Third CRG Winter Course on Forced Migration
Kolkata, 2005
This report is a product of writings and reports prepared by several participants, faculty members and members of CRG desk for the winter course on forced migration. It is a collaborative product. Thanks are to the participants and all others who contributed to it. Thanks are to the UNHCR, the Brookings Institution and the Government of Finland in particular, whose generous help and advice made the programme possible.
Contents
The Third Annual Winter Course on Forced Migration was organised by the Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group (MCRG) in Kolkata from 1 December to 15 December 2005.
The Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group popularly known as the Calcutta Research Group (CRG) was born as a facilitating group in support of the peace movement in West Bengal, particularly during the Third Joint Conference of the Pakistan-India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy - an unprecedented public gathering of 400 peace activists of the sub-continent for 4 days in Calcutta in 1996. The founders were a group of researchers, trade unionists, feminist thinkers and women’s rights campaigners, academics, journalists, and lawyers. This was to be a forum for policy discussion and analysis on issues of democracy, human rights, peace, and justice. Developing as a forum of mostly young public activists and socially committed researchers, CRG is now well known for its research, dialogues, and advocacy work. It has carved out a niche for itself in the scholar-activist world for its policy studies on autonomy, human rights, women’s dignity, issues of forced displacement and migration, peace and conflict resolution, citizenship, borders and border-conflicts, and other themes relevant to democracy.
The winter course is an outcome of the ongoing and past work by the CRG, and other collaborating groups, institutions, scholars, and human rights and humanitarian activists in the field of refugee studies and the broad studies on displacement, human rights and humanitarian work for the victims of forced displacement, and policy analysis of laws and administrative measures in this field. The duration of the course is three months. A two and a half month long distance education programme precedes the fifteen-day Kolkata workshop.
The course intends to serve multiple objectives – study, training, capacity building, and pooling of available resources in displacement studies. The programme involves several university departments and personnel, and other institutions working in this area. It draws attention to the benchmark set by national and international human rights and humanitarian laws and principles, and the experiences of the relevant organisations and front-ranking personnel. The course is special because of its emphasis on experiences of forced displacement, creative writings on refugee life, nature of internal displacement, critical legal analysis, analysis of notions of vulnerability, care, risk, protection, and settlement, and attention on gender concerns as an integral part of the course.
In organising the course CRG is supported firmly by the UNHCR, the Government of Finland and the Brookings Institution.
The Winter Course is a certificate course. It has already resulted into several follow up initiatives such as short courses, public lectures, further follow up researches, informal networks of activists and placement of participants in crucial posts and responsibilities in this field. The course has strengthened the CRG linkages as a top class research centre and has strengthened its links with several Universities with mutual satisfaction. CRG’s other research themes on autonomy, social justice, responses to Globalization, creative media workshops etc. draw their sustenance from the Winter Course.
This report has been prepared on a collaborative basis. The participants have authored several parts of the report. We hope that this report will create a wider interest and appreciation by institutions and individuals working in this field.
The Third Annual CRG Winter Course on Forced Migration concluded on 15 December 2005. Although this course is called a course on forced migration it also discusses the root causes for migrations/displacements, and so issues such as racism, immigration and xenophobia in the context of displacements fall within its purview and are discussed in some details. The major thrust area of this course is South Asia although examples from other regions are also brought in for purposes of comparison and analysis. The course, as has already been mentioned earlier, is an outcome of the ongoing and past work by the CRG, and other collaborating groups, institutions, scholars, and human rights and humanitarian activists in the field of refugee studies and on displacement and human rights. The course structure is intended to take cognisance of the gendered nature of forced displacement in South Asia. It pays special attention to victim’s voices and their responses to national and international policies on rehabilitation and care. The course builds on CRGs ongoing research on forced displacements in the region and hence it is constantly evolving. It analyses mechanisms, both formal and informal, for empowerment of the displaced. It pays particular attention to different forms of vulnerabilities in displacement without creating hierarchies. It is built around six modules, four of which are compulsory and two others optional. From the two optional modules the participants are expected to select one for their study.
Last year the course gave special attention to increasing racism and xenophobia as reasons of forced displacement in the post 9/11 time. This year the focus was on internally displaced people. This was in response to the growing number of IDPs in the region due to the Tsunami in Southern India, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Sri Lanka in 2004 and the earthquake in Jammu and Kashmir in 2005. While discussing the situation of the IDPs preference for certain type of developmental paradigms in South Asia came under scrutiny. Also ethnic conflict and border management policies that result in huge number of IDPs were discussed in details.
The compulsory modules:
1. Nationalism, ethnicity, racism and xenophobia
2. Gendered nature of forced migration, victim-hood, and gender-justice
3. International, regional, and national regimes of protection
4. Internal displacement – causes, linkages, and responses
The optional modules:
5. Resource politics, environmental degradation, and forced migration
6. Ethics of care and justice
Course activities besides the writing assignments, included workshop assignments, group discussions, field visit, creative sessions, review discussions, and face-to-face sessions with resource persons experienced in related areas and with refugee activists working with refugees living in camps. The course also included film and documentary sessions.
Duration and activities
The course was of three (3) months duration with two and half months duration of distance education, communication on related issues of displacement studies, course assignments by participants followed by fifteen days of direct course work in a winter workshop. Upon the participants being selected, course material was sent to them in a phased manner Short introductory note on each module was sent to the participants; along with these notes, lists, bibliographies, and other announcements were also sent. The reading material was also sent to the participants in a phased manner. For review assignments and term papers lead-questions and discussion points were sent at regular intervals. Each module had a tutor and a number of faculty members. On the basis of the modules chosen by them the participants were encouraged to contact the faculty persons for necessary advice and inputs. Chat sessions were organised so that participants could discuss their assignments with module tutors.
Participants were required to prepare an assignment paper each and bring the papers with them for the workshop where the papers were discussed. These papers were first read and commented upon by the module tutors and then made available for wider circulation and discussion on the CRG website. The participants were also given assignments termed as creative assignment so that the period of three months could also be used for training in communication aspects of humanitarian and human rights work, and other practical aspects such as providing the participants with information and documentation skills, preparing local data base, campaign for fund-raising for human rights and humanitarian efforts, and report writing. Creative assignments were made mandatory this year and its results were varied and rich. Participation in the field visit was also compulsory.
The preparation of course material was of great significance. The course material included mandatory, optional and supplementary material. The mandatory material included a number of books (whose lists have been given in this report later), essays and web-based material. Reading material on optional modules were also sent. Supplementary material including a short write-up on fieldwork was handed to them when they arrived in Kolkata. Two weeks before the participants arrived in Kolkata they were given workshop themes and encouraged to participate in one of the workshops.
For the first time this year the course included two optional modules. The participants were asked to select any one of the modules. They had assignment from the optional module that they selected. They had to write a review essay analysing some of the reading material given in that module.
Participants
Twenty-one participants were selected of them eighteen could complete the course. These participants were selected from applications received through public notifications and were drawn from varying backgrounds such as law, social and humanitarian work, human rights work, and academic and research career. Nominations came from several universities and research centres with whom CRG has strong collaboration. Participants came from all the countries of South Asia; some also from other regions such as Europe, North America, and the Middle Eastern regions and brought forth with them wider experiences of refugee-hood and of rehabilitation and care. Among those who dropped out was a candidate from Gaza, who was disallowed by Israeli authorities from leaving his place of residence. Of the two others who opted out one participate in the rehabilitation work of the earthquake in Kashmir victims and floods in Tamil Nadu affected the other one.
Faculty
The faculty was drawn from people with recognised backgrounds in refugee studies, studies on internal displacement, university teaching and research, humanitarian work in NGOs, legal studies, UN functionaries, particularly UNHCR and ICRC functionaries; public policy analysis, journalism, and concerned human rights activism and humanitarian work. Attention was paid to diversity of background and region. Most importance was attached to the requirements of the syllabus; the faculty was also involved in developing on a permanent scale a syllabus, a set of reading material, evaluation, and follow-up activities. The resource persons also helped in harmonising the syllabus of this course with the requirements of the participants, and similar syllabi in various universities, workshops, and courses.
Follow-Up
Considering the growing popularity of the course the advisory committee asked the CRG organisers to look into possibilities of organizing short courses in collaboration with willing centres and departments of Universities in India as follow-up activity. On the basis of such advice the CRG is now in the process of designing a number of short courses for different Universities and research centres. Also on the basis of the suggestions made by the advisory committee, as part of it’s follow-up activity the CRG has collaborated with the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research in (NALSAR) Andhra Pradesh to organise a public lecture and with the Central University Hyderabad to organise discussions on probable follow-up activities. CRG also collaborated with the Punjab University in Chandigarh to organise a panel discussion on Migration, Nation and Citizenship: Comparing South Asian and European Experiences. Also as part of the collaboration talk Ranabir Samaddar, the Director of CRG visited different Universities in Finland such as Tampere University, Helsinki University and Turku University. This initiative will build collaborative programmes with them. Ranabir Samaddar and Paula Banerjee addressed issues of forced migration in South Asia in a discussion in Helsinki University in October 2005. Professor Jussi Pakasvirta of the Helsinki University moderated the session. Ranabir Samaddar has also been requested by these universities to offer courses on different aspects of forced migration and partition, which he did in Tampere University in November 2005. Such Indo-Finnish Exchanges are becoming a regular feature of the follow-up activities of CRG Winter Course. As for the Finnish partners, they are sending students and resource persons to the CRG Winter Course consistently for the last two years. Finally apart from public lectures and panel discussions the CRG also offer a short-term assistance to Winter Course participants so that she is able to continue her research on forced displacement in Tehri Garwal.
Idil Atak doctoral student at the Faculty of Law of the University of Montreal since 2004 and a research fellow at the Canada Research Chair on International Migration Law.
Nandini Basistha completed her Masters degree in South and Southeast Asian Studies from Calcutta University.
Barnalee Choudhury Research Fellow, Gauhati University, Guwahati, Assam.
Sudhir Chowdhury DIG, Investigation Division, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi.
Nirekha De Silva Researcher at the Disaster Relief Monitoring Unit of the Human Rights Commission and at the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka. She is involved in monitoring and protecting the Rights of Sri Lankan IDPs through various Research Projects and Advocacy work.
Gandhari Dutta pursuing PhD from the Institute for Social and Economic Change.
Trijita Gonsalves Lecturer in Political Science in Darjeeling Government College. Also pursuing Mphil in Political Science from the University of Calcutta.
Nusrat Khurshedi is a Research Scholar,in the Department of International Relations, University of Karachi, Pakistan.
Neena Bansal Krishna Presenting Officer, Law Division, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi.
Markus Mervola researcher at the University of Tampere in Department of Politics and International Relations.
Catelijne Mittendorf
During the past year she worked in Brussels, Belgium for the European
Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and VOICE.Currently she lives in Dhaka,
Bangladesh where she is involved in different projects regarding street children
and migration while preparing a PhD proposal.
Zobaida Nasreen Anthropologist, working in Research Initiatives, Bangladesh and partime lecturer Royal University of Dhaka, activist in Human Rights and Feminist movement in Bangladesh.
Dinusha Pathiraja currently employed as the Programme Officer- Human Security at the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies in Sri Lanka.
Gayatri Sharma working as a researcher for the Centre for Feminist Legal Research (CFLR). She has been working on law affecting women's migration particularly in India, Nepal and Bangladesh.
Vinai Singh Research officer, Indian Society of International Law, New Delhi.
Jessica Skinner working on a research project for the Development Research Centre and Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit on the situation of the internally displaced persons living in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh.
Inaotomba Thongbam journalist with the Imphal Free Press, Imphal, India.
Kingsline Xavier working in UNHCR, Chennai for Sri Lankan refugees. Currently pursuing M. Phil in Social Work.
It is heartening to note how participants have benefited from the Course. Year after year the participants get an opportunity to meet and converse with the most profound thinkers, activists, UN functionaries, which serves as a source of inspiration to these outstanding group of young men and women. We invite you to take a glimpse of the participants of the earlier years.
Fatme Qassem Agbaria is a PhD. Student at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.
Maria Ahlqvist is pursuing a Masters degree in Development Studies at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She was on an exchange visit to the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, India as part of her fieldwork on Development studies.
Sarah Angeline was accepted by the Sussex University, England.
Soumita Basu A Programme Associate Women in Security, Conflict Management and Peace (WISCOMP), New Delhi, India became a fulbright fellow.
Swati Biswas a lecturer Department of Islamic History and Culture, University of Calcutta, India has now began research work on forced migration.
Kabita Chakma She is the Ex-President of Hill Women’s Federation, Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. She is started research work with Dr. Meghna Guhathakurta on the situation of Internally Displaced People (IDP) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
Shreyashi Chaudhuri was accepted as the Programme Associate for the Winter Course on Forced Migration, Calcutta Research Group.
Sanjay Gathia earlier the South Asia Coordinator Forum Asia, is now Researcher and Consultant on ESCR, Counter-terrorism Measures and Human Rights, NGOs and Capacity Building, Networking and Outreach.
Helen Hutchinson remains a research scholar on human rights, University of Tasmania, Australia.
Madhuresh Kumar was a human rights activist with EKALAVYA; he was accepted as a Fellow in the India Institute for Critical Action: Center in Movement, New Delhi, also a Programme Associate of the Calcutta Research Group, Calcutta.
Deeptima Massey is working on a DPhil on Vulnerability and Coping Mechanisms for seasonal migrants in W. Bengal at the Development Research Center, University of Sussex, England.
Pushparaj Mohanty CPSW, Bhubaneswar, became a Programme officer CPSW, programme in charge of care Community based Programme, worked with Save The Children, UNWEP, OXFAM, Bhubaneswar, India. He was accepted in PASECO Mombassa Kenya as volunteer to help in Program management, partnership development and program monitoring with emphasis on education, rights of children, child trafficking and child development.
K. M. Parivelan was associated with UNHCR, Chennai. He is now the Information Officer UNDP/TNTRC Chennai.
Thinley Penjore remains President, Druk National Congress, presently a refugee from Bhutan.
Munawwar Rahi remains Editor of Sanwad Sangam and works with several human rights organisations. He is also the National Secretary, Bharatiya Dalit Sahitya Academy, New Delhi and Convenor of All India Muslin Youth for Action.
Vanita Sharma is
a final year DPhil student in Modern History at Oxford University. Her
thesis in progress is on the “Collective memory of the 1947 partition of British
India”. She has writing articles and giving lectures on her research, and on
Indo-Pak peace initiatives, in Oxford, Lahore and Delhi.
