The line of arguments presented by different theoreticians and such other researches have most of the time miserably failed in serving the purpose for what they have been instituted. It is not that all the researches have gone waste and there are no positive positions, there are instances where substantial achievement has been made by different people, but it is to say that all the researches have not moved in the same direction. The concept of failure here refers to that effort where the act of convincing the people and politicians has not happened in respective countries. The concern here is, that of making the people and the policy makers to feel that development which leads to displacement and it is not addressed properly is a negative development. Although there is a good amount work has been done in this area, ironically most of the theories and empirical studies have remained at the level of showing the problem and magnifying the problem but at the convincing level and arriving at relative solutions. To put it in more understandable and plain words, these works have not impressed the concerned to the extent terrorism and communal violence. I consider both terrorism and communal violence as essential violence which can never be tolerated but at the same time even displacement having a veil of displacement which is not addressed at proper level is also violence and it can be called as an organized and government orchestrated violence. Just because it has happened from the side of government that does not mean it can be taken for granted.

Historically, there has not been a place where development has fared better and has reduced the agony of the people. Involuntarily displaced people have shared more pains than gains caused by so called development. The place of those displaced is given or used for different purposes has not benefited the original dwellers of the place and what is the logic and justice done for those whose place is snatched away but have not benefited in any way? This type of inequitable distribution of benefits and losses is not acceptable any way. It should not be accepted without any resistance as inevitability, if so still there should be enough dialogue and the participation of the local is very much required as to make justice to those displaced. The concept has to be understood through the prism of social justice which is very rarely invoked in the displacement and resettlement discourse. The question is, is it equitable to support development programmes beneficial to many people, if the same programmes undercut the livelihood of other groups and have consequences which are life long and can not be overcome after a stipulated time. This is the fundamental question we would like to pose to those who are involved in the public policy process. Where ‘social justice’ is located in the whole discourse? The concept of social justice had not been used very frequently before 1995 when it was spelt out by the president of the world bank of that time. The statement pronounced that ‘we must act, so that poverty will be alleviated, our environment protected, social justice extended, human rights strengthened. Social injustice can destroy economic and political advances’[7].

Practically speaking, displacement has been a concept which has not spared any sphere of the world, to be specific India. The scheduled tribes in India are the worst hit people with regard to loosing the place of their livelihood in which they were living by past few centuries. This is against the spirit of the constitution. The constitution of India provides for special protection from exploitation and social injustice, and promotion of educational and economic interests of the weaker section, and in particular of the scheduled tribes and scheduled castes. ‘the reason why the tribal displaced may often be at risk, facing more acute, longer lasting, impact of displacement than the non-tribal populations is because of the cultural aspects of life. While the kinship of the general population is spread far and wide, this is not true of the tribal groups whose habitation may be confined only to a certain specific areas. Any unsettlement may become a more crushing blow to their cultural life than in case of the former.  Second reason is that of education and the third being that the tribal people depend for their living including trade, profession and calling , on roots and fruits, minor forest produce and forest material than the general population”[8].

The experience of the past almost five decades of planned development demonstrates that large-scale displacement is inbuilt in the patterns of economic development which themselves are incompatible with social justice and genuine long-term environmental sustainability. The social impacts of the recent thrust, towards a greater market driven economic process, point to realities that as the national and global economies penetrate deeper into every part of the country. The lives, livelihoods and lifestyles of those who critically depend on the natural resources base will continue to be seriously threatened. ‘Displacement is an unequal struggle for the control of the natural resources and the powerful minority will continue to appropriate most of them to their own benefit. This process of the further impoverishment of the marginalized sections and transfer of their resources will continue, unless the weak organize themselves to resist this onslaught’[9]. While the families getting displaced make a sacrifice for the sake of the community and the country at large, the planners seem to view their uprooting and resettlement as one of the unavoidable logistical operations of project building. Therefore, the problem of resettlement has not gone beyond compensation (kind or cash). There is little understanding of the ethos of the people who are getting displaced. The logical steps in the process of displacement and rehabilitation must be elaborated as time bound conditions, e.g. the kind of base line survey, which uses a participatory approach, the criteria of compensation, and the requirements of total rehabilitation.

Land Acquisition laws:

The law enabling displacement in this country is basically faulty as still the land acquisition act 1894 is invoked after a small amendment in the year 1984. There are but instances of a statutory order which is so constructed as to legitimate, and facilitate, the displacement of persons, as of communities. In its ordering of priorities, it has not reckoned with displacement. Instead, it has attributed a cost to the acquisition process, and displacement is an unstated incident in the process. Law depends, for its legitimacy, on its popular acceptance. The patent injustice that have resulted from employing the extant statutory regimes for situations which it could never have been intended-and mass displacement is an outstanding example and the popular condemnation  that has followed, have concerned the law into rethinking its propositions. To get the laws to revise its priorities, to relocate expediency, to redefine development, to reassess the meaning of cost requires a liberal dose of legal imagination, political will and the induction of empirical knowledge.