Oishik Sircar is a human rights lawyer and researcher. He is presently Regional Campaigner - West & South India with Amnesty International and works primarily on issues of gender, sexuality and violence. He is a recepient of the WISCOMP Scholar of Peace Fellowship (2004-2005) for a special project titled 'Engendering Perscution: Violence Against Women in South Asia and International Refugee Law'.
Dhamen Thinbaijam is a journalist with the Imphal Free Press, Imphal, India.
4. Members of Faculty and Speakers in Roundtable
Mika Aaltola,
faculty Department of political science and international relations
University of Tampere.
Samir Acharya founder of the Society for Andaman & Nicobar Ecology (SANE), Port Blair.
Paula Banerjee Historian and women’s rights activist and Treasurer of the Calcutta Research Group, Faculty, Department of South and South-East Asian studies, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India.
Carol Batchelor Chief of Mission a.i., India, UNHCR, New Delhi, India.
Geeta Bharali Research Scholar, North Eastern Social Research Centre.
Subir Bhaumik East India, Correspondent, BBC World Services, Kolkata.
Mainak Biswas Head of the Department, Film Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata.
Pradip Kr. Bose member, Calcutta Research Group & Faculty, Department of Sociology, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Kolkata, India.
Michael Cernea Research Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs, George Washington University, Senior Adviser, GEF / World Bank .
Subhas Ranjan Chakraborty President of the Calcutta Research Group and Faculty Presidency College.
Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury Secretary of the Calcutta Research Group and Faculty, Department of Political Science, Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata, India.
Samir K. Das political analyst on the North East and member of the Calcutta Research Group, and Faculty, Department of Political Science, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India.
Subhoranjan Dasgupta, Member of Institute for Development Studies, Kolkata.
Walter Fernandes Director, North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati.
Lipi Ghosh Head of the Department, South & Southeast Asian Studies, Kolkata.
Meghna Guhathakurta Professor, Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal Editor The Kashmir Times, Jammu & Kashmir.
Zachary Lomo Director of the Refugee Law Project, Makerere University Kampala Uganda.
Erin Mooney Deputy Director, Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement. Senior Adviser to the United Nations Representative of the Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons.
Achan Mungleng The Other Media, New Delhi.
Binalaxmi Nepram editor Borderlines.
David Newman Department of Politics & Government, Ben Gurion University, Israel
K. M. Parivelan Information Officer UNDP/TNTRC Chennai.
Ben Rogaly Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, and member, Sussex Centre for Migration Research,and the Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, UK.
Ranabir Samaddar Political thinker and Director, Calcutta Research Group, Kolkata, India.
P. Saravanamuttu Executive Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Indrani Sinha Director, Sanlaap, Kolkata.
V. Suresh Advocate, General Secretary, PUCL-Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry, Advisor for Tamil Nadu, to the Supreme Court Commissioner on Food Security, led intense discussion in the course on environmental crisis and forced migration
Rita Thapa Director, Nagarik Aawaz, Kathmandu.
Siddiq Wahid Vice Chancellor, Kashmir University for Technology, Srinagar
Itty Abraham is a fellow of the East West Centre, Washington DC, USA.
Benedict Anderson is an eminent social scientist and Professor Emeritus, Cornell University, USA.
Sanjib Baruah Senior Fellow Omeo Kumar Das Institute, Guwahati, India.
Dana Clarke is Member/Researcher, International Accountability Project, Berkely, USA.
Cynthia Cockburn is an Eminent Feminist Thinker, Visiting Professor, Department of Sociology School of Social and Human Sciences, City University London, UK.
Roberta Cohen is Co-Director, Internal Displacement Project, Brookings Institution, Washington D.C., USA.
David Fisher is a Jurist, Consultant/Researcher in support of the mandate of the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lev Grinberg eminent peace activist and thinker, Faculty, Department of Behavioural Sciences, Ben Gurion University of Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Monirul Hussain political sociologist, Professor, Department of Political Science, Gauhati University, Guwahati, India.
Ritu Menon feminist thinker, publisher, editor, and founder of Women Unlimited, New Delhi India.
Shree Mulay Director, McGill Centre for Research & Teaching on Women, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Willem Van Schendel is Professor, Department of History, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Netherlands.
Jeevan Thiagaraja is Director, Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Oren Yiftachel is an eminent peace activist and thinker, Faculty, Department of Geography and Political Science, Ben Gurion University, Israel.
5.Partnerships: Supporting and Collaborating Institutions for the Winter Course
The Government of Finland, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, New Delhi, and the Brookings Institution, Washington DC are the sponsors of the programme. With their un-stinted support and goodwill, the programme has become one of the most well known events in the field of studies on forced migration studies, and an academic event in Kolkata.
One of the salient features of the course is the public dimension of the course, made possible with the cooperation of several institutions. Apart from the classes and other sessions, the course had public lectures, discussions, and round tables. The collaborating institutions were the Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies, Calcutta University, the Department of political science, Rabindra Bharati University, the Department of History, Presidency College, the Refugee Studies Centre, Jadavpur University, and the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences. Detailed reports on these interactive events follow. Another highlight of the course was the field visit by the participants to the Tibetan Refugee Centre in Darjeeling. This was made possible by the support and assistance of the officials of it’s Centre. Everyone had contributed to making the educational visit a rewarding experience and a success.
The collaborative nature of the programme was underlined from the beginning by the participatory nature of the advisory meeting. Experts belonging to several institutions and bodies such as the Guwahati University, Manobodhikar Samity of Assam, Presidency College, Calcutta University, Jadavpur University, Rabindra University, Jamia Milia Islamia University, Indian Council of Social Science Research (Northeast Regional Centre), Punjab University, Utkal University, North Eastern Hill University in Shillong, the Naga Mother’s Association from Nagaland, members of the State Women’s Commission of Tripura all joined the planning and advisory meeting. Besides other individuals sent their inputs by mail and helped the planning. Participants of the First Course were also invited to help with their experiences.
The ex-participants were unanimous in their view that the course helped them get an overall perspective of the phenomenon of forced migration in South Asia. They appreciated the wide diversity in the background of selected participants as each tried to contribute to the discussions on the basis of his/her own experience. This diversified the discussions and made it richer. They also appreciated the human rights thrust and the critical nature of the course. They made the following suggestions for improvement: (a) more information could be given to the participants about the area that they are to cover during their field-work; (b) more case studies may be given for better understanding of the mixed nature of forced migration; (c) class room load be reduced if possible and more time can be given for informal interaction among the participants; (d) and the distance education may be conducted in a phased manner.
Other suggestions also emerged as a result of seeking cooperation. Scripts, documentaries, collective assignments, system of participants working as rapporteurs and producing a collective report on the programme that reflected its participatory nature – were some such proposals which were put in practice.
Several faculty members came without full or any travel support and offered to contribute their knowledge and expertise for the benefit of the course. Many institutions such as the National Human Rights Commission have supported the course by sending participants. Finally, the cooperation from various quarters in circulating the announcement on the course was tremendous. In all these, the cooperation of the participants and the ex-participants was the most valuable asset. CRG remains indebted to all for making the course a success.
Due to the growing popularity of the course the advisory committee asked the organisers to look into possibilities of organizing short courses in collaboration with willing centres and departments of Universities in India as follow-up activity. As a result of a series of follow-up activities the CRG is building partnerships with many new institutions. A number of organisations and institutions have shown willingness to collaborate with CRG on this. Included in these are NALSAR, Secundrabad, Jamia Milia Islamia University, New Delhi, Omeo Kumar Das Centre, Guwahati, Punjab University, Chandigarh. Women’s Studies Centre, Utkal University, Department of Law, Guwahati University, Department of Political Science, Rabindra Bharati University, Department of South and South East Asian Studies, Calcutta University and several Finnish Institutions. Besides as reported earlier the CRG has collaborated with a number of institutions to organise public lectures and discussions as part of its follow-up activity. CRG remains grateful to all the organisations that have showed willingness to collaborate on programmes on forced migration.
6.Schedule of the 15-day Programme
(Venue – Conference Room, Swabhoomi, Kolkata, unless otherwise stated)
1 December (Thursday)
5 PM Inauguration, Aikatan,
Chief Guest Carol Batchelor, Chief of Mission a.i., UNHCR, India
Guest of Honour Erin Mooney, Deputy Director, Brookings Institution - University of Bern Project
on Internal Displacement, USA
Introductory
Remarks Ranabir Samaddar, Director, CRG, Kolkata
Inaugural Lecture P. Saravanamuttu, Executive Director, Centre for Policy Alternatives,
Sri Lanka
Eastern Zonal Cultural Centre, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 97
2 December (Friday)
9.30 – 11 AM Explaining the Course and foundational concepts / Ranabir Samaddar
11 – 11.30 AM Tea break
11.30 AM – 1 PM Module A / Ranabir Samaddar
1 – 2 PM Lunch break
2 – 3.30 PM Module A / P. Saravanamuttu
3.30 – 4 PM Tea break
4 – 5.30 PM Module A / Panel discussion – “Is the Right to Return a Symbolic Right?” P Saravanamuttu, Ranabir Samaddar, Markus Mervola, Participant, Finland (Moderator: Subhoranjan Dasgupta, Institute for Development Studies, Kolkata)
6 – 8 PM Library hours
3 December (Saturday)
9.30 – 11 AM European Experiences – Racism / Immigration. Module A / Mika Aaltola, University of Tampere, Finland
11 – 11.30 AM Tea break
11.30 AM – 1 PM Participants’ presentation under Module A (Moderator: Mika Aaltola)
1 – 2 PM Lunch break
2 – 3.30 PM Statelessness. (Module C) / Carol Batchelor
3.30 – 5 PM “Is the International Regime of Protection Widening or Shrinking” – Face to face discussion with Carol Batchelor (Moderator: Meghna Guhathakurta, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh (Module C)
6 – 8 PM Library hours
4 December (Sunday)
9 – 9.30 AM Briefing on field visit - Subhas Ranjan Chakraborty, Presidency College, Kolkata
9.30 – 11 AM Module B / Gender dimensions of Forced Migration / Paula Banerjee, CRG & Calcutta University, Kolkata
11 – 11.30 AM Tea break
11.30 – 1 PM Module B / Conflict and Forced Migration / Meghna Guhathakurta
1 – 2 PM Lunch break
2 – 3.30 PM Participants’ presentation under Module B (Moderator: Meghna Guhathakurta)
3.30 – 4 PM Tea break
4 – 5.30 PM Participants’ presentation under Module C (Moderator: Sabyasachi Basu Roy Chaudhury, CRG & Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata)
6 – 8 PM Library hours
7 – 8 PM Discussion on revision of term papers under Modules A and B with Ranabir Samaddar and Paula Banerjee and other concerned resource persons (only with participants presenting papers under these two modules)
5 December (Monday)
9.30 – 11 AM Module C / The UN Guiding Principles / Erin Mooney
11 – 11.30 AM Tea break
11.30 AM – 1 PM Module D / Erin Mooney
1 – 2 PM Lunch break
2 – 3.30 PM Participants’ presentation under Module D (Moderator:Paula Banerjee)
3.30 – 4 PM Tea break
4 – 5.30 PM Module D / IDP situation in Africa / Zachary Lomo, Makerere University Kampala,Uganda
6 – 8 PM Library hours
6 December (Tuesday)
9.30 – 11 AM Module C / V. Suresh, legal activist & jurist, Chennai
11 – 11.30 AM Tea break
11.30 M – 1 PM Module D / Developmental Displacement / Walter Fernandes, North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati
1 – 2 PM Lunch break
2 – 3.30 PM Roundtable on “Resource, Gender, and IDPs”
Meghna Guhathakurta, Anjali Daimairi, Activist, Bodoland, Zachary Lomo, Walter Fernandes, Binalaxmi Nepram, editor Borderlines, North East, Geeta Bharali, North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati / Modules B and D. (Moderator: Lipi Ghose, Calcutta University, Kolkata)
In collaboration with South & South East Asian Studies, Calcutta University, Kolkata.
3.30 – 4 PM Tea break
4 – 5.30 PM Roundtable continued
6 – 8 PM Library hours
7 – 8 PM Discussion on revision of term papers under Module C with concerned resource persons (only with participants presenting papers under this module)
7 December (Wednesday)
9.30 – 11 AM Module D / Walter Fernandes
11 – 11.30 AM Tea break
11.30 AM – 1 PM Participants’ presentation under Module D (Moderator: Walter Fernandes / Samir K. Das, CRG & Calcutta University, Kolkata)
1 – 2 PM Lunch break
3 – 5 PM Discussion on “50 years of Forced Migration in Jammu & Kashmir” Anuradha Bhasin, editor, The Kashmir Times, Jammu & Kashmir, Siddiq Wahid, Professor of History, Jammu University, Nusrat Khurshedi, Participant, Pakistan, Gandhari Dutta, Participant, India, Chair, Rajat Kanta Ray, Presidency College, Kolkata
In collaboration with Dept. of History, Presidency College, Kolkata
8.30
PM Departure for Field Visit
8 December (Thursday)
12 PM Arrival in Darjeeling
2 – 5 PM Visit to Tibetan Refugee Camps
7 PM Discussion on revision of term papers under Module D with concerned resource person (only with participants presenting papers under this module)
9 December (Friday)
1 PM Departure from Darjeeling
10 December (Saturday)
7 AM Return to Kolkata
1 -3 PM Lecture on Displacement in Burma (Module D) / Subir Bhaumik, East India, Correspondent, BBC World Services, Kolkata
3 – 3.30 PM Tea break
3.30 – 4 PM Module B + D / Lipi Ghose, “Trafficking & Forced Migration of Burmese Women”
4 – 5.30 PM Face to face discussion on “ Forced Migration from Burma” Subir Bhaumik & Lipi Ghosh
6 – 8 PM Library hours
11 December (Sunday)
9.30 – 11 AM Module E / Michael Cernea, Research Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs, George Washington University, Senior Adviser, GEF / World Bank
11 – 11.30 AM Tea break
11.30 AM – 1 PM Module E / Michael Cernea
1 – 2 PM Lunch break
2 – 3.30 PM Modules E + F / Panel discussion on “Tsunami, Other Natural Disasters, Displacement, and the Dynamics of Care” / (Samir Acharya, Society for Andaman & Nicobar Ecology, Port Blair, Parivelan, Information Officer TNTRC, Tamil Nadu, and course participants Dinusha Pathiraja, Sri Lanka, Nirekha D Silva, Sri Lanka, Nandini Basistha, India, Kingsline Xavier, India, Jessica Skinner, UK)
3.30 – 4 PM Tea break
4 – 5.30 PM Panel discussion continued
7 – 8 PM Discussion on Field Visit
12 December (Monday)
9.30 – 11 AM Film Show and discussion / Mainak Biswas, Department of Film Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
11 – 11.30 AM Tea break
11.30 AM – 1.30 PM Panel discussion on “Violence, Trafficking, and Forced Labour – Perspectives on Durable Solutions ” (Ben Rogaly, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, and member, Sussex Centre for Migration Research, and the Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, UK, Achan Mungleng, The Other Media, New Delhi, Indrani Sinha, Sanlaap, Kolkata, Rita Thapa, Director, Nagarik Aawaz, Kathmandu, Zobaida Nasreen, Participant, Bangladesh, Atak Idil, Participant, Canada / (Moderator: O.P Mishra, Director, Centre for Refugee Studies, Jadavpur Univesrity, Kolkata)
In collaboration with Centre for Refugee Studies, Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
1.30 – 2.30 PM Lunch break
3 – 5 PM Public Lecture by Michael Cernea, "Development - Caused Internal Displacement & Norms of Resettlement”
In collaboration with West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata
6 – 8 PM Library hours / Completion of revisions of term papers
13 December (Tuesday)
9.30 – 11 A.M Discussion on creative assignments and other assignments
11 – 11.30 AM Tea break
11.30 AM – 1 PM Discussion continued
1 – 2 PM Lunch break
3– 5 PM Public Lecture by Ben Rogaly, “Labour Migration, Forced Migration, and the Need for Protection”.
In collaboration with Dept. of Political Science, Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata
6 – 8 PM Library hours / Completion of all assignments
14 December (Wednesday)
9.30 – 11 A.M Evaluation
11 – 11.30 AM Tea break
11.30 AM – 1 PM Film Show on Forced Displacement
1 – 2 PM Lunch break
2 – 4 PM Discussion on Short Term Courses in Indian Universities and Institutions
6 PM Cultural Evening
15 December (Thursday)
5 PM Valedictory Session
Guest of Honour Anna-Kaisa.Heikkinen, The Embassy of Finland
Guest of Honour Mushirul Hasan, Vice-Chancellor, Jamia Milia Islamia University, New Delhi
Presentation of Certificates Mushirul Hasan
Valedictory Lecture David Newman, Ben Gurion University, Israel
Closing Remarks Ranabir Samaddar, Director, CRG
Eastern Zonal Cultural Centre, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 97
7. Distance Education, the Modules and Assignments
The two and a half months long distance education was an essential component of the winter course. The course was structured around six modules that have already been mentioned before. The participants were given reading materials on all six modules. The readings were divided in two sections - essential and supplementary. The course material was sent to the participants in a phased manner. The essential readings were sent to them during the distance education period, and the supplementary readings were given when they came to Kolkata for the direct orientation programme. All material sent to them during the distance segment as essential or core material for the course was given free of cost. The essential or core material was in two forms: books, and electrically sent material in form of attachments, CD, and web-posted and web-linked material. The supplementary materials included photocopied essays, strictly for classroom use that the resource persons suggested on coming to Kolkata, books and journals, and other web based materials. Some of these were provided free of cost and some had to be bought by the participants in subsidised rates.
From 15 September the distance segment of the orientation course began. By 30 September most participants got the books and the module notes. An introductory note on each module was sent to the participants; along with these notes, lists, bibliographies, and other announcements were also sent. Introductory notes were considered extremely useful by the participants as they discussed the modules at some length. Introductory module notes of the four compulsory modules are given below:
Module A (core faculty member: Ranabir Samaddar)
1. The first module (Module A) deals with linkages between the phenomenon of forced migration and those of racism, xenophobia, and immigration. We shall deal here with trans-border forced migration in the context of racism, xenophobia, and the immigration issues in the world today, though we have to remember that racism and xenophobia produce forced migration within the country also. Since in this course we have another module dealing with internal displacement, we have chosen here to concentrate on cross-border refugee flows and other forced population movements across the border.
2. While international law on protection of refugees deals with the condition, status, and the rights of persons who have already escaped the persecution and crossed the border to seek asylum, this module deals with what may be called the “root causes” of the flight. It is in this respect that we have to discuss the phenomena of racism and xenophobia, and the relation of the state controls on immigration with the issue of protection of refugees.
3. Yet it must be understood that when we discuss the root causes of the refugee flow and the un-wanted and unprotected status of the refugees, we are not ignoring the historic patterns of migration on which population flows including forced population movements are often built. Some have termed this as “transplanted networks”. This historical perspective is essential as a perspective when we consider refugee flows. Also it must be borne in mind that whatever be the cause, refugees have a right to care, protection, and settlement, though it is true that if the root causes are not considered seriously, then there is a probability that we shall consider the refugee situation as a banal one, and neglect thereby the question of the rights of the refugees or the duty of the States and the international community to protect the escapees of violence. One example is around the concept of “well-founded fear” which is a test for grant of refugee status.
4. The “well-founded fear” concept has evolved from a relatively simple inquiry within which the refugee's subjective feelings of "terror" were prominent, to a much more complex and wide-ranging inquiry within which concepts such as the "safe state" have become increasingly the sole determinants of the issue of the well-founded fear. Thus, the refugee has become a fundamentally unreliable base point of inquiry such as to justify the shift to a generalized or group-based evaluation of a well-founded fear. Some one has asked rhetorically, but it makes lot of sense: What would happen if the refugee interviewed the government official? Would the official be able to comprehend that many of his or her deepest longings were the same as those of the refugees, but without the physical dislocation? Would they understand that their own doubts were the same as (those of) the refugees? Or take this case, on which a jurist had to comment, “Refugee determination procedure on individual basis and the unequal sharing of burden of care have now produced confused, traumatized, and nervous shelter-seekers who travel rarely with supportive documents, false or no papers, and land in alien systems which are frequently hostile or incredulous" hosts”. In this case involving a Sri Lanka Tamil who had fled persecution allegedly at the hands of the LTTE (R. SSHD ex parte Karunakaran 25 January 2000, unreported), the judge commented, “The civil standard of proof, which treats anything, which probably happened, is part of a pragmatic legal fiction. It has no logical bearing on the assessment of the likelihood of future events or (by parity of reasoning) the quality of past ones... The method of evaluation is itself not one of hard facts. But it requires knowledge not only of applicant's own tale, and what is accepted of it, but a whole range of other factual matters.”
Therefore the problem we are now confronting in studying root causes is the “exceptional” nature of the refugee situation. Is the refugee situation exceptional because the refugee is merely outside some state responsibility? Or, and this is what we are implying, is the refugee situation exceptional because of the inherent violence of the state, and the incapacity of all states to fulfil their human rights obligations consistently? The question is complicated, because it affects the political attitude and will of the States to grant asylum to a person on the ground of “well founded fear.
5. The right to return is a significant issue in this context. Refugees enjoy very few rights but one of the most intrinsic rights for a refugee is the right to return. Although much debated internationally the right to return is most clearly enshrined in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) under its provisions on the right to freedom of movement (Article 12.4) which says that No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. But this right has often proved to be a chimera at least in South Asia. A historian has shown that perhaps the first group of people, though not refugees, whose right to return was denied by a South Asian state were the Indian emigrants who travelled abroad in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to work as plantation labourers. All through the nationalist period the fate of these labourers in their country of domicile was a rallying point for Indian leaders to portray the dark side of foreign rule. There was constant reiteration that the state was responsible for all the people who were born in India. Yet during the legislative assembly debates in 1944 the leaders came to a consensus that these émigrés rightfully belonged to their country of domicile and not in India. Unlike nationalists during the colonial period, the leaders of the post-colonial State formation project no longer looked forward to the return of the emigrants who were slowly being considered as foreigners. South Asian independence was accompanied by a blood bath. The partition of India and Pakistan resulted in two million deaths and about 15 million people were displaced. Most of the refugees were lucky enough to get domicile and often citizenship in their country of domicile. Yet problem arose over the issue of return. In people’s memory their Desh (country) was where they were born. But once displaced they did not have the right to return even when they so desired. South Asian states passed legislations whereby property of the displaced were confiscated by the State and treated as enemy property. So the home that they wanted to go back to remained only in their own imagination. One often hears the argument that because partition refugees got an alternate citizenship they lost the right to return. In South Asia there are however, other groups of refugees who remain as stateless people; yet they are denied the right to return. We have the instances of two such groups of refugees: the Chakmas (Jumma people) and the Bhutanese. This module has to discuss in the context of these experiences as to how South Asia’s political history is predicated by aliens, half-citizens, exiles, refuge, temporary shelters where citizens pass away their lives, illegal immigrants, - in short, the non-state persons who are beyond the pale of citizenship rights, and who are not even the proper subjects of the international law on non-state persons? The focus in any discussion on the right to return of citizens expelled has to be thus on the need to move away from the classical theories of sovereignty, democracy, State, and citizenship, and take the exile, the alien, the displaced (both internally and trans-border), and the half-citizen as the central figure of the politics in South Asia, the figure who is with us like the eternally accompanying shadow, so normalised that we forget its existence which we have taken for granted. In this physical milieu of expulsion, de-enfranchisement, and nationalisation, the right to return is at once the most crucial question and the most hallucinatory claim. The illusory nature in many cases of the right to return shows the deep nature of the causes that force displacement in the first place. The apparent reasons may go away, while the root causes remain. Once the population groups leave, they are reduced to extreme marginality wherefrom it becomes extremely difficult for them to force back to their original position in their “national” societies. Instead of durable solutions we have durable vulnerabilities. The root causes spark off forced migration, but marginal and vulnerable positions have a way of accumulating so that even when causes are removed marginal positions or situations persist.
6. The last point that we shall discuss under this module is the relation between refugee flow immigration flow, and the way in which immigration is controlled today impacts on refugee protection also. The flow of (illegal) immigration has not only overwhelmed in some cases the flow of refugees, it has got mixed with it also to such an extent that we can say that aliens have appeared as a subject in the world today. Definition is of course available in municipal laws of who is an alien, and this is not surprising, because an alien is an alien to a State (but can there be an alien to all the states on earth?). But illegal immigrants who are aliens to a state have been in a state of double jeopardy - they do not have the good luck to get protection when they arrive, and they will not benefit from any moral responsibility owned by a state wherefrom they decided to exit, a state that evidently does not care much for the fleeing population. Allowing population to leave is part of its pursuit of a "nice exit" policy (except in case of migrant workers when foreign remittances to the economy would be going down). We have to remember that unlike the Civil and Political Covenant, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not create obligations on the states to fulfil immediately on signing. Therefore, a state can get away by arguing that its allocation of resources is insufficient, but is non-discriminatory. An illegal migrant who is forced to move out from his country is seen as showing desire for "good life", and thus not eligible for his/her right to protection of the social, economic and cultural attributes necessary for his/her dignity. The mix of the two flows, of the refugees and illegal immigrants, now accentuates all the problems facing humanitarian politics today. Here is an instance of what is happening therefore round the world, marking in a very condensed form the non-dialogic segment inhabited by the aliens who suffocate, perish, and die in the most silent way, without any chance to talk to the world of the international that they wanted to enter:
Last month fourteen men and women left their coffee farms in Veracruz, and began the journey north. Within days, their bodies were found on the hardpan of the Sonora desert. On first look, they died of agonizing dehydration, like hundreds more over the last few years, trying to cross the same forbidding border.
But their deaths were caused by more than lack of water. These farmers left their beautiful Veracruz Mountains because free-market reforms - no rural credit, no crop subsidies and others - drove them off their lands. And having made the hard decision to look for jobs and a better life in the north, U.S. immigration policy made their deaths practically inevitable.
No visas were available for them - the waiting line for green cards at the embassy in Mexico City goes back to 1976. A draconian border policy has closed the safer routes across, pushing migrants further and further into the desert and mountains, making the great migrant stream less visible, along with its human cost.
And if they had arrived safely, what life would these farmers have found?
They would have become part of a migrant workforce with conditions and wages at the bottom, denied the most basic rights - no unemployment insurance, no medical care, no social benefits of any kind. Because of employer sanctions, the very act of working would have been a crime. Ironically, they might easily have been employed by the same corporations relocating jobs to Mexico, attracted by the very free-market conditions, which force migrants to leave.
But perhaps the worst thing about their deaths is the way they'll be used, not to advocate for humane changes in U.S. immigration policy, but to justify a new bracero program making border-crossers like them a permanent, second-class workforce for the profit of U.S. business.
President George Bush and his fellow free-market advocate, Mexican President Vicente Fox, are both under pressure to reduce border deaths. Vastly expanding guest worker programs, they argue, would open the doors of legal immigration to those now forced to cross in secret.
While guaranteed labor rights on paper, however, guest workers depend on the continuation of a job to remain in the country. Employers therefore not only have the power to fire workers who organize or protest bad conditions, but in effect to deport them as well.
Beneath a humanitarian cover, business gets what it wants - workers at lower wages with fewer rights...
Twenty years ago, most unions wrote off immigrant workers. In 1986, the AFL-CIO supported employer sanctions. But today unions are rethinking that attitude and as a result, the political alliances that limited the possibility for immigration reform have changed. Amnesty for the country's 9-11 million undocumented immigrants, which was off the radar screen in Washington just a few years ago, is now a realistic goal.
"Most unions today are at least trying to organize," explains Hotel Employees Union President John Wilhelm. "And no matter the industry, they run into immigrant workers. That's what brought home the failure of the AFL-CIO's old immigration policy."
Last year, the percentage of U.S. workers belonging to unions dropped from 13.5 percent to 13.3 percent, and fell to 9 percent in the private sector. For the overall percentage to stay constant, unions have to organize 400,000 workers a year; to increase by 1 percent, they have to organize twice that number, a rate not achieved since the 1940s.
Over the last decade, immigrant workers have proven key to labor's resurgence. "Every period of significant growth in the labor movement was fueled by organizing activity among immigrant workers," Wilhelm says. "We're a labor movement of immigrants and we always have been."
Reflecting this new attitude, unions are proposing an alternative to a new bracero program. "We're putting forward a comprehensive agenda, including legalization, repeal of employer sanctions, and workplace protections regardless of legal status," says Service Employees Union Vice-president Eliseo Medina. The new president of the Laborers Union, Terence O'Sullivan calls for opposition to contract labor, and for increasing the ability of immigrants to reunite their families in the U.S.
Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez has introduced a bill taking the first step - expanding legalization opportunities for immigrants who arrived before this year.