The concept of public purpose is of high controversy, it all started with the British. But the real situation started during the period of Nehru being the Prime Minister of India and went ahead with having large public sector projects which involved displacement of lacks and thousands of people. The concept involved was ‘larger public good’. But the very concept is problematic as the ‘larger public good’ is of whom? The field has to be defined to whom it applies and what purpose. A project helping ten lack people cannot displace more than ten lack people. The number is tentative. It is understood that the larger projects bring prosperity to the nation but the prosperity not at the cost of our own people. It is sure that the person who sacrifices many a times does not get the benefit for his sacrifice; the case stands as an irony. Before the land acquisition itself a proper compensation has to be made and make sure that the person affected is restored his income and the life he was living before. Until and unless this criteria is fulfilled every act and statute is a failure and of no use. “Paradigm of development that has found favour with the planners makes displacement of large number of people, even whole communities, and an unavoidable event. The utilitarian principle of maximum happiness for the maximum numbers has been invoked to end respectability to making the lives of communities into a cost in the public interest. The law is ill equipped to counter this attitude and in fact abets it by lending the force of state power”[10]. The law has become so ridiculous that sometime it is worse than the orders of the state of affairs in Bihar. For example land acquisition act that of railways acts of 1989, which is very apt for the present situation. The extent of powers is vivid in the clause says that in a very crude way ‘do all…. acts necessary for making, maintaining, altering or repairing and using the railway’. Interestingly the land belongs to the government directly and here too the displacement takes place and the involuntary resettlement has become inevitable.

It is, at this juncture, it is very appropriate to have a look at the legal system again and come in terms to have a better fed law which can protect the displaced. “whatever be the shape of laws to come, we may conclude that a separate legal regime in India is necessary not simply for compiling the existing provisions but also for plugging their loopholes”[11].

Direct displacement in the form of evictions to more indirect processes that force people to move as a result of indirect chains of causation, as are mediated by the market and ecosystems, for example, the picture becomes still more complicated. What does it mean to be forced to move? The libertarian position, that only violations of one’s rights as a person and informal dweller in the form of the deprivation of freedom of movement (other than by the constraints of the property rights of others), of freedom of expression, and of possessions, does not capture the complexity of loss of freedom resulting from more indirect effects and, more widely, from structural social processes. While treating only directly forced displacement as manifestations of coercion is clearly insufficient, interpreting all movements of people as coerced and thus as forms of displacement would just as clearly be going too far in the other direction. It would deny that mobility, the freedom and capacity to move, is desirable. Mobility represents choice. Those without it are deprived in an important way. This brings out another important distinction to make, namely between those who stay because they choose to do so and those who stay because they cannot move. The challenge is to articulate what forms of movements are objectionable and on what grounds they are objectionable, and in the process to distinguish between desirable and objectionable forms of staying.

Being Gender sensitive:

The life of women is often worsened by displacement and resettlement. ‘It is true that there have been cases where they have benefited, but such cases are exceptional’[12]. The exclusion of gender considerations in the planning and implementation of displacement and resettlement is seen in the study. Largely, technical issues have been given more importance than socio-cultural and socio-economic considerations. Equity has not been an explicit goal of development projects. It has been fallaciously assumed that all benefits are shared equally by a community or society, without analyzing the relational aspects of large dams or other infrastructure projects and how these are linked with issues concerning a wider political economy. The concept of displacement as Sangeeta Goyal[13] says can’t be taken for granted. The people with absolutists stand have to keep in mind that the fight by the civil liberty groups for the absolute and proper resettlement is to make the concerned government to feel responsible and avoid it by taking decisions in haste. The efforts should be made by the concerned agency to make the resettlement the best then at least it will end up in being good.  If at all the process starts with the notion that there can never be an absolute resettlement as that of the position before displacement then the whole process will end up in being not up to the mark of even being manageable. There is a greater need for more gender-aware and gender-sensitive policies concerning the planning, implementation and monitoring of resettlements. These policies should be extended to include all the displacement affected areas.

Developmental processes that infringe upon the human rights of any section of society are inimical to the long-term goals of progress. Development activities cannot be taken up with the use of coercion and force. It is important to set up human rights monitoring institutions and ensure the protection of the human rights of the affected population. As women are generally more vulnerable to manipulation by the state and other agencies, special care should be taken to ensure that women are not subjected to any kind of violence as a result of displacement due to development projects. “Displacement from Livelihood has the potential of developing into a fully blown crisis of internal displacement in future”[14]. If at all we are able to avoid this major problem then there are all the chances of avoiding displacement in future.

Concept of Local Consensus:

The concept is of high utility in the displacement, resettlement and rehabilitation process. Most of the time it happens that the political leaders and the local representators try to avoid the problem of the oustees and they never seem to be bothering about the problem of the oustees. In a genuine case in Bengal, the land acquisition which happened was for the new Industrial town of Haldia, across the river from, and to the south of Calcutta. The most genuine part of the resettlement and rehabilitation was that there was a ground level agreement between political representatives. This represented the local consensus[15] as the ruling and the opposition party came together to the help of the people. These types of agreements would enable the administration to carry out the decision smoothly.

Where population displacement is unavoidable, a detailed resettlement plan with time-bound actions specified and a budget are required. Resettlement plans should be built around a development strategy; and compensation, resettlement, and rehabilitation packages should be designed to generally improve or at least restore the social and economic base of those to be relocated. Monetary compensation for land alone may not be adequate. Voluntary relocation by some affected persons may form part of a resettlement plan, but measures to address the special circumstances of involuntary resettlers should also be included. Preference should be given to resettlement of people dislocated from agricultural settings unto similar settings. This is particularly important for indigenous peoples whose degree of acculturation to mainstream society is limited. If suitable land is unavailable, other strategies built around opportunities for wage employment or self-employment may be used.

Development and displacement at one level has been given a dimension where the victims are projected as one who can’t achieve anything and at large they are at the mercy. Here again the concept of self respect sneaks in and it can never be given up by anybody at any level, moreover, there is no necessity to do so as they have not created the situation for themselves. The discourse on displaced people should move in the direction of right based argument. The right based argument ahs to be given much importance than anything else. The right based argument can be extended from the level of right of citizens to the extent that they have been part of the building the economy although they are not registered workers as the public and private sector employees. Their contribution to the economy can alone be a reason where the displaced in the name of development has to be treated at the lines of right. This has been experienced in cities like Hyderabad[16] for those who did not had any entitlements which were registered but still succeeded in getting proper resettlement and rehabilitation. Other arguments based on humanitarian concerns and such other things as it is discussed have become out dated which needs no explanation.