From the opposite end of Congress, Senator Phil Gramm, a recent convert (like Jesse Helms) to the bracero cause, is introducing a bill to permit recruiting guest workers for a year's labor, so long as they have no right to stay. At the same time, he proposes increased enforcement of employer sanctions to force workers into the program, making the undocumented even more vulnerable, their labor cheaper and their conditions worse...
The choice is not over what will or will not stop people from coming across the border, but over their status in the U.S. It's the age-old American dilemma: bondage whether as slaves, indentured servants or braceros) or freedom (even if that still leaves workers with the need to organize and fight to improve conditions).
Behind the debate lies a fundamental question: Is the purpose of immigration law to supply labor to industry on terms it finds acceptable, or is its purpose to protect the rights and welfare of immigrants themselves?
There is another framework for dealing with migration, other than contract labor and death on the border. The UN's International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families supports the right of family reunification, establishes equality of treatment with citizens of the host country, and prohibits collective deportation. Both sending and receiving countries are responsible for protecting migrants, and retain the right to determine who is admitted to their territories, and who has the right to work.
The Convention recognizes the global scale and permanence of migration, and starts by protecting the rights of migrants themselves. That's where an immigration policy based on human rights begins.
This is more true of refugees.
7. Module A is the beginning. But the module should offer enough glimpses of the problems in the issue of refugee protection today, so that the following modules in this course can be appreciated better. And, one must not forget that in all instances and phenomena cited above gender stays as the most deeply inscribed category of discrimination and difference, if discrimination and difference are taken as the key opening words. A good beginning means an anticipation of the problems that will arise at the end.
References
Etienne Balibar, in Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein, Race, Nation, Class – Ambiguous Identities (Verso, 1991)
B.S. Chimni, International Refugee Law – A Reader (Sage Publications,
2003), section 5
Ranabir Samaddar (ed.), Peace Studies I (Sage Publications, 2004),
chapters 7-8, 13-14
Ranabir Samaddar (ed.), Refugees and the State (Sage Publications, 2003),
chapters 1-3, 6, 9
Ranabir Samaddar, The Marginal Nation (Sage Publications, 1999), chapters
1-4, 13
REFUGEE WATCH, “Scrutinising the Land Settlement Scheme in Bhutan”, No. 9, March
2000
REFUGEE WATCH, “Displacing the People the Nation Marches Ahead in Sri Lanka”,
No. 15, September 2001
Web-based
RW.: Displacing the People the Nation Marches Ahead in Sri Lanka http://www.safhr.org/refugee_watch15_7.htm
RW.: Mohajirs : The Refugees By Choice http://www.safhr.org/refugee_watch14_5.htm
Module B (core faculty member: Paula Banerjee)
Over one percent of the total world populations today consist of refugees. More than eighty percent of that number is made up of women and their dependent children. An overwhelming majority of these women come from the developing world. South Asia is the fourth largest refugee-producing region in the world. Again, a majority of these refugees are made up of women. The sheer number of women among the refugee population portrays that it is a gendered issue. This module is meant to portray that undoubtedly both displacement and asylum is a gendered experience. At least in the context of South Asia it results from and is related to the marginalisation of women by the South Asian states. These states at best patronise women and at worse infantilise, disenfranchise and de-politicise them. It is in the person of a refugee that women’s marginality reaches its climactic height.
The nation building projects in South Asia has led to the creation of a homogenised identity of citizenship. State machineries seek to create a “unified” and “national” citizenry that accepts the central role of the existing elite. This is done through privileging majoritarian, male and monolithic cultural values that deny the space to difference. Such a denial has often led to the segregation of minorities, on the basis of caste, religion and gender from the collective we. One way of marginalising women from body politic is done by targeting them and displacing them in times of state verses community conflict. As a refugee a woman loses her individuality, subjectivity, citizenship and her ability to make political choices. As political non-subjects refugee women emerge as the symbol of difference between us/citizens and its other/refugees/non-citizens. By taking some select examples from South Asia in this module we will addresses such theoretical assumptions. Here the category of refugee women will include women who have crossed international borders and those who are internally displaced and are potential refugees.
The partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 witnessed probably the largest refugee movement in modern history. About 8 million Hindus and Sikhs left Pakistan to resettle in India while about 6-7 million Muslims went to Pakistan. Such transfer of population was accompanied by horrific violence. Some 50,000 Muslim women in India and 33,000 non-Muslim women in Pakistan were abducted, abandoned or separated from their families. Women’s experiences of migration, abduction and destitution during partition and State’s responses to it is a pointer to the relationship between women’s position as marginal participants in state politics and gender subordination as perpetrated by the State. In this context the experiences of abducted women and their often forcible repatriation by the State assumes enormous importance today when thousands of South Asian women are either refugees, migrants or stateless within the subcontinent. Abducted women were not considered as legal entities with political and constitutional rights. All choices were denied to them and while the state patronised them verbally by portraying their “need” for protection it also infantilised them by giving decision making power to their guardians who were defined by the male pronoun “he”. By insisting that the abducted women could not represent themselves and had to be represented, the State marginalised them from the decision making process and made them non-participants. Even today the refugee women do not represent themselves. Officials represent them. For the abducted women it was their sexuality that threatened their security and the honour of the nation. Thus, their vulnerability was focused on their body. This made all women susceptible to such threats and so had to be protected/controlled. By denying agency to the abducted women the State made it conceivable to deny agency to all women. Readings taken from Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin’s Borders and Boundaries portray the trauma faced by these women who could never be considered as full citizens.
Refugee women from other parts of South Asia reflect trauma faced by women belonging to communities considered as disorderly by the state. Ethnic tensions between the Tamil minority and Sinhala majority leading to armed conflict since 1980s have led to several waves of refugees from Sri Lanka. They are victims of a failed nationalizing project. By 1989 there were about 160,000 refugees from Sri Lanka to India, again largely Tamil women with their dependents. Initially the State Government provided these refugees with shelter and rations, but still many of them preferred to live outside the camps. They were registered and issued with refugee certificates. In terms of education and health both registered and unregistered refugees enjoy the same rights as the nationals. Nevertheless in absence of specific legislation their legal status remained ambiguous. The precarious nature of their status became clearer in the aftermath of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. All sympathy for these women disappeared after Gandhi’s assassination and in the Indian state perception they were tarnished by a collective guilt and so became expendable.
After Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination the politicians began to shun the refugees. As most of these were women they were initially considered harmless but with the number of female suicide bombers swelling there was a marked change in GOI’s attitude to women refugees. Soon the government turned a blind eye when touts came to recruit young women from the refugee camps in Tamil Nadu to work as “maids” in countries of Middle East. Most of these women were then smuggled out of India and sent to the Gulf countries. Often they were badly abused. By April 1993 refugee camps were reduced from 237 to 132 in Tamil Nadu and 1 in Orissa. In Indian camps refugee families are given a dole of Rs.150 a month, which is often stopped arbitrarily. Women are discouraged from taking up employment outside the camps. During multiple displacements women who have never coped with such situations before are often at a loss for necessary papers. When separated from male members of their family they are vulnerable to sexual abuse. The camps are not conducive for the personal safety of women, as they enjoy no privacy. But what is more worrying is that without any institutional support women become particularly vulnerable to human traffickers. These people aided by network of criminals force women into prostitution. Millions of rupees change hands in this trade and more lives get wrecked every day. Asha Han’s paper in Refugees and the State portrays the predicaments faced by refugee women in South Asia.
Many displaced women who are unable to cross international border swell the ranks of the internally displaced. Paula Banerjee’s paper in Internal Displacement in South Asia portrays the trauma faced by IDP women. Even in IDP camps women are responsible for holding together fragmented families. Today roughly one-third of all households in Sri Lanka are headed by women and the numbers increase many fold in the camps for internally displaced. Although 89 percent women in Sri Lanka are literate, due to two decades of armed conflict women from North and East have lower levels of education with one in every four being illiterate. A report based on a research carried out at Mannar district portray that among 190,000 IDPs women often find it impossible to generate enough income for buying food for the whole family. In Illupakkadavai, all 36 heads of female-headed households stated that they rely on dry rations for approximately 90 percent for their nutritional needs and that the children of women headed households are most vulnerable to exploitation. In Sri Lanka suicide rates for women have doubled in the last two decades.
None of the South Asian states are signatories to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol. As India is the largest South Asian state it should be interesting to see how women refugees are dealt with here. In India Articles 14, 21 and 25 under Fundamental Rights guarantees the Right to Equality, Right to Life and Liberty and Freedom of Religion of citizens and aliens alike. Like the other South Asian states India had ratified the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1993. Although there is no incorporation of international treaty obligations in the Municipal laws still rights accruing to the refugees in India under Articles 14, 21 and 25 can be enforced in the Supreme Court under Article 32 and in the High Court under Article 226. The other guiding principles for refugees are the executive orders that have been passed under the Foreigners Act of 1946 and the Passport Act of 1967. The National Human Rights Commission has also taken up questions regarding the protection of refugees. It approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and stopped the Expulsion of Chakma refugees from Northeast India. Yet all these orders are adhoc in nature and the legal position remains nebulous. This is true not just of India but all of South Asia.
Pakistan also operated under the 1946 Foreigners Act. According to the provisions of this Act no foreigner could enter Pakistan without a valid passport or visa. Such an act can be detrimental for all persons fleeing for their lives and especially for women who are unused to handling documentation proving citizenship. When six to seven million persons entered Pakistan after partition this Act proved useless and had to be supplemented by the Registration of Claims Act of 1956 and the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. Such Acts did not establish a legal regime for refugees in Pakistan, only the claims of a group of refugees. The ad hoc nature of Pakistani refugee regime continued. As for Sri Lanka, it is not a refugee receiving country but a refugee generating country. There are two Acts, which are especially detested by displaced people, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and Emergency Regulations. Sri Lanka does not have any special acts that help or privilege internally displaced women who are vulnerable to abuse because of their gender. As for other state laws in South Asia, Nepal has an Immigration Act of 1992, which provide that no foreigner is allowed to enter or stay in Nepal without a visa. His Majesty’s Government has full authority to expel any foreigner committing immigration offences. Most South Asian states have punitive measures for immigration offences but hardly any measures for helping displaced people. Further, none of these States have made any special stipulations for women refugees although a majority of all South Asian refugees are women.
As for international actors UNHCR is acquiring some importance in the region for their efforts regarding refugees and internally displaced. There are around 20,000 refugees who are protected by UNHCR in India, of whom a majority are Afghans. The UNHCR has a guideline for the protection of women refugees but it is left to the discretion of countries to follow these recommendations. In patriarchal states where policies are weighted against women, if these guidelines are left to the discretion of the government then it does not succeed in its purpose. Further, the programmes of these institutions such as UNHCR are built on certain practices. Similar to state practices the practices of international organisations such as the UNHCR also delegate woman to the status of victim, which is a disenfranchising phenomenon. The women have little or no say on policies that govern their lives and bodies even in camps run by the UNHCR. Albeit the UNHCR concern itself with the protection of these women but they do not work towards their agency. This is not to suspect intention of UNHCR but many of their policies such as the policy of repatriation can work against women who have acquired agency over their own person. Decisions regarding their relocation also assume that refugees/women cannot have any say in it. Even international agencies such as the UN Gender Mission can contribute to depoliticising women. A case in point is Angela King’s mission to Peshawar and Islamabad. When Afghan women requested the UN through Ms. King that they should try to mobilise educated Afghan women in peace-making, Ms. King reportedly asked them to apply for UN jobs instead. After the meeting the women felt “confused, insulted, hurt, angry and substantially ignored.” But they noted bitterly “this is not an unusual situation – neither within our societies, nor within the UN agencies”. Thus the gender bias found in state policies regarding women’s dislocation might also be reflected in the attitude taken by international agencies.
The overwhelming presence of women among the refugee populations is not an accident of history. It is a way by which states have made women political non-subjects. By making women permanent refugee, living a savage life in camps, it is easy to homogenise them, ignore their identity, individuality and subjectivity. By reducing refugee women to the status of mere victims in our own narratives we accept the homogenisation of women and their depoliticisation. We legitimise a space where states can make certain groups of people political non-subjects. In this module we intend to discuss the causes of such depoliticisation that often results in displacements. We will also discuss the situation of displaced women in South Asia and consider policy alternatives that might help in their rehabilitation and care.
References
Paula Banerjee, Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury and Samir Das, Internal Displacement in South Asia, chapter 9.
B.S. Chimni, International Refugee Law – A Reader (Sage Publications, 2003), section 1
Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin, Borders and Boundaries, chapter 3.
Joshva Raja, Refugees and their Right to Communicate, chapter 8.
Ranabir Samaddar (ed.), Refugees and the State (Sage Publications, 2003), chapter 9.
Ranabir Samaddar, The Marginal Nation (Sage Publications, 1999), chapter 12.
Refugee Watch, Nos. 10-11
UNHCR Policy on Refugee Women
http://www.safhr.org/refugee_watch10&11_92.htm
Select UNICEF Policy Recommendation on the Gender Dimensions of Internal Displacement http://www.safhr.org/refugee_watch10&11_92.htm
CEDAW : http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/econvention.htm
RW.: Dislocated Subjects : The Story of Refugee Women
http://www.safhr.org/refugee_watch10&11_8.htm
RW.: War and Its Impact on Women in Sri Lanka
http://www.safhr.org/refugee_watch10&11_4.htm
RW : Afghan Women In Iran
http://www.safhr.org/refugee_watch10&11_6.htm
RW.: Refugee Women of Bhutan
http://www.safhr.org/refugee_watch10&11_5.htm
RW.: Rohingya Women – Stateless and Oppressed in Burma
http://www.safhr.org/refugee_watch10&11_5.htm
RW.: Dislocating the Women and Making the Nation
http://www.safhr.org/refugee_watch17_1.htm
http://www.unifemantitrafficking.org/main.html
Module C (core faculty member: Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury)
Module C deals with the international and national legal regimes of protection of the victims of forced displacement and their right.
Refugee Law is a relatively new branch of International Law. The first major step towards developing an international regime of protection was the 1951 Convention that was later modified by the 1967 Protocol. From then on the 1951 convention has formed the core of all Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law for the protection of refugees. The 1951 Convention defines a refugee as a person:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
However since its inception there have been many objections to the provisions of the 1951 convention. It is said that the Convention mandates protection for those whose civil and political rights are violated, without protecting persons whose socio-economic rights are at risk. Also it has been criticised on the grounds of its Euro centrism, and insensitivity towards the internecine racial, ethnic and religious conflicts in third world, which has resulted in the creation of refugees in large numbers. The provisions of the convention have served well for the protection of refugees during the Cold War times but have failed to do so after that. Today the first world often attempts at dealing with the refugee problems ‘at source’. This has led to the international interference in the internal matters of a sovereign nation creating further problems for states and for the displaced. This has been witnessed very recently in the Darfur region of Sudan and in past in former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and other African countries.
Another failure of the Convention has been the inability to recognise the special needs of women, children, and aged people within the sections of refugees, though this has been addressed to some extent in the provisions of CEDAW convention. In 1985, the UNHCR Executive Committee adopted Conclusion No. 39 that recognised that refugee women and girls formed a majority among the world refugee population. The Conclusion also recognised that states were free to consider women facing inhuman treatment as belonging to a particular social group within the 1951 convention. In October 1993 the UNHCR adopted Conclusion No. 73 that stated that all those who have suffered sexual violence should be treated with particular sensitivity. However, there is little in UNHCR guidelines that can make women victims of sexual violence as special claimants for refugee protection.
Today provisions of the 1951 Convention seems dated and in need for further revision due to increased complexities in the process of refugee generation, protection and also due to advances in the field of refugee studies. The increased focus on refugee studies has led to broadening of definitions of ‘refugee’, ‘protection’, ‘rights’, ‘justice’ etc. As a result of all these reasons the 1951 Convention has not been ratified by many nations of the world. Many regions have developed its own regimes for protection of people facing forced displacement. The OAU Convention expanded the definition of refugee contained in the 1951 Convention. The OAU Convention defines the term “refugee” to include persons fleeing their country of origin due to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, or events seriously disturbing public order in either a part or the whole of the country of origin or nationality. This implies that “well-founded fear” is a subjective category and anyone facing civil and political disturbances and war need not prove their well-founded fear for life. The Cartagena Declaration recommends a definition similar to that contained in the OAU Convention. In so far as Asia is concerned mention may be made of the Asian African Legal Consultative Committee (AALCC) in 1966. But this has not had the impact of either the OAU Convention or the Cartagena Declaration. South Asia has not been able to develop a legal regime for refugees or IDPs.
None of the South Asian states are a signatory to the 51 Convention or the 67 Protocol. India has also stayed away from these mechanisms, citing certain biases in the provisions of the convention. However, it has developed its own provisions to deal with the problems of refugees on a case-by-case basis in absence of a consistent national policy. This has its own problems, for example India has provided all possible help to Tibetan refugee due to its own political necessities but has not done so with the Bangladeshi and Bhutanese refugees. The provisions of Indian state has also not progressed with the evolution of feminist critic of the protection regimes which needs attention and creation of a consistent policy accommodating the faults in current practices.
Refugees are to be distinguished from IDPs and the Stateless Persons. While the 1951 Convention addresses the problem of refugees alone the UN Guiding Principles deal with the IDPs and the international legal rights of stateless persons are addressed in the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954, which came into force in 1960. It defines stateless person as a “person who is not considered as national by any State under the operation of its law”. The 1954 Convention was followed by the adoption of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1961, which came into force in 1975.
Not everyone who applies for refugee status can get protection. In 1951 Convention there are a list of “exclusion clauses” containing categories of persons who do not deserve international protection. It excludes all those who have committed crimes against peace and security, serious common law criminals and individuals who have acted in contravention of the principles and purposes of the United Nations.
In this module we have focussed on the various aspects of refugee protection at an international level in general and on South Asian level in particular (Module D discusses in details the legal principles of protection of IDPs). To mention a few of them:
What do we mean by Refugees, Asylum, and Protection etc in socio-politico and legal terms?
What are the special provisions required for protection of women, children and other marginalised communities in the overall context of refugee protection and law?
What’s the distinction between the Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law with respect to refugee protection?
What are the safeguards available for the protection of refugees in International Law?
What is the responsibility of the state and society towards the refugees? Can they simply be seen as problems and responsibility of the host country alone?
Is there a link between the refugee protection regime, international law and globalisation?
What has been the record of Indian state vis-à-vis refugee protection since partition?
And other related issues.
Paula
Banerjee, Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury and Samir Das, Internal Displacement
in South Asia, Epilogue
B.S. Chimni, International Refugee Law – A Reader (Sage Publications,
2003)
Who is a Refugee?, Pgs. 1-81; Asylum, Pgs. 82-160; Rights and Duties of a
Refugee, Pgs. 161-209
Ranabir Samaddar (ed.), Refugees and the State (Sage Publications, 2003),
chapters 10-11.
Refugee Watch No.4 (December 1998) articles by Sarbani Sen and Brian Gorlick.
F-e-material 1 – International Humanitarian Law and
Human Rights Law
Document printed from the website of the ICRC.
URL: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMRT
International Committee of the Red Cross
Convention Against Torture
CAT:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm
REFUGEE WATCH
Module D (core faculty member: Paula Banerjee)
The look of pure terror on the face of the little Korku tribal girl child said it all as the elephant razed her house in the pouring rain. Her parents pleaded with the Forest officials saying that they were living and cultivating the lands there for the past three decades. However, the officials said they had no alternative, since they had been instructed to evict all encroachers as ordered by the Supreme Court. (Pradip Prabhu, “Tribals Face Genocide, Combat Law)
The eviction of indigenous people from their land is a recurrent theme in South Asia. Be it Ranigaon, Golai, Motakeda, Somthana, Ahmedabad, Bandarban, or Trincomalee, thousands of families are being evicted from their homes either in the name of conflict or in the name of modernization. They are being forced to stay in the open, in pouring rain with a number of them suffering from malnutrition and starvation and they are fearful for their lives at most times. The last two decades have witnessed an enormous increase in the number of internally displaced people in South Asia. Their situation is particularly vulnerable because unlike the refugees they are unable to move away from the site of conflict and have to remain within a state in which they were displaced in the first place. These unfortunate people who have been displaced once are often displaced multiple times by the hands of the powers that be. Yet as displaced they do not have the capacity to cross international borders but seek rehabilitation from the powers that are responsible for their displacement in the first place.
Besides being ‘potential refugees’ who might cross international borders, most of the IDPs living in these countries share ethnic continuities with the people of the neighbouring countries. The Pashtuns of northwest Pakistan for example, seem to harbour an active interest in the affairs of their ethnic cousins living in Afghanistan and vice versa. Similarly, much of what happens inside today’s Myanmar has its implications for the minorities of northeastern India and Bangladesh. Massive displacement and the resulting plight of the predominantly tribal populations such as, the Nagas of Myanmar continue to be one of the key running themes of the Naga rebel discourse across the borders and the ethnic cousins of Myanmar are described by it as, ‘the Eastern Nagas’. Insofar as the creation of national borders could not make many of these pre-existing ethnic spaces completely obsolescent, South Asia’s living linkages with West or South East Asia can hardly be exaggerated. Also national specificities notwithstanding South Asian IDPs are connected by their ethnicities, minority status and situations of extreme marginalisation. This portrays the reality that in so far as in South Asia IDPs cannot be regarded as a national category. It is essential to think of them as regional categories.
The situation of IDPs seems particularly vulnerable when one considers that there are hardly any legal mechanisms that guide their rehabilitation and care in South Asia. Since the early 1990s the need for a separate legal mechanism for IDPs in South Asia has increasingly been felt. This is not only to compile new laws but also to bring together the existing laws within a single legal instrument and to plug the loopholes detected in them over the years. Only recently the international community has developed such a mechanism that is popularly known as the UN Guiding Principles on internal displacement. This has given us a framework within which rehabilitation and care of internally displaced people in South Asia can be organised. Keeping that in mind it becomes imperative for scholars working on issues of forced migration in South Asia to consider whether South Asian states have taken the Guiding Principles into account while organising programmes for rehabilitation and care for the internally displaced persons (IDPs).
The Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons set out the rights of internally displaced persons relevant to the needs they encounter in different stages of displacement. The Guiding Principles provide a handy schematic of how to design a national policy or law on internal displacement that is focused on the individuals concerned and responsive to the requirements of international law. Similarly, governments (and particularly national human rights institutions where they exist), advocates, and displaced persons can use the Guiding Principles as a means to measure the compliance of existing laws and policies with international standards. Finally, their simplicity allows the Guiding Principles to effectively inform the internally displaced themselves of their rights. The Guiding Principles are thus part of a growing number of “soft law” instruments that have come to characterize norm-making in the human rights field as well as other areas of international law, in particular environmental, labor and finance.
One of the most important contributions of the Guiding Principles is to develop an acceptable definition/description of those who can fit within the category of internally displaced persons. They are defined as “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.” The Guiding Principles also reflect on the rights of displaced people, the obligations of their states’ towards them and also the obligations of international community towards these people. This booklet is an effort to make such rights accessible to vulnerable people of South Asia who are already displaced or live in fear of displacement.
What Types of Displacement are Prohibited by the Guiding Principles?
Principle 6 affirms that “[e]very human being shall have the right to be protected against being arbitrarily displaced from his or her home or place of habitual residence.” Support for this proposition can be found in humanitarian law and also in the right to movement, guaranteed by a number of human rights instruments, which can be reasonably expected to have as its corollary the “right not to move.”
It is important to note that the Guiding Principles do not claim that displacement is always prohibited. In both humanitarian and human rights law, exceptions to the general rule are available. Rather it is arbitrary displacement” that must be avoided and Principle 7 provides a sort of roadmap for avoiding arbitrariness. First, all feasible alternatives to displacement must be explored. In situations of armed conflict, this means that a determination must be made either that the security of the population or “imperative military reasons” require displacement before it can be carried out.
Where displacement is to occur outside the context of armed conflict, Principle 7 provides a list of procedural protections 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. These provisions are, of course, of particular interest to those facing displacement for development projects.
Moreover, in either context, “all measures” must be taken to minimize the effects and duration of the displacement and the responsible authorities are required to ensure “to the greatest practicable extent” that the basic needs of those displaced (e.g., shelter, safety, nutrition, health, and hygiene) are met. It should also be noted that Principal 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.
What Rights do Persons have once Displaced?
Displaced persons enjoy the full range of rights enjoyed by civilians in humanitarian law and by every human being in human rights law. These include the rights to life, integrity and dignity of the person (e.g., freedom from rape and torture), non-discrimination, recognition as a person before the law, freedom from arbitrary detention, liberty of movement, respect for family life, an adequate standard of living (including to access to basic humanitarian needs), medical care, access to legal remedies, possession of property, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, participation in public life, and education, as set out in Principles 10-23.
In several instances, the Guiding Principles specify how generally expressed rights apply in situations of displacement. These should be of particular interest to those designing and assessing domestic policies on internal displacement. For example, Principle 12 provides that, to give effect to the right of liberty from arbitrary detention, internally displaced persons “shall not be interned in or confined in a camp” absent “exceptional circumstances” and that they shall not be subject to discriminatory arrest “as a result of their displacement.” Likewise Principle 20 provides that the right to “recognition everywhere as a person before the law” should be given effect for displaced persons by authorities facilitating the issuance of “all documents necessary for the enjoyment and exercise of their legal rights, such as passports, personal identification documents, birth certificates and marriage certificates.”
The Guiding Principles provide for special consideration of the needs of women and children (including “positive discrimination” or affirmative activities on behalf of governments to model assistance and protection to their particular needs, consultation and involvement in decisions regarding their displacement and return or resettlement, protection against recruitment of minors and free and compulsory education), as well as for other especially vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and disabled.
What Rights and Obligations do Humanitarian Organizations Have?
The Guiding Principles also lay out a number of rights and obligations of humanitarian organizations in Principles 24-27. This section again stresses the point that “[t]he primary duty and responsibility for providing humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons lies with national authorities” (Principle 25(1)). In carrying out this duty, national authorities must not “arbitrarily withhold” consent to international humanitarian organizations’ offer of services to the internally displaced, and must “grant and facilitate” their free passage to areas where assistance is needed. Humanitarian personnel, materiel, and supplies are not to be attacked or diverted for other purposes. For their part, humanitarian organizations must carry out their operations “in accordance with the principles of humanity and impartiality and without discrimination” and should “give due regard to the protection needs and human rights of internally displaced persons” and not just their needs for assistance.
What Help Should Displaced Persons Expect with Return, Reintegration and Resettlement?
In the final section, the Guiding Principles provide that competent authorities have “the primary duty and responsibility” to assist displaced persons by providing the means as well as by establishing conditions for return to their places of origin, or for resettlement in another part of the country (Principle 28). Any return or resettlement must be voluntary and carried out in conditions of safety and dignity for those involved.
As a corollary to the right to free movement, therefore, displaced persons have the right to return to their homes. Although the right to return or resettle is not expressly stated in any particular human rights instrument, this interpretation of the right of free movement is strongly supported by resolutions of the Security Council, decisions of treaty monitoring bodies, and other sources of authority.
Moreover, although the displaced have the right to return, Principle 28 carefully specifies that they must not be forced to do so, particularly (but not only) when their safety would be imperiled. The issue of the voluntariness of return or resettlement is recurrent in protracted displacement situations around the world. In many places, governments and insurgent groups have ceded to the temptation to use the return or resettlement of displaced persons as a political tool.
Principle 29 provides that authorities also have “the duty and responsibility” to assist displaced persons to recover “to the extent possible” their property and possessions, and where restitution is not possible to provide or assist the displaced persons to obtain appropriate compensation. Like the preceding principle, this one relies on general precepts of the right to property, the right to remedy for violations of international law, as well as a growing adherence in Security Council resolutions, treaties, national law and other sources of authority.
Are their any special provisions for women?
In the guiding principles a concerted attempt was made to prioritise gender issues. For example, while discussing groups that needed special attention in Principle 4 it was stated that expectant mothers, mothers with young children and female heads of households, among others, are people who may need special attention. In Principle 7 it was stated that when displacement occurred due to reasons other than armed conflict authorities should involve women who are affected, in the planning and management of their relocation. Principle 9 upheld that IDPs should be protected in particular against “Rape, mutilation, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and other outrages upon personal dignity, such as acts of gender-specific violence, forced prostitution and any other form of indecent assault.” Special protection was also sought against sexual exploitation. Principle 18 stated that special efforts should be made to include women in planning and distribution of supplies. Principle19 stated that attention should be given to the health needs of women and Principle 20 stated that both men and women had equal rights to obtain government documents in their own names.