The whole argument is to make an effort to bring the idea of having displacements in the name development out of the mind of the concerned people and make the people to realize that the situation faced by few today can come to any one where market driven forces are working and the governments are becoming agents of different agency helping externally at monetary level. As Cernea[17] highlights, the discourse has to show the impoverishment and other risks faced by the displaced. There is also a need to come out with some solid measures which a policy making agency can take into consideration. If this doesn’t happen seriously in a democracy then there is all the possibility of democracy being under threat and that threat directly attacking the people. The country has to make a meticulous move regarding development oriented displacements.

References

1. Agarwal, b. 1996. A Field of One’s Own, ‘Gender and Land Rights in South Asia’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2. Banerjee, Paula. Chaudhury, S B R. Kumar, Das, Samir. 2005. ‘InternalDisplacement in South Asia’, Sage Publications, New Delhi, pp. 139-140.

3. Cernea, Michael M. 1988. ‘Involuntary Resettlement in Development Projects:Policy Guidelines in World Bank-Financed Projects.’ World Bank Technical Paper No. 80, Washington, DC.World Bank.

4. Cernea, Michael M. 1990. ‘Poverty Risks from Population Displacement In Water Resources Development,’ HIID Development Discussion Paper No. 355, Harvard University, Cambridge.

5. Cernea, Michael M. 1995a. ‘Social Integration and Population Displacement: The Contribution of Social Science’. International Social Science Journal. 143:1:91-112.

5.  Cernea, Michael M. 1995b. ‘Understanding and Preventing Impoverishment from Displacement: Reflections on the State of Knowledge’ Keynote Address,International Conference on Development Induced Displacement. University of Oxford,England. Journal of Refugee Studies. 8:3:245-264.

6. Cernea, Michael M. 1996b. ‘Public Policy Responses to Development-Induced Population Displacement.’ Economic and Political Weekly, 1515-1523.

7. Cernea, Michael M. 1998. ‘Impoverishment or Social Justice? A Model for Planning Resettlement.’ In H.M. Mathur and D. Marsden, (eds.) Development Projects and Impoverishment Risks: Resettling Project-Affected People in India, Delhi: Oxford U.P.

8. Cernea, Michael M. 1997. ‘The Risks and Reconstruction Model for Resettling Displaced Population’, World Development, Volume 25, no 10, pp 1569-1587.

9. Chatterjee, Partha. 2004. ‘The Politics of The Governed, Reflection Popular Politics in the World,’ Permanent Black Publishers, New Delhi.

10. Chambers, Roberts. 1999. Engendering those uprooted by ‘Development, in Indra, D. (ed.). Engendering Forced Migration: Theory and Practice. Oxford:Refugee Studies Program, Pp. 23-39.

11. De Wet, Chris. 1996. ‘Economic Development and Population Displacement, Can Everybody Win?’ Economic and Political Weekly, December 15, 4637-4646.

12. Fernandes, Walter. 1991. ‘Power and Powerlessness: Development Projects and Displacement of Tribals’. Social Action, 41:3:243-270.

13. Fernandes, Walter. 1995. ‘An Activist Process around the Draft National Rehabilitation Policy’, Social Action, July-September, Volume No. 45, 277-298.

14. Fernandes, Walter. 2000. ‘From Marginalization to Sharing the Project Benefits’. In M. Cernea and C. McDowell (eds.) Risk and Reconstructing Livelihoods, Washington, DC: The World Bank.

15. Fernandes, Walter, J. C. Das, and S. Rao. 1989. ‘Displacement and Rehabilitation: An Estimate of Extent and Prospects’. In Fernandes W. and E. G Thukral (eds.) Development, Displacement and Rehabilitation, New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.

16. Ganguly, Thukral, Enakshi. 1996. ‘Development, Displacement and resettlement’, Economic and Political Weekly, June 15, 1500-1503.

17. Goyal, Sangeeta. 1996. ‘Economic Perspective on Resettlement and Rehabilitation’ Economic and Political Weekly, June 15, 1461-1467.

18. Kishor, Nanda, M S. 2006. Urban Resettlement and Sustainable Urban Development: A Case Study of NTR Nagar in Hyderabad, (Unpublished) submitted as part of Mphil, University Of Hyderabad.

19. Mahapatra, L K 1998. ‘Good Intentions or Policies are not Enough: Reducing Impoverishment Risks for the tribal oustees’ in H M Mathur and D Marsden (eds) ‘Development Projects and Impoverishment Risks’, OUP Delhi.

20. Ramanathan, Usha. 1996. ‘Displacement and the law’, Economic and Political Weekly, June 15, pp 1486-1491.

21. Sen, Amartya. 1990. ‘The Standard of Living’, Cambridge University Press.

22. D, Wolfensohn, James. 1995. ‘Address at the Annual Meeting of the World Bank       and IMF’, World Bank, Washington D.C. (October).

The Dynamics of Conflict-Induced Displacement in Nepal

Background

People all over the world are constantly being forced to leave their home and hearth for many reasons: natural calamities, man-made disaster, state sponsored population transfer, giant commercial projects, major infrastructure development such as dams, abuse of human rights and threat of violence from state and non-state forces (Bose, 2005). Most of the developing countries of Asia and Africa are facing the problem of population displacement and its consequences in their socioeconomic and political development. In the past few decades the countries of South Asia are also undergoing the serious problem of displacement of their large population, mainly because of the political, religious, ethnic conflict or partition of country and major development projects such as the dams and other infrastructure projects.

Displacement is generally characterised as the movement of people from one place to another owing to different reasons (Bharttarai 2001). When the displacement is motivated by voluntary choice for better opportunities or looking favourable conditions for the future, it is called voluntary displacement and is also taken in the general framework of the migration phenomenon that is taking place since the early evolution of human civilization. On the other side, the displacement that is influenced by some external factors forcing people to leave their native places is termed as involuntary displacement. Such an involuntary displacement gives birth to a term called Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) as defined by the United Nations' Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement 1998 are 'those persons or groups of persons who have been forced oro obliged to flee or leave their homes or place of habitual residence but have not crossed an internationally recognized state border, particularly as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situation of general violence, violations of human rights or natural or human made disasters'. 

In general, people who leave their homes because of discrimination, harassment or threat of violence and cross international borders are recognized as refugees under the 1956 UN Convention on Refugees. The international community recognises their right to seek asylum and accepts the responsibility of rehabilitating them in safe countries. But there is no international convention or covenant that protects the IDPs or accepts the responsibility to rehabilitate them.  They remain the sole concern of the state of which they are citizens. Though the international community has been concerned about the condition of IDPs and has developed guidelines and principles for their protection and rehabilitation, these remain mere recommendations. The international community has no right to intervene in the internal affairs of any state. Hence, the situation of IDPs in many countries is even worse than those of the refugees and are forced to live in a miserable situation.

While an estimated 25 million people are displaced worldwide by conflict, the number of people uprooted by development projects is thought be much higher. A study published in 2000 estimated that between 40 to 80 million people had been forcibly displaced so far by the large hydroelectric projects alone. Other development projects forcing millions of people to resettle off their land each year include urban infrastructure projects, expansion of transportation networks, mines, oilfield exploitation and even parks and forest reserves (Norwegian Refugee Council 2005). However, over the past one decade, the magnitude and vulnerability of the conflict induced displacement has been more acute than that of the development induced development in Nepal. Therefore, this essay focuses on the situation of conflict induced displacement in Nepal.

Forced Displacement in Nepal

The history of involuntary internal displacement in Nepal is associated with project induced displacement that began in 1960s. People were displaced by construction of roads, irrigation schemes, hydropower projects, airports, national parks and wildlife reserves. In comparative terms national parks, wildlife reserves and water resource projects have displaced more people than other types of projects in Nepal.

The birth of Maoist rebellion in Nepal has given birth of another dimension of population displacement in Nepal. During the past ten years of fighting and related violence triggered by the state as well as the rebels, more than 13,000 lives have been lost of which almost two-thirds (8,515) were killed by the state security forces and remaining (4,803) by the Maoist rebels (INSEC 2006, INSEC 2005a; INSEC 2005b)[1]. The data shows that almost two-fifths (4,648) of the entire casualties took place in 2002 alone, i.e. during the first State of Emergency. Almost 400 innocent children were killed during the ten years period (INSEC 2005c) and hundreds of children and women have become victims of landmine blasts and crossfire between the Maoists and security forces (NCBL 2006), not to mention the trauma faced by the families who lost their loved ones in the fighting. The loss of physical infrastructures is estimated to be worth US$250 million per year (Mahat 2003; DFID 2002a; DFID 2002b). Another estimate shows that the infrastructure loss is estimated to be worth 8-10 per cent of national GDP (Sharma 2004) that comes to be around Rs18-20 billion per year. The conflict has caused internal and external displacement of people. Nearly 400,000 rural families have been displaced internally while hundreds of thousands of others have crossed over to India in search of safety and livelihood (Ra and Singh 2005). The legal as well as illegal labour migration to India, Malaysia, Gulf countries and other parts of the world has accelerated in the past few years. The youths are desperate to go abroad to get employment, to escape the forced recruitment in the Maoist militia and possible atrocity of the state security forces in suspicion of being Maoists. Such desperation for exiting the national boundary at any cost has brought severe consequences to those fleeing the country where they are compelled to involve themselves in works of inhumane nature including slavery and sex trade (Dhungana 2006).

Nepal faces a serious dilemma over the issue of its citizen displaced by the conflict.  The Displaced people could simply be divided into two groups. The first group is the internally displaced one which is, by definition, called IDPs globally. But the second group is those who are displaced through the open border to India and their status is a tricky one. By the 1956 UN Convention on Refugees, these people are Nepalese refugees in India, but they are never given the status of refugees in India and the Indian authority never keep track of records that how many Nepalese crossed the border and live in India. The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Nepal and India stipulates that the Nepalese people can travel to India (so do the Indians to Nepal) without any documentation and theoretically share the same legal rights, with the exception of voting, as citizens. This provision of the treaty nullifies the chances of the Nepalese fleeing the conflict to India to be considered as the refugees and they remain in the 'state of statelessness' in India. This paper discusses on both categories of displacement in an attempt to draw attention on the complexity of the conflict induced displacement in Nepal.

Conflict Induced IDPs in Nepal

Nepal has witnessed a serious dimension of involuntary displacement of population during the past one decade. Data from different sources indicate that a significant number of people have been displaced over the last few years. However, the government of Nepal has not clearly acknowledged the existence of displaced persons in Nepal. Nor has there been an explicit definition of the term "displaced persons".

The government chooses to define the conflict induced displaced as "victims of conflict" placed within a narrow understanding of who these victims should be (SAFHR, 2005). The National Human Rights Action Plan 2004 covers to some extent the question of the displaced persons. However, this document, too, does not clearly define 'the displaced persons'. The 'victims of conflict Fund set up by the Government of Nepal defines the 'displaced persons' as the people who are victims of Maoist violence or whose family members are murdered by Maoists, completely ignoring those victimized by the security forces and forced to leave their home. The following figure presents the general about the based on the number of IDPs until 2004. However, the scenario has significantly deteriorated since then, especially during the period of royal takeover, where government brutality against the ordinary people reached an all time high, contributing large population exodus from the villages, particularly from the hills.