Apart from the Guiding Principles there are other international mechanisms that displaced women can access. They include the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (hereafter CEDAW) and the 1999 Optional Protocol sets out specific steps for states to become proactive in their efforts to eliminate discrimination against displaced women. Article 2 of CEDAW clearly states that public authorities, individuals, organisations and enterprises should refrain from discrimination against women. Article 3 reiterated women’s right to get protection from sexual violence. Article 6 spoke against trafficking and sexual exploitation of women. Since most displaced women are particularly vulnerable to traffickers this article is of some importance to them. It must be noted that all the countries of South Asia are signatories to CEDAW with some reservations but not of the proportion that it negates the overarching principles and therefore the onus of being gender sensitive in their attitude and programmes is on them. Apart from these there are other international provisions that protect women’s human rights. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 calls for the halt of weapons against the civilian population and to protect all civilians, including children, women and persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities from violations of humanitarian law. Article 29 of ILO 1930 Convention concerning forced or compulsory labour also impacts the situation of women. It calls for the end of violations of the human rights of women, in particular forced labour, abuse and torture of labourers including women.
Are the Guiding Principles legally binding?
Although the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement is not a legally binding treaty it is formed of principles that are based on established legal mechanisms for aiding the human rights of the displaced people. Many of these Principles may gradually attain the status of customary international law. But as Francis Deng reminds us, “for the time being they serve as a morally binding statement.” A statement of this nature that promises to be ‘morally binding’ on a wide spectrum of primarily national governments and secondarily, other relevant international and non-governmental agencies must cut across the well-known divisions of the prevailing ethical and moral systems and elaborate itself in a way that it does not remain captive to any particular modality of moral reasoning. Plurality of such systems and modalities is helpful in building the much-needed ‘moral consensus’ around these principles.
While the Guiding Principles have already gained an impressive degree of recognition at the international, regional, and national level, more remains to be done to foster their use, particularly in South Asia, where many states with large displacement problems lack comprehensive policies or effective remedies for those. It is to be hoped that this booklet will itself encourage that process. South Asia has seen millions of people displaced both across borders and within borders – again both by conflict and by developmental projects, and in some cases by natural calamities. This booklet is intended to make a survey of how far the Guiding Principles on IDPs is relevant to each state of the region and how far they have been implemented and what remains to be done.
Whose responsibility is it anyway?
If the state-centric nationalistic approach has meant the exclusion of minorities and has produced large number of refugees in the post-colonial states in Asia and Africa, state-centric national security perspective and development paradigm have not done any better. The people displaced against this backdrop may have got some relief if they have been able to cross international boundaries. Crossing the international boundary may entitle them to “refugee” status, thus providing them at least a fig leaf of relief and rehabilitation in an alien land. But wretched are those who remain internally displaced. They remain at the mercy of the same state and administration whose policy might have sent them on the run. According to all estimates, the number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) is rising compared to the refugees seeking shelter in another country. South Asia is no exception to this. But, so far, no systematic and comprehensive study was carried out. Only a few brief, and sometimes sketchy, reports and articles are available on the plight of the IDPs in South Asia. This booklet hopefully will fill that awesome and disturbing vacuum. The booklet is meant to explore the nature and the extent of displacement in respective countries of South Asia and provide recommendations to minimize the insecurity of the displaced by discussing mechanisms for rehabilitation and care. As for who takes responsibility for the displaced? The answer is primarily the state, although there are attempts on its part to abdicate its responsibility in this regard. None of the states of South Asia recognizes right against forced displacement as a non-negotiable right. We have to note that it is the policies of the state and the model of development and nation building that it has pursued since its birth that have caused and continue to cause displacement in largest numbers. It is primarily a failure of the state system. The booklet is meant to explore how far South Asian states are sensitive to the needs of the IDPs, how they can be made sensitive to these needs and whether the UN Guiding Principle are being adhered to, to any extent.
What is the way ahead?
In their few years of existence, the Guiding Principles have in fact obtained a high level of recognition. When they were first presented in 1998, the Commission on Human Rights merely “noted” them and the intention of the Representative to use them in his dialogue with states. Over time, however, the language of regular resolutions in the Commission, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the General Assembly has grown increasingly warmer. In 2003, for instance, both the Commission and the General Assembly “welcome [d] the fact that an increasing number of States, United Nations agencies and regional and non-governmental organizations are applying them as a standard, and encourages all relevant actors to make use of the Guiding Principles when dealing with situations of internal displacement [.]” They have also been acknowledged at the level of the Security Council, at international conferences, and adopted by the U.N. and wider humanitarian community as their standard.
The Guiding Principles have been well received by multi-lateral organizations at the regional level. They have been welcomed in resolutions, declarations and statements by organs of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) (now known as the African Union), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), Organization of American States (OAS), Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Commonwealth.
Among states in South Asia, Sri Lanka has similarly relied upon the Guiding Principles in the formulation of its National Framework for Relief, Rehabilitation and Reconciliation. Likewise, civil society institutions have made increasing use of the Guiding Principles to assess domestic policy and practice concerning displaced persons. It is hoped that in the near future more states in South Asia will accept, adopt and adhere to the Guiding Principles regarding the internally displaced. To understand the relevance of the Guiding Principles a close study of the mechanism is imperative.
Broadly assignments were of three types, all compulsory - a term paper essay (1500 words) based on one of the themes suggested by the faculty relating to any of the modules; a short (700 words) review essay/note on any of the reading material sent to the participants relating to a module - but this module was to be different from the one that they selected for their term paper; and selection of a workshop where they acted as either the chair or a panellist or a discussant. The assignments were sent to them in phases. First they were expected to do the review essay, then their term paper and finally ten days before coming to Kolkata they were given the workshop themes. Each module had a tutor and a number of faculty members and the participants were encouraged to get in touch with them for any suggestion, clarification or advice. The model tutors continuously remained in touch with the participants. Participants sent their responses in a phased manner. By mid-October most of them turned in their review assignments and by mid-November their term papers. They were encouraged to do some original research for their term papers. For wider discussions review notes and term papers were posted in CRG website. Different faculty members, who sent directly their comments to the participants, evaluated the review notes and term papers. If the faculty members so decided their comments were posted in the website.
Paula
Banerjee, Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury and Samir Das, Internal Displacement
in
South Asia.
Addressing Internal Displacement: A Framework For National Responsibility
Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
1. E-material: Protection of Internally Displaced Persons: Inter-Agency Standing Committee Policy Paper
3. E-e-material3:An Overview of Revisions to the World Bank Resettlement Policy
Plus other book extracts, essays, articles, lectures & web-based material.
The written assignments included one review note and one term paper per participant.The review notes were selected from one of the optional modules, i.e. Module E and F. Questions for both the assignments were sent to the participants. The participants made their selections and sent their responses within a stipulated time. The questions included the following:
On the basis of your reading of Meghna Guhathakurta’s article “Globalization, Class and Gender Relations: The Shrimp Industry in South-western Bangladesh,” Report on the Workshop on Engendering R & R (both available in CRG website) and the chapter entitled “Shefali” in Marginal Nations, analyse how lack of control over resources have led to large-scale displacement of women? (Module E)
OR
On reading “Development Induced Displacement in Pakistan,” in Refugee Watch (available in CRG website) and “Pakistan: Development and Disaster” in Internal Displacement in South Asia, comment on how the developmental model that has been favoured by the Pakistani state have led to large-scale dispossession and displacement of people? (Module E)
OR
On reading Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury’s “Uprooted Twice: Refugees From the Chittagong Hill Tracts,” in Refugees and the State do you agree that conflict in CHT is in the last resort a conflict over land. (Module E)
OR
Review relevant sections on ethics and justice in B.S. Chimni’s International Refugee Law: A Reader and comment on the importance of these two issues in rehabilitation and care of refugees. (Module F)
OR
After reading Ranabir Samaddar’s article on “Power, Fear, Ethics,” in Refugee Watch critically discuss “fear” as a factor in the displacement of vulnerable groups. (Module F)
OR
Critically analyse Peter Penz’s article on “Development, displacement and International Ethics,” and comment how ethical it is to displace people for reasons of development? (Module F)
Connect the four key words in the title of the course – forced migration, racism, immigration, and xenophobia – and write a note on how the syllabus and the reading material of the course integrated these into an orientation course on forced migration.
OR
Who are ‘we’, and who are ‘they’? Discuss and show how the issue of forced migration is underwritten in the process of identity formation.
Show how racism at times is linked to nationalism, majoritarianism, and discriminations of various kinds thereby producing forced displacement of people – both within the borders of the country and across the borders.
OR
Discuss a concrete situation to present a report on how in-migration of people to an area has produced neo-racist and communal discriminations and attacks against them by the State, or the majoritarian forces, and or the host communities.
Prepare and present a fact sheet of newspaper reports (4 pages) on an event or topic related to any of the four themes mentioned in the title of the module.
Or
Discuss the right to return and argue in the context whether partition refugees should be considered as a distinct category.
Module B
On the basis of a close reading of B.S. Chimni’s Reader address the debate: is it desirable that women be treated as a separate legal category in international and national legal regimes of protection.
OR
Compare the situation of Sri Lankan women IDPs and Afghan refugee women in Pakistan.
OR
Why listening to women’s experiences and chronicling them is particularly relevant for understanding refugee situations in South Asia.
OR
In the context of women’s displacement all over South Asia discuss women’s lack of control over institutional structures of protection.
OR
Is lack of control over resources a reason for women’s displacement? Argue your case with reference to one particular group of women refugees/IDPs.
Module C
Do you think that the category of “well-founded fear” reflects subjectivity in the definition of refugees as indicated in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees? Comment in the light of the definition adopted by the OAU Convention.
OR
Examine the principle of non-refoulement in relation to the policy of non-entrée.
OR
Do you think that there is a need for a national law on refugees? Argue your case with reference to experiences of any country.
OR
Explain how the Conclusion No. 39 and 73 adopted by the UNHCR Executive Committee and the CEDAW have attempted to take into account the special needs of women refugees.
OR
How the internally displaced persons can return to the places of their habitual residence and/or resettled? Discuss with special reference to Principles 28 and 29 of the UN Guiding Principles.
Module D
Show how the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement base themselves on human rights and humanitarian legal regimes.
OR
What are the special provisions for Women IDPs in international regimes of protection and care of IDPs. How far have they helped the cause of women’s rehabilitation and care?
OR
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.
OR
How relevant are the UN Guiding Principles for different countries in South Asia?
OR
Compare the situation of conflict related IDPs and Tsunami related IDPs in Sri Lanka.
One of the significant features of the course was the creative assignments taken up by the participants and completed with great satisfaction by them during the course. These creative assignments were sent out to them after the main part of the distance education was over and the participants had completed other assignments. Creative assignments included writing creative pieces or creating communication material related to the theme of forced migration.
Accordingly some of the participants set up a photo gallery during the course made up of photographs of refugee life and different displacement situations. Jessica Skinner and Kingsline Xavier were such participants. Some prepared fact-sheets on displacement situations in Karbi Anglong, Tehri Dam in India and displacement situation in Turkey. Idil Atak, Trijita Gonsalves, and Barnalee Chowdhury prepared these fact-sheets. Dinusha Pathiraja and Sudhir Chowdhury composed songs and poems and sang and recited them. Catelijne Mittendorff composed an open letter to the Prime Minister of Netherlands on deportations of asylum seekers from Netherlands. There was one participant, Markus Mervola who demonstrated how the mainstream media in the West covered situations of forced migration in biased ways through what he called politics of editing. Finally there was also the idea that one of the creative ways in which the lessons of the course could be implemented was to engage in a joint syllabus making exercise in order to help initiate a short course of forced migration in Delhi. Neena Bansal Krishna prepared such a syllabus for the creative assignment.
The field trip to Darjeeling was organised for the participants of the Winter Course, 2005 in the middle of the course to give them a practical experience of meeting the refugees for a better understanding of the situation on the life of refugees. It was also to give an opportunity to the participants to develop a better interaction amongst them and to share their own country experiences.
The participants of the winter course along with the CRG team left for Darjeeling on 7 December from Kolkatta by train and reached Darjeeling on 8 December 2005. The team returned to Kolkata on 10 December 2005.
In Darjeeling the participants visited the Tibetan Refugees Self Help Centre. The Tibetan Refugee Self Help Centre was started on 2nd October 1959 with four people. The Tibetans consider this a significant site not only from a practical point of view but also from a symbolic point of view since the 13th Dalai Lama spent his exile in this place between 1910-1912. The Centre was registered as a Charitable Organisation under the Indian Law and the donation received is exempted from income tax.
The main activity of the centre is production of handicraft goods, which are exported to 36 countries all over the world. Training programs to promote traditional Tibetan handicrafts are organised. The centre opened a Nursery school in 1960 for the Tibetan children, which have now grown in to Primary school. The babies and the children are taken care in the day care centre established by the centre, which helps the mothers to concentrate on their work and produce effectively. It has also an infirmary with 20 beds and extended the medical services by establishing an X-ray clinic and a pathological laboratory in the town. The centre has also started a new offset printing press in the town.
The Centre Manager took the participants around the various sections of handicrafts manufacturing like carpet, carpentry, woolen items, etc. He explained that the people of the centre earn their living by working in these units. They are paid a stipend for their work and the centre also takes care of their boarding and lodging.
The Centre Manager also informed that there were about 650 residents in the year 2001 while at present there were about 300 residents. Most of those who have left found jobs in U.S. and other places and were well settled.One of the participants of the winter course, Nusrat Khurshedi distributed chocolates to the Tibetan children who were playing.
The refugees from Tibet living in this centre live with dignity because they do not depend on others; rather they fend for themselves. However, all of them are hoping that one-day they will be able to get back to their homeland. The centre has a sales counter where the finished goods are sold. The participants purchased Tibetan handicrafts from the centre. The Self-Help Centre was effectively managed and provides good care and protection to the Tibetan refugees. The participants visited another settlement in Sonara. The settlement has a monastery and a hostel. The main occupation of the refugees residing there is agriculture.
During the discussion and evaluation on field trip, the participants unanimously agreed that the field trip was the most enriching experience for it gave them an opportunity to see the harsh realities of refugee life which till then was confined to the books. They appreciated the importance and need for a field trip as part of the course that would help the course participants to have a better understanding of the practical living conditions of the refugees.
Besides the inaugural and valedictory addresses, the course had three public lectures. These lectures were held in 2 different universities in the city.