The on-going Maoist insurgency and associated events have forced a large segment of population from rural Nepal to move out of their usual places of residence. Though the conflict induced displacement started even before the declaration of people's war by CPN (Maoist) in early 1996, the number of IDPs started to soar up after the breakdown of the peace talks and imposition of state of emergency  by the  then Sher Bahadur Deuba Government in November 2001. It is estimated that up to 200,000 people have been displaced since the conflict started in the Mid 1990s. Most of the displaced have either flocked to the main urban centres or fled to India (Global IDP Project 2004) through its open border that stretches to almost 1800 kilometres along the plain land. It is debated that the number of displaced people going to India is as high as those displaced within Nepal. Some reports have even suggested that the number of displaced persons may rise up to somewhere between 300,000 and 600,000 and those displaced to India may account as high as one million (UN 2005; HRWF 2005; Shrestha and Niraula 2005), where as the government sources claim that there are only 8000 IDPs officially registered with the government in Nepal. These data may be mere guesses and manipulations by researchers or organizations based on their small survey or observation visits carried out in pocket areas, there is no doubt that a large number of people are displaced within and outside the country whose number is yet to be estimated in the absence of a nationally representative survey. The estimation of number of IDPs between 1, 00,000 to 2, 00,000 has been internationally recognized. The estimated figure of  212,985 – 272,600 compiled by Caritas Nepal based on the data collection of IDPs living in the district headquarters seems to be comparatively more authentic than rest of the estimates. Following table presents the IDP estimation made by different organizations till date.

Table 1: IDP statistics available from various sources until October 2006.

Source: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre of Norwegian Refugee Council 2006. IDP Return Still a Trickle Despite Ceasefire. 16 October .p 65.

Causes and Types of IDPs

INSEC (2005) explicitly mentions that after the escalation of violence followed by the declaration of the State of emergency in November 2001, the problem of internal displacement spread all over the country with varying magnitude. People were forced to flee their homes as a result of the intensified violent conflict, receiving death threat, threats of extortions; fear of being recruited by the Maoists in their People's Liberation Army (PLA) and Militias under their "One Household One Militia" policy, fear of being arrested, brutally tortured and even killed by the security forces in suspicion of being Maoists sympathizers, fear of kidnapping and torture by the Maoist in suspicion of being the government spy for the security forces, fear of being caught in the cross fire between the Maoist and the Security forces, destruction of infrastructures such as the schools and health posts, which the Maoists have widely targeted[2], cessation of livelihood opportunities as a result of full fledge war and others. Further, severe food shortage in many mountain and hill districts due to the transport blockades periodically imposed by the Maoists, security problem among the porters, seizure of the food items by the Maoists, and the government policy of restricting the supply of food items to 'known' Maoist affected areas in the name of depriving the Maoist from having enough food to eat. Such a scenario contributed to generating high unemployment, disruption in business and lack of security as a result of breakdown of law and order situation. People are also forced to flee their villages because of being falsely implicated by the rebels and the government security forces for spying their enemies, because of the murder of their family members by one of the warring parties, using (by force) of vehicles, phones, and other accessories by the rebels and brutal actions taken by the securities forces for letting the other party use them, locking up homes and destroying them by the rebels, and increased brutality by the security forces especially after the imposition of State of Emergency in 2001, increased cases of human rights violation, especially women and girls by the security forces (INSEC 2005).

There is high risk among the people simply living in the conflict affected areas. Both warring parties demand loyalty and obedience.  Maoists demand food, shelter and protection. The media report that civilians have been used as human shields. More significant is the risks of that comes from being forced identified by either side as the supporter of the other. They are in a no-win situation.  Thus, many have decided that the only realistic option for them is to escape the problem by leaving the place. This explains why, until now, there is such a large proportion of young male among the displaced population.

Among the IDPs, there are two types of people. The first category represents the group of individuals with political affiliation or members of major political parties such as the Nepali Congress, CPN (UML) and the Pro-Palace Rastriya Prajantra Party and their families. A large majority of them are victimized by the Maoist cadres as many of them are local land lords and are blamed of socially and economically exploiting the local poor, especially the Dalits and indigenous communities, for centuries as they belong to the upper caste in the Hindu caste hierarchy. These people are displaced to district headquarters and the Capital city, Kathmandu. Majority of them are economically well to do and have no financial problem even in the place of displacement. They are not generally living in the IDPs Camps or under any other temporary arrangements.

The other groups of IDPs represent the poor people from the villages who are mostly targeted by the government security forces on the suspicion of being the Maoists or their sympathizers. There is ample evidence of certain ethnic group such as 'Kham Magars' and Dalits, the so-called untouchables, who have been directly victimized by the security forces for being Maoists just because of them coming from the certain ethnic groups in the western hills. These poor people live in temporary shelters prepared by local NGOs or INGOs working the region or just squat in the urban areas in the hope that they can find some means of livelihoods to feed the family members.

Patterns of Displacement

Major pattern of conflict induced displacement in Nepal consists of following steps or options.

·          Village to nearby town

·          Nearby town to district headquarters

·          District headquarters to regional centres

·          Major cities of the country

·          Capital city of the country

·          India

·          Third countries

The last two moves of the displaced people do not fall within the accepted definition of the IDPs and are in the state of statelessness.

The flow of internally displaced persons has been described by the following figures

Place of

Source: INSEC Human Rights Year Book, 2004.

People Displaced to India

Migration to India has been an increasingly common survival strategy for communities in the hill and mountain regions of Nepal over the decades of Nepal India relations. This has increased dramatically over the past few years. Monitors at the border estimated that between November and December 2003 (the normal period of peak migration) over 1200 people were crossing the border per day in Nepalgunj alone. In previous years, the numbers would have been 200 to 300 maximum. A much higher proportion of women and children were also observed, although majority of the migrants were still men (Nepal IDP Research Findings 2003). Some 120,000 displaced Nepalese crossed into India during January 2003 alone – fleeing both forced recruitment by the Maoists and RNA attacks, Indian Embassy officials have said (ICG 10 April 2003, p. 2). Between 10,000 and 16,000 displaced children reported to have crossed the Indian border in only three months time, between June and August 2004 (SAFHR 2005). And at the end of 2002, some 8,000 people crossed the border every week, according to media reports and NGOs working in Nepalgunj[3]. This major influx was prompted by difficult living conditions and fear of being caught in the crossfire in rural areas (The Nepali Times 19 December 2002).

Records at the border crossing at Gaddachauki in Kanchanpur district, Far Western Nepal showed that in the 30 days between 14 December 2002 and 14 January 2003, 10,000 Nepali crossed in to India. Across the border at Banbasa, India, the border police recorded more than 100,000 Nepalese going over to India between mid-September 2002 and mid-January 2003[4]. Similarly, Indian embassy officials indicate that roughly 120,000 displaced Nepalese crossed into India during January 2003 alone[5] (Thapa, 2003: 155). Though the statistics do not clearly reflect the magnitude of displaced population to India, it definitely highlights the seriousness of the problem and urgency required to carry out study on the situation of those displaced to India.

Further, the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people from the villages of Nepal to India as a result of the armed insurgency has created a panic among the peoples in some bordering states. There is no reliable data on the displacement of people due to armed insurgency. It is estimated that more than one million people have been displaced from the villages since Kilo Sera-2 police operation[6] in 1998. Among them, nearly 300,000 are internally displaced. Others have left the country. Absolute majority of them crossed into India.

These statistics give an approximate scenario of flow of displaced Nepali people into India. The number might be much more than we have presented here. The flow of so many people should have been a matter of grave concern for the Indian Union government and state governments at a time when they themselves have high unemployment rate. It would have waxed the number of unemployed youth and heightened the problem of security. On the other side of the coin, the wages of the unskilled needy immigrants is reported to have been very low. There are reports of continued harassment of the Nepali immigrants by the Indian police. The number of Nepali women as sex workers in the Indian market is certainly on big rise in absence of other alternatives for existence and are vulnerable to be exposed to HIV/AIDS and other STDs and communicable diseases. Singh et al (2005) argue that the incidence of HIV/AIDS has increased in the western part of Nepal which is experiencing large number of voluntary and forced migrants to India, Malaysia and Gulf countries. Sex traffickers have shifted their trade from central hill and mountain to mid-west and far-west Nepal (which are hotbeds of the insurgency) taking undue advantage of the socioeconomic conditions borne by the conflict and violence. While the number of people infected with HIV/AIDS has risen, the prevention and awareness work has declined in Nepal as a result of the conflict (Singh et al 2005). Save the Children Norway's recent study revealed that the 19 percent of the female sex workers stated that they have been pushed into the sex trade directly because of the conflict. The health status of the IDPs is equally miserable. They are vulnerable to sex trade and HIV/AIDS infection  (Rijal 2005).

A report by the Save the Children Alliance and Central Child Welfare Board (2005)  and another report by the Terre des Hommes and Save the Children (2006) report that exploitative conditions for IDP children in urban labour situations encourage many, in particular boys, to leave for India. The report estimate that during July and October 2004, a total of 17,583 children were documented crossing the border from Nepal to India. Among them children below 12 were found to be traveling in groups but nearly about fifty percent of children above 15 were spotted traveling without any guardian. Children not traveling with family were often being accompanied by people referred to as "mets" locally, who gained a monetary commission in providing children as labour

The displaced people through the open border to India have not received any status of refugee in India and they are ignored, exploited, harassed and considered as unwanted threat to the local population. There is no reliable information regarding their living condition and other plights they are suffering in India.

However, it is also almost impossible to separate the people who migrate to India voluntarily and who are forced to cross the border because of the fear of the rebels and/or the state security forces, unless there is a reliable research on the magnitude, status and vulnerability off the population displaced to India within the past five years or so. Hence the problem becomes even more complicated because of the prevalence of the open border between these two countries. The only solution to this problem of investigating the situation of DPs in India is to carry out primary surveys in the major destinations of Nepalese people in India.

Hence, the debate on IDPs in Nepal is incomplete unless those displaced to India are also brought into the framework of the discussion because there is high probability that majority of the displaced to India would return to their native places,  if peace prevails in the country in the future. Further, the Nepalese government is also turning a blind eye on those displaced to India as it has reduced the burden of managing the IDPs in Nepal, which could have developed an explosive situation for the government to handle.

Government Response to the problem of IDPs

The then HMG Nepal and the current Nepal Government both seem to be ignorant towards solving the problem of IDPs in Nepal, not to mention the Nepali DPs in India. After four months of the formation of the new government, there are no concrete steps to reintegrate the IDPs into their native places. Least, the government has not bothered to revise the highly unacceptable definition of IDPs in Nepal as the person who are victimized by the Maoists and are forced to leave their homes.