On 12 December Professor Michael Cernea spoke on Development-Caused Displacement: Reflections on its economic and legal foundations. The lecture was held at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences and chaired by Professor Chimni. Students of NUJS participated actively in the discussion. Prof. Cernea began by introducing the legal domain into the discussion of development-caused displacement stating that the issue of displacement is fraught with legal problems and is not just a sociological issue. His lecture proceeded to outline the state of existing policies and laws on resettlement and the extent of scholarship on these issues. He brought our attention to the legal battle over the regulation of displacement caused by development. Prof. Cernea after reviewing some of the issues covered in his previous work moved on to an extensive investigation into the role that law and legal practices could play in the regulation of development-caused displacement. Prof. Cernea’s passion for the cause of protecting the IDP rights, reducing the impoverishment and vulnerabilities and creating a better balance in distribution of development benefits and costs was clear and heart-warming. While not all development projects are legitimate the majority of cases are and it was these cases that Prof. Cernea wanted to dwell on, as it was these cases that can be regulated. Prof. Cernea was fixed in his view that development and displacement were intricately connected and that development cannot be detached from forms of economic, social and geographical displacement. His emphasis was always the extent to which such displacement and the impoverishment risks go hand-in-hand. He felt that taking an anti-big development stance was in no way defendable, as countries need power and infrastructure. His argument though was that such development must be done in a humane way that addresses social inequalities and vulnerabilities.
Development and displacement are inextricably connected when ‘the right of way supercedes the right to stay’. The right of way that Cernea was speaking about was the right for development projects to take place and these projects he said will take place whether we want them to take place or not. The paradox is that many development projects undertaken for the sake of poverty reduction end up creating increased poverty among a sector of society. Cernea spoke about what he called the de-capitalisation of the displaced through loss of physical, natural, human and social capital. The question he posed was not whether development should be reconceptualised and problematised, but how to address such ‘massive losses’; how to re-capitalise the resettlers.
He outlined a brief history of the regulatory mechanisms surrounding development induced displacement starting with the fact that up until 1980 there was no other regulatory mechanisms except the ‘land acquisition act’. This land acquisition act only addressed issues of financial compensation and not anything on resettlement and the complexity of moving a community and creating a viable social and economic system. The World Bank reacted to this lack of legislation by creating some guidelines for resettlement. After some tough internal battles over the appropriateness of having such a policy the policy was adopted in 1980. The World Bank was the first to adopt such policies and it took many years for others to follow in its path. Only after 10 years did the Asian Development Bank adopt its own policy and it took another year for some 25 OECD countries to adopt bilateral policy agreements. In 2004 a number of international private sector banks set up the ‘equator principles’ as a result of civil society pressure. Such principles demand that private sector banks follow the World Bank’s Policy as an international standard. The governments of developing countries are those that lag the farthest behind in developing suitable development rehabilitation and resettlement policies and according to Cernea this is an area where a lot of advocacy work is required. Cernea told us that projects financed domestically are the worst human rights abusers.
Although there is progress in terms of policy, ‘policy is not yet law and in terms of law there is still much to do’. Some of the states of India have adopted policies and two or three of these states have enshrined these policies in law, but a legal system to regulate displacement is absent. There are very few studies in the domain of law that address development induced displacement and rehabilitation.
Cernea concluded by reasserting that development will inevitably lead to displacement so the issue that needs to be addressed is how to prevent the decapitalisation of those resettled and how to redirect more financial resources into resettlement. The displaced, Cernea asserted, must be the first to benefit from development projects and investments in these people should not just be financial. Cernea went on to expose the myth that such rehabilitation is too expensive. He laid out three very good reasons why such financial costs should not be an obstacle to fair and just development. First, he told us that the cost of resettlement is only a small fraction of the total cost of a project. Second, he pointed to the fact that if you under-compensate people they are more likely to resist the project and such resistance can delay a project by several years thus increasing its costs. Third, development projects by definition produce benefits and people can be recipients or shareholders of such benefits. There should be legal provisions for benefit sharing and some cases of such best practices have been recorded in Colombia and China among other countries. Law, Cernea stated, is an instrument that can ensure such benefit sharing.
His lecture was stimulating and also somewhat controversial and some very important questions were raised. The most common question revolved around the development debate and the route development should take. One of the University participants noted that increasingly development has become project dominated and while India and those in developing countries need more resources this is not enough by itself and must be complemented with the necessary time needed to involve people in the process. There was also discussion on what kind of development we should be encouraging. The issue of accountability was also raised, especially in cases where the World Bank was a major actor. The issue of development trajectories is country specific and it was not down to the World Bank or the ADB to make relevant decisions. It was always the internal factor that ultimately determined the course that development would take within a country and not external actors.
On the afternoon of the 13th December Dr. Ben Rogaly gave a lecture at the Rabindra Bharati University on Labour Migration, Forced Labour and the Need for Protection. He introduced his topic by quoting from various African-American slave narratives. These slave narratives however had an unexpected twist. They were not collected two hundred years ago, as first expected, but nearly a century after emancipation in the 1980s. He also read out interviews from Abdur Rafique’s work on migrant workers in the mines of West Bengal to contemporize, localise and complicate the issue. What Rogaly was drawing attention to was the fact that slave like employment relations are ongoing in the world today and that harsh life threatening conditions are experienced by people that can not speak out for fear of punishment or even death. These conditions he told us can be found in modern times globally and it is not only migrants who are involved in such slave like labour.
Rogaly divided the lecture into three sections. He began by introducing the audience to ILO’s new report on the Global Alliance Against Forced labour; he followed this by looking at the problems with this study and finished by addressing social protection issues for migrant workers. The lecture very carefully and successfully tied together Rogaly’s different research experiences in the area of labour relations and migration in both West Bengal, India and the northeast of the United Kingdom. His quotes from life histories and allusions to fieldwork made the lecture relevant and brought to life the experiences of those who have been tied into exploitative labour relations, both forced and ‘voluntary’. These case studies rather than clarifying categories worked to complicate such distinctions and brought to light their ambiguities.
There is a risk, Rogaly said, in talking about forced labour and labour migration in one breath because it is at this point that all labour migration becomes condemned. There is also a risk of confusing forced labour with employment that involves working in extremely poor conditions. Rogaly began by considering the definition of forced labour employed by ILO in its recent report. While violence, threats, coercion, debt bondage, retention of identity documents, excessive dependence on employers and other third parties or excessive working hours and sub standard conditions were aspects of forced migration these conditions had to be associated with work against the will of the employee and inability to leave without the menace of a penalty.
Despite the current emphasis on the trafficking of women and children for work in the commercial sex industry, according to ILO figures of the 12.3 million workers identified the majority were not in the sex trade and were instead forced to work by private agents or the state. It is true that women are over-represented in the total figure, but not uniformly and in the private sector the ratio between men and women is almost equal. Numbers though are always misleading and according to Rogaly the evidence that ILO based these figures on is considerably thin. Although there is a lot of overlap between trafficking and forced labour, forced labour is easier to tackle legislatively and the ILO report will help form a conceptualization of these differences.
Rogaly critiqued the report along several lines, not least because of the fact that it fails to engage with worker’s daily lives resulting in a misleading use of case studies that do not grasp the complexities and subtleties of forced labour. Rogaly was also concerned by the fact that it fails to tackle the issue of corporate capitalism and ties with the state. Rogaly’s own research in the U.K was commissioned by the ILO for this report, but the controversial exploration of the links between global mobile capital, forced labour conditions and state responsibility led to the exclusion of this work from the final report.
Based on his research he discussed the unparalleled power that large multinational or transnational companies have over the chain of production. Their power as buyers means they can set the conditions in the market; they can source globally and easily bully producers - lowering returns on produce and increasing costs of production and marketing. The government in the U.K., he told us, turned a blind eye to such monopolising practices. But what, he asked, does this mean for the workers? In the last 10 years U.K. nationals have been replaced by migrant workers and this change has occurred because of the pressure on producers to find a workforce ‘poor and hungry enough’ to work to such demands. Gangs of flexible and cheap workers are needed for ‘just-in-time’ production processes that feed corporate capitalism and ‘nobody [declared Rogaly] is asking about the impact of concentrated capital on workers’ no one is making the link between introduction of concentrated capital and forced labour.
Lastly, Rogaly addressed the issue of social protection for migrant workers. His recommendations pivoted around the idea that labour movements must create international alliances, free themselves from governments and remove themselves from the dominant ‘race to the bottom’ for provision of cheap and flexible labour. There also needs to be new means of organisation and mobilisation with a focus on the human side of migration - changing public discourse to make migrants themselves more visible. The regulation of corporate capitalism also needs to be developed in order to prevent corporate giants dictating the conditions of trade and commerce. Throughout the whole discourse on social protection for migrant workers Rogaly highlighted the need to leave room for the workers themselves to acknowledge their agency in making their own decisions regarding the site of their work.
Besides the inaugural and valedictory addresses, the course had three public lectures. These lectures were held in 2 different universities in the city.
On 12 December Professor Michael Cernea spoke on Development-Caused Displacement: Reflections on its economic and legal foundations. The lecture was held at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences and chaired by Professor Chimni. Students of NUJS participated actively in the discussion. Prof. Cernea began by introducing the legal domain into the discussion of development-caused displacement stating that the issue of displacement is fraught with legal problems and is not just a sociological issue. His lecture proceeded to outline the state of existing policies and laws on resettlement and the extent of scholarship on these issues. He brought our attention to the legal battle over the regulation of displacement caused by development. Prof. Cernea after reviewing some of the issues covered in his previous work moved on to an extensive investigation into the role that law and legal practices could play in the regulation of development-caused displacement. Prof. Cernea’s passion for the cause of protecting the IDP rights, reducing the impoverishment and vulnerabilities and creating a better balance in distribution of development benefits and costs was clear and heart-warming. While not all development projects are legitimate the majority of cases are and it was these cases that Prof. Cernea wanted to dwell on, as it was these cases that can be regulated. Prof. Cernea was fixed in his view that development and displacement were intricately connected and that development cannot be detached from forms of economic, social and geographical displacement. His emphasis was always the extent to which such displacement and the impoverishment risks go hand-in-hand. He felt that taking an anti-big development stance was in no way defendable, as countries need power and infrastructure. His argument though was that such development must be done in a humane way that addresses social inequalities and vulnerabilities.
Development and displacement are inextricably connected when ‘the right of way supercedes the right to stay’. The right of way that Cernea was speaking about was the right for development projects to take place and these projects he said will take place whether we want them to take place or not. The paradox is that many development projects undertaken for the sake of poverty reduction end up creating increased poverty among a sector of society. Cernea spoke about what he called the de-capitalisation of the displaced through loss of physical, natural, human and social capital. The question he posed was not whether development should be reconceptualised and problematised, but how to address such ‘massive losses’; how to re-capitalise the resettlers.
He outlined a brief history of the regulatory mechanisms surrounding development induced displacement starting with the fact that up until 1980 there was no other regulatory mechanisms except the ‘land acquisition act’. This land acquisition act only addressed issues of financial compensation and not anything on resettlement and the complexity of moving a community and creating a viable social and economic system. The World Bank reacted to this lack of legislation by creating some guidelines for resettlement. After some tough internal battles over the appropriateness of having such a policy the policy was adopted in 1980. The World Bank was the first to adopt such policies and it took many years for others to follow in its path. Only after 10 years did the Asian Development Bank adopt its own policy and it took another year for some 25 OECD countries to adopt bilateral policy agreements. In 2004 a number of international private sector banks set up the ‘equator principles’ as a result of civil society pressure. Such principles demand that private sector banks follow the World Bank’s Policy as an international standard. The governments of developing countries are those that lag the farthest behind in developing suitable development rehabilitation and resettlement policies and according to Cernea this is an area where a lot of advocacy work is required. Cernea told us that projects financed domestically are the worst human rights abusers.
Although there is progress in terms of policy, ‘policy is not yet law and in terms of law there is still much to do’. Some of the states of India have adopted policies and two or three of these states have enshrined these policies in law, but a legal system to regulate displacement is absent. There are very few studies in the domain of law that address development induced displacement and rehabilitation.
Cernea concluded by reasserting that development will inevitably lead to displacement so the issue that needs to be addressed is how to prevent the decapitalisation of those resettled and how to redirect more financial resources into resettlement. The displaced, Cernea asserted, must be the first to benefit from development projects and investments in these people should not just be financial. Cernea went on to expose the myth that such rehabilitation is too expensive. He laid out three very good reasons why such financial costs should not be an obstacle to fair and just development. First, he told us that the cost of resettlement is only a small fraction of the total cost of a project. Second, he pointed to the fact that if you under-compensate people they are more likely to resist the project and such resistance can delay a project by several years thus increasing its costs. Third, development projects by definition produce benefits and people can be recipients or shareholders of such benefits. There should be legal provisions for benefit sharing and some cases of such best practices have been recorded in Colombia and China among other countries. Law, Cernea stated, is an instrument that can ensure such benefit sharing.
His lecture was stimulating and also somewhat controversial and some very important questions were raised. The most common question revolved around the development debate and the route development should take. One of the University participants noted that increasingly development has become project dominated and while India and those in developing countries need more resources this is not enough by itself and must be complemented with the necessary time needed to involve people in the process. There was also discussion on what kind of development we should be encouraging. The issue of accountability was also raised, especially in cases where the World Bank was a major actor. The issue of development trajectories is country specific and it was not down to the World Bank or the ADB to make relevant decisions. It was always the internal factor that ultimately determined the course that development would take within a country and not external actors.
On the afternoon of the 13th December Dr. Ben Rogaly gave a lecture at the Rabindra Bharati University on Labour Migration, Forced Labour and the Need for Protection. He introduced his topic by quoting from various African-American slave narratives. These slave narratives however had an unexpected twist. They were not collected two hundred years ago, as first expected, but nearly a century after emancipation in the 1980s. He also read out interviews from Abdur Rafique’s work on migrant workers in the mines of West Bengal to contemporize, localise and complicate the issue. What Rogaly was drawing attention to was the fact that slave like employment relations are ongoing in the world today and that harsh life threatening conditions are experienced by people that can not speak out for fear of punishment or even death. These conditions he told us can be found in modern times globally and it is not only migrants who are involved in such slave like labour.
Rogaly divided the lecture into three sections. He began by introducing the audience to ILO’s new report on the Global Alliance Against Forced labour; he followed this by looking at the problems with this study and finished by addressing social protection issues for migrant workers. The lecture very carefully and successfully tied together Rogaly’s different research experiences in the area of labour relations and migration in both West Bengal, India and the northeast of the United Kingdom. His quotes from life histories and allusions to fieldwork made the lecture relevant and brought to life the experiences of those who have been tied into exploitative labour relations, both forced and ‘voluntary’. These case studies rather than clarifying categories worked to complicate such distinctions and brought to light their ambiguities.