Based on the 12 Point Agreement signed in November 2005 between the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and the CPN (Maoist), "the Maoist party has expressed its commitment to create an environment allowing the political party activists of the democratic parties displaced during the course of the armed conflict to return to their homes and live with dignity, return their land and other properties confiscated by their cadres and carry out their activities without hindrances" (INSEC 2005:2).  As a follow up to this, the government issues a National IDP Policy in March 2006, but as with previous IDP plans, the latest failed to comply with international standards as it only recognized as IDPs those displaced by the actions of Maoists ( iDMC 2006). Further, the civil society, various advocacy organisations and international community are advocating with the Government and Maoists peace talks team that the issue of IDPs should be one of the major agendas of the on-going peace process. But, both parities does not have realized the gravity of the problem.

Maoists Response to the problem of IDPs

The UN Guiding Principle on Internal Displacement, 1998 clearly stipulates that "all displaced persons have the right to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their homes or places of habitual residence, or to resettle voluntarily in another part of the country", but the security forces (during the King's autocracy) and CPN-M until today have not honoured the Un provision in practice. The OHCHR has expressed deep concern about an emerging pattern od selective 'approval' process. In many parts of the country, the Maoists cadres have established three categories IDPs which serves as the basis of the 'approval process'.  While IDPS belonging to the third group-those who quietly left in anticipation or in fear of the conflict- were welcome to return, those belonging to second group- those accused by the Maoists of some 'wrongdoing' had to accept conditions imposed by the Maoists before being allowed to return. These included paying a 'donation' or appearing before a 'People's Court' to explain their displacement and apologise for actions committed before being displaced. IDPs belonging to first group are seen as responsible for 'serious crimes' and not welcome back (UNHCR et al. 2006; OCHA 2006). An overwhelming area of the country is still under the absolute control of Maoists and the government presence is completely confined to the district headquarters only. This makes the situation even worse for the IDPs for their safe and dignified return as they have to be totally dependent on the pleasure of the Maoist cadre's permission. An estimated 68 percent of the Village Development Committee (VDC) secretaries (who are supposed to be the government representative at the village level) are currently displaced, mainly in the district headquarters where they wait for the Maoists to approve their return (iDMC 2006). Hence, the near absence of the government mechanism outside district headquarters has led to lack of protection mechanisms and provisions for basic service and development for the returnees.

International Response to the Problem of IDPs

Since 2005, the international community has geared up its assistance efforts to provide protection to the displaced population.  A Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP) was devised in mid-2005 among international agencies and served as the basis for Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) launched in October 2005and which requested $66 million. As of the end of September 2006, almost 75 percent of the total sum had been forthcoming, with the protection sector particularly well funded; but many projects aimed at addressing the needs of IDPs and conflict affected people in the sectors of agriculture, education, economic recovery and water and sanitation had not received any funding (iDMC 2006).

Similarly, the UN organizations such as UNHCR, OCHA, international NGOS such Norwegian Refugee Council and Local NGOs are also coming out to support the IDPs in their relief, rehabilitation and protection. However, all such efforts are not very effective in the lack of governance in the most part of the country and lack of protection mechanism supported by integrated reintegration approach.

Problem of IDPs

The IDPs in Nepal and those displaced to India face many difficulties and challenges for their survival and making livelihoods. The major problems faced by the IDps in Nepal include, but not limited to, lack of unemployment for survival, lack of food, lack of health and sanitation facilities, lack of education facilities for those who were gong to school before being displaced,  lack of proper shelter which is a serious concern especially in the winter season and lack of security as many of them are considered as spies/enemy of the people's war or (so-called) terrorists or their sympathizers by the Maoists cadres and the security forces respectively. 

Despite the fact that Nepal has been listed among the countries currently experiencing most serious humanitarian crisis, no targeted assistance has been delivered to address the most immediate humanitarian needs of uprooted populations. Whatever efforts are being made by some local NGOs and INGos to support IDPs, these are mostly limited to providing the immediate relief to those who are living in the camps. Those who are scattered in many parts of the country have not received any support yet.

The IDPs in Nepal are still facing serious problems for returning to their native places despite the fact that the peace process between the government and the Maoists is moving forward in an optimistic path, albeit a bit slowly contrary to people's expectation. Though the 12 Point Agreement between the Seven Party Alliance and the CPN-M and the signing of the 25 Point Code of Conduct has opened the door for the IDPs to return home, the continued abuses committed by the Maoists cadres in many districts and conditions imposed by their cadres; the absence of the government in the villages; and the prolonged and shaky peace talks has discouraged majority of the IDPs to return home.

The IDPs in the urban areas continue to face difficult living conditions in urban areas where a large majority of displaced sought refuge in the past few years. Most of those displaced in recent years and belonging to more disadvantaged groups of society have had to struggle to make ends meet. Ofter belonging to farming community anf unprepared for the making of living in the urban areas, most IDPs who find employment engage in low-paid labour intensive jobs. Placing a strain on the Municipalities' capacity to deliver basic services such as water supplies, sanitation and waste management, the arrival of number of IDPs in urban areas has also increased real state and rental prices, making it very difficult for the poorest to find proper accommodation in cities such as Kathmandu (HimRights et al 2005) resulting in the growth of Squatters and shanty towns. A survey conducted in 12 Municipalities in Nepal found that 73 percent of new arrivals in urban areas living in rented accommodations, rest of the migrants have sought shelter in dilapidated unhygienic conditions as like riversides and squatter settlement (Paudel 2005). 

Sources of livelihood and lack of jobs and working places for women and children has been another concern. A recent study conducted in Kathmandu and Birendranagar found that over 70 percent of IDPs could not earn enough money to support their families. Some IDPs reported earning no money at all, which has forced them to involve in many unconventional means of earning money including petty crimes. Typical IDP activities include: manual work in brick kilns and construction sites, rickshaw pulling, stone breaking, garbage picking, sand sieving and lorry loading, and local porter (Rai 2005).

There is no authentic information on the status and suffering of people displaced to India, except some case specific information. However, the media reporting from both sides of the border already signal the pathetic condition of lives of many Nepali displaced to India especially in few of the poorest Indian states such as Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal, Himanchal and Kashmir.  The actual situation could only be assesses through a reliable research among the displaced Nepalese in India. The major problem lies in the manner Nepali and Indian government, who put all the voluntary migrants and forced displacement into single group under the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 between Nepal and India.

Conclusions

It is quite clear that the large, but fully unaccounted, number of IDPs in Nepal are living difficult lives in various urban areas and district headquarters. The government and the CPN-M both have pretended of giving attention towards the cause of the IDPs but have never paid full attention to address their plights.

When the UN raised its serious concern on the issue of IDPs in Nepal, the Nepal government promised to develop a new IDP policy, which remained far from comprehensive and despite explicit reference to the UN Guiding Principles, it ignored a number of basic principles and recommendations. The policy failed to address the main weakness of the previous state policies on IDPs, i.e. the politicization of IDP definition excluding people displaced by the state forces. Further the lack of implementation plan, allocation of financial resources and, on top of that, the absence of the governance in the local level has not been able to generate a conducive environment to address the problem of IDPs in the districts. The government has also succumbed to the Maoists on IDPs issues as it seems to accept the IDP categories defined by the Maoists and their returns conditions imposed by the Maoists. .

The Issue of IDPs being one of the serious components for the sustainable conflict transformation, the government and the CPN-M have never showed their intention to make it one of the major components of preface process. Even if the international community is getting ready to pour sizable amount of financial resources, the government has not been able to develop a effective mechanism to channel that money for the welfare, safe reintegration of IDPs into the native communities and their protection once they are returned. As a result, the international community is confused in breaking the ice on facilitating the return of IDPs into their native places.

Further, the whole country is in deep slumber regarding the plights of those displaced to India because of the conflict. Those displaced to India are living a difficult life as nomads in many bordering cities suffer harassment, exploitation, torture, blackmailing, forced prostitution and inhuman form of child labour. These people are also vulnerable to various kinds of communicable disease including STDs and HIV/AIDS. This is an area that the Nepali society should pay attention with authentic research.

In conclusion, the IDPs in Nepal and outside are really overlooked and neglected by all stakeholders of the society, indeed, as described by the UN Secretary General's Representative on the Human rights of IDPs, Prof Walter Kalin in Aapril 2005.

References

Bose, Tapan Kumar 2005. Foreword. In Deep Ranjani Rai  2005 A Pilot Survey on Internally Displaced Persons in Kathmandu and Birendranagar. Kathmandu, SAFHR.

Dhungana Shiva K 2006. Impact of Conflict on Service Delivery in Rural Nepal: The Case of Health Sector. Paper presented at the international Conference on Governance and Development, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 16-19 August 2006.

Dhungana Shiva K. 2006. The Maoist Insurgency and Nepal-India Relations: Issues in Contention. In Dhungana SK (ed) The Maoist Insurgency and Nepal India Relations. Kathmandu: Friends for Peace. Pp 1-25.

HRWF. 2005. Internally displaced persons in Nepal: The forgotten victims of conflict. Human Rights Without Frontiers Int.

iDMC. 2006. Nepal: IDP Return Still a Trickle Despite Ceasefire. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Norwegian Refugee Council. 16 october 2006. www.internal-displacement.org

INSEC 2005. Editorial: Waiting for Returning Home. In informal: Special Issue on IDPs, Vol 2 and 3, September-December. Kathmandu: Informal Sector Service Centre.

Paudel P R 2005. Situation of internally displaced person in Nepal and recommended responses. RUPP/UNDP.

Norwegian Refugee Council 2005. Internal Displacement: Global Overview of Trends and Development in 2004. Global IDP Project.

OCHA 2006. The Internally Displaced Persons: Current Status. OCHA Nepal Thematic Report. Issue 1. Office of the High Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs. Kathmandu: 6 September2006.

Ra, Sungsup and Bipul Singh. 2005. Measuring the economic cost of conflict: The effect of declining development expenditures. ADB working paper No 2. Kathmandu: Nepal Resident Mission, Asian Development Bank.

Rai Deep Ranjani. 2005. A Pilot Survey on IDPs in Kathmandu and Birendranagar. Kathmandu: South Asia Forum for Human Rights, March Pp 37.

Rijal, S. 2005. Insurgency fuelling the flesh trade. The Kathmandu Post. March 29.

Save the Children Alliance (SCA) & Central Child Welfare Board (CCWB), July 2005, An increasing wave. Migration of Nepalese children to India in the context of Nepal's armed conflict

Shrestha Bandana and Som Niraula. 2005. Internally Displaced Persons in Nepal. Peace and Democracy in South Asia, Volume 1, Issue 2.

Singh, Sonal; Edward Mills; Stevan Honeyman, Bal Krishna Suvedi and Nur Prasad Pant. 2005. HIV in Nepal: Is the violent conflict fuelling the epidemic? PLoS Med 2(8): e216. www.peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=3959 (accessed 31 May 2006).

Terre des Hommes & Save the Children, June 2006, Asylums of exploitation. Internally Displaced Children in the Worst Forms of Child Labour due to the Armed Conflict in Nepal

UN 2005. Findings on Nepal of the Representative of the UN Secretary General on IDPs, New York April 22.

UNHCR 2006. UNHCR's Expanded Role in Support for the Inter Agency Response to Internal Displacement Situations. United nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

When does displacement end?