There is a risk, Rogaly said, in talking about forced labour and labour migration in one breath because it is at this point that all labour migration becomes condemned. There is also a risk of confusing forced labour with employment that involves working in extremely poor conditions. Rogaly began by considering the definition of forced labour employed by ILO in its recent report. While violence, threats, coercion, debt bondage, retention of identity documents, excessive dependence on employers and other third parties or excessive working hours and sub standard conditions were aspects of forced migration these conditions had to be associated with work against the will of the employee and inability to leave without the menace of a penalty.
Despite the current emphasis on the trafficking of women and children for work in the commercial sex industry, according to ILO figures of the 12.3 million workers identified the majority were not in the sex trade and were instead forced to work by private agents or the state. It is true that women are over-represented in the total figure, but not uniformly and in the private sector the ratio between men and women is almost equal. Numbers though are always misleading and according to Rogaly the evidence that ILO based these figures on is considerably thin. Although there is a lot of overlap between trafficking and forced labour, forced labour is easier to tackle legislatively and the ILO report will help form a conceptualization of these differences.
Rogaly critiqued the report along several lines, not least because of the fact that it fails to engage with worker’s daily lives resulting in a misleading use of case studies that do not grasp the complexities and subtleties of forced labour. Rogaly was also concerned by the fact that it fails to tackle the issue of corporate capitalism and ties with the state. Rogaly’s own research in the U.K was commissioned by the ILO for this report, but the controversial exploration of the links between global mobile capital, forced labour conditions and state responsibility led to the exclusion of this work from the final report.
Based on his research he discussed the unparalleled power that large multinational or transnational companies have over the chain of production. Their power as buyers means they can set the conditions in the market; they can source globally and easily bully producers - lowering returns on produce and increasing costs of production and marketing. The government in the U.K., he told us, turned a blind eye to such monopolising practices. But what, he asked, does this mean for the workers? In the last 10 years U.K. nationals have been replaced by migrant workers and this change has occurred because of the pressure on producers to find a workforce ‘poor and hungry enough’ to work to such demands. Gangs of flexible and cheap workers are needed for ‘just-in-time’ production processes that feed corporate capitalism and ‘nobody [declared Rogaly] is asking about the impact of concentrated capital on workers’ no one is making the link between introduction of concentrated capital and forced labour.
Lastly, Rogaly addressed the issue of social protection for migrant workers. His recommendations pivoted around the idea that labour movements must create international alliances, free themselves from governments and remove themselves from the dominant ‘race to the bottom’ for provision of cheap and flexible labour. There also needs to be new means of organisation and mobilisation with a focus on the human side of migration - changing public discourse to make migrants themselves more visible. The regulation of corporate capitalism also needs to be developed in order to prevent corporate giants dictating the conditions of trade and commerce. Throughout the whole discourse on social protection for migrant workers Rogaly highlighted the need to leave room for the workers themselves to acknowledge their agency in making their own decisions regarding the site of their work.
One of the reasons why the CRG winter course is special is because it has a number of interactive sessions in the form of round tables and panel discussions. This year each compulsory module had at least one interactive session. Some modules had more than one interactive session such as module B. Participants for these sessions included administrators, members of institutions that deal with issues of refugees and IDPs such as the UNHCR and the National Human Rights Commission, human rights activists, refugee activists, creative writers, legal analysts and refugees and IDPs who have had experiences of living in camps.
Most of these sessions were public sessions. The themes of the sessions were:
1. Is the Right to Return a Symbolic Right? (2 December, Swabhoomi )
2. Resource, Gender, and Forced Migration (6 December, Calcutta University, Kolkata)
3. 50 Years of Forced Migration in Jammu and Kashmir (7 December, Presidency College, Kolkata)
4. Tsunami, Other Natural Disasters, Displacement, and the Dynamics of Care (11 December, Swabhoomi)
5. Violence, Trafficking, and Forced Labour – Perspectives on Durable Solutions (12 December Jadavpur Univesrity, Kolkata)
Participants at the session enjoyed a rich and thought-provoking discussion on Is the right to return a symbolic right? The distinguished speakers were P.Saravanamuttu, Ranabir Samaddar, Markus Mervola and Subhoranjan Dasgupta who was also the moderator of the session. The important questions, raised in the discussion, are as follow. Is the right to return all about the memory? Does politics have anything to do with it? What does return mean? Do the displaced people return to the same place and condition, which forced them to leave? The phrase ‘right to return’ has several dimensions. The right to return seems to be very elementary and simple. But when the specific context and the specific groups are considered it becomes important to think whether this right to return is applicable or should be applicable. The question of right to return in Sri Lanka and in many other countries evolves from the perspective of national security and economic burden. Therefore right to return is not an innocent right, it operates within power matrix. Displacement does not occur only in terms of space, but it also occurs in terms of spirit and emotion. Till the 1960s the uprooted people from East Pakistan dreamt that one-day they would go back. But they could never do so and their vulnerability remained. Therefore, along with right to return, unless and until the security of life is ensured the right to return cannot be exercised. Once a group of people is displaced from a space, the space does not remain unoccupied. This also restricts the right to return. Many remain displaced for years and decades. What policy should be adopted for second generation or third generation refugees? They are often not emotionally attached to the state of origin. Therefore, if they are asked to return, that may increase their instability. The crucial question is how long we will talk about right to return without providing provision to return? Should the right to return have any time constraint? When does the displacement end? Is the right to return an end of the refugee cycle?
Professor Parimal Ghosh of the Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies, Calcutta University moderated the roundtable on Resource, Gender, and Forced Migration. Walter Fernandes of North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati began the session by observing that tribal and dalit women traditionally have a higher economic status within their community as compared to women from dowry paying communities. But when women are displaced, they lose their land and are deprived of their status as economically productive workers. Internally displaced women are not given jobs and are pushed down the social ladder. The dominant patriarchal ideology is internalised by the IDP’s, which ensures women’s subordination. Meghna Guhatakurta of Dacca University observed that displacement goes hand in hand with dislocation of resources, and that the use of resources is gendered, that is, they are not equally accessed by men and women. She spoke in detail regarding salt-water shrimp farming in South West Bangladesh. Similarly, according to Zachary Lomo gender determines what kind of resources are allotted to human beings. Binalaxmi Nepram spoke in detail about the conflict situation in Manipur, and the displacement of women caused by internal ethnic conflicts coupled with disgruntlement with the Indian army.
Geeta Bharali spoke on development, displacement and marginalisation of women in Assam. According to her statistics 30 lakh persons have been displaced by development projects in Assam. The impact of all of these on women is that they become more dependent on men, they have less access to information, and the camps do not take their needs in to account (for example, toilets are not constructed for displaced women in camps.)
A common thread for all the presentations was that gender implications in the phenomenon of internal displacement were enormous, but were seldom understood fully. As long as it is a case that resource deprivation for maintenance of proper livelihood as well as physical violence is something that IDPs constantly encounter, women particularly experience these problems. Also implicated in participants’ talks was a conception namely that we must study the experiences of IDPs in a wide context that takes into account such issues as industrialisation, modernisation, colonisation and globalisation. Though none of the participants elaborated in much detail how we should understand the link between the (political) history of the South Asia and contemporary “factors” causing displacement, all of the participants seemed to argue that the restructuring of global economy and the way the development projects are carried on plays a crucial role causing internal displacement. Therefore, the violence and resource deprivation experienced particularly by women are to a large extent reducible to, say, contemporary forms of global governmentality and the way social reforms are enforced. In other words, the issue of IDP and the alleged problems it entails seemed to appear as way to problematise the manner in which global governmentality is taking place.
This was an interesting point. However, it entailed a set of analytical problems and questions. If the problem of IDP was a problem of governmentality – that is the way reforms, development projects etc. were conducted – one would want to know how to change this and where to locate the “place” a reform should start to take. For example none of the participants said that the idea of development as such was bad or evil. This then brings one to the issue of ideology. Can we delineate a kind of “bad” ideology that must be abolished? And, therefore, what would be a good ideology? When these questions were posed, we consider, the responses were at times unsatisfactory. To give an example, one speaker was just happy to argue that the notion of people should be at the heart of the development, not profit. We thought that this is a self-evident conclusion and does not give us any more substantial ideas how to move on. Therefore, greater discussions on some solutions might have made this particular session richer.
The panel discussion on Fifty Years of Forced Migration in Jammu and Kashmir was chaired by Professor Rajat Kanta Ray, of the Department of History, Presidency College, Kolkata. Siddiq Wahid Professor of History, Jammu University began the session by speaking on the causes for conflict in Jammu and Kasmir. According to Wahid, conflict in J&K has been caused by three factors – history, legal ambiguities and political inequalities. Displacement in J&K has been caused by historical geopolitics (that is, borders have taken on a significance that previously did not exist), conflict (those who can afford to do so leave by ‘choice’) and development.
Anuradha Bhasin editor, The Kashmir Times, Jammu & Kashmir presented a detailed narrative of fifty years of displacement in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. According to Bhasin border dispute over the years in J&K has caused massive dislocation of persons – partial, temporary and over a long period of time. No rehabilitation policy was provided by the State. After 1989 militarization increased and further large scale out migrations occurred. In the present situation, despite the cease-fire called in 2003, agricultural lands are still heavily mined. The repercussions of the intense conflict include changes in demography, communal tensions, divided families, and economic migration. Female literacy is very low in the State and traditionally women don’t work, and as the number of men have grown less due to increase in land mines and deaths resulting from it the wives of these men are highly vulnerable. Among the other speakers Gandhari Dutta emphasized on the causes for displacement and spoke on the history of the conflict. Nusrat Khurshedi spoke on J&K refugees who have entered Pakistan. She observed that their condition was not good, despite Pakistan claiming to have provided huge assistance to them. She also spoke at length of earthquake victims and said that although Pakistani government emphasize their empathy with the people of J&K it failed to inform its own people for over four hours that the earthquake has occurred. If information had come earlier aid could have been rushed earlier.
In the discussion on Tsunami, Other Natural Disasters, Displacement, and the Dynamics of Care K.M Parivelan Information Officer TNTRC, adopted a macro-approach to assess the tsunami relief operations in Tamil Nadu. He emphasised the role of the UN and the response of the government to that. He pointed out that the UN and the Government of India set up a disaster management team and on 27 December, the first meeting of this team was held. The team also got active support from the international agencies, like WHO, UNDP, and UNICEF. The UN agencies started providing certain essential items, such as, water tanks and ORH tablets.
He said that, in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands alone, there were 2,88,437 people affected by the tsunami disaster. Therefore, these islands needed infrastructural facilities as well as critical areas of support. There was a need for providing health and nutrition requirements of the victims. There was also a necessity of ensuring care for these victims. Education was another major area of concern so far as these victims were concerned. Parivelan pointed out, that some kind of an overlap of relief was a major problem. There were a lot of NGOs involved in the tsunami relief operations in Tamil Nadu. But a section of them were more interested in media publicity, in taking snaps. To them, the tsunami victims appeared as museum pieces.
Samir Acharya in his presentation on the relief operations in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands began by referring to the continental mindset of the mainlanders. He indicated that even as late as the 1950s, government schemes for the islands were referred to as the colonisation scheme. He reminded that a continental system, however, could not function in an island. He pointed out how the forest was cleared after the independence to make way for rice cultivation. He pointed out further that concrete constructions came up in large numbers in these islands from the 1970s.
As a result of the tsunami, the tectonic plates have gone up in the west and south and gone down in the east and north. Little Andaman had a different kind of impact of tsunami. The difference was of horizontal and vertical displacements. In Acharya’s opinion, contrary to popular perceptions the tsunami has affected the indigenous people more. Yet, the society of the indigenous communities socially withstood the shock better for various reasons; for example to the tsunami-affected Nicobarese community, nobody was an orphan although the children might have lost their parents in the disaster. He described how in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the administration behaved like a dinosaur – a giant outdated machinery. The news of the burning of its tail reached its brain much later. As we know, no foreign fund was allowed directly for the relief operations in the islands. But the NGOs were allowed to transfer money to the administration.
The panel discussion on Violence, Trafficking and Forced Labour – Perspectives on Durable Solutions was moderated by Professor Sanjukta Bhattacharya of the Refugee Studies Centre, Jadavpur University, Kolkata. Ranabir Samaddar began the session by stressing on the significance of trafficking in forced migration studies. Labour trafficking is a wide phenomenon, and trafficking was not limited to sexual exploitation, and durable solutions cannot be found in the place of origin. Rita Thapa stressed on the conflict in Nepal between the Maoists and Nepal government, which leads to trafficking of women and children. According to Thapa, education can be one of the durable solutions which leads to decrease in trafficking of women and children. Indrani Sinha spoke in detail of the work her organization does – rescue of minors from brothels. She further observed that the police have little idea of the laws to combat trafficking. Achan Mungleng spoke on the situation in Mizoram. She observed that the Burmese refugees work in highly exploitable conditions. As the UNHCR provides the Burmese refugees with money to make up for the minimum wage, employers exploit them excessively.
Some of the speakers in the session limited their study on trafficking to the sexual exploitation framework, the ‘victim’ rhetoric, and the criminal law enforcement framework. The rescue of minors from brothels has to be handled carefully – not all children in brothels are abused – and separating children from their mothers is a gross violation of the human rights of sex workers. In response to this question, Sinha stated that the police do the rescue work, her organization rehabilitates them and very few of the children are born to sex workers. But, this is not a sufficient measure to ensure that the children’s rights and the rights of the persons working in brothels are respected. Rescue work by the police is highly suspect – a huge amount of complaints has been registered by sex workers on police brutality and secondly, rescue of children (whether they are born to sex workers or not) without evidence of abuse, still plays on the assumptions that these are ‘bad’ and ‘immoral’ places. Durable solutions to trafficking have to be based on the human rights framework. National legislation has to regulate conditions of work to protect the rights of all workers. Their needs to be a clear recognition of the increasing demand for migrant workers and the promotion of policies that encourage regular migration.
There were two film shows – one on 12 of December and the other on the 14 of December.
On the 12th, the participants were shown clippings from various movies to depict how forced migration is shown in films in the context of Indian cinema. The focus was on one particular period after the Independence of India – the period of mass population movements and violence on a mass scale. Clips were shown, focusing on experiences of coming to the city. This was realist cinema trying to reflect the reality of the country in tatters. There were clips from films celebrating the experience of coming to the city. In all these clips, the city was shown as a dangerous place of traps, seductions and promise and a place that helped a man shape his destiny, offering adventures of a romantic kind!
In Do Bigha Zameen, made by Balraj Sahni, there was a clip showing a peasant with his little son stepping into the city, having been forced to leave his village. In Howrah Bridge, representing the moment of arriving in the city was presented as the dawn of a new day- a new experience.In the clip on Footpath, the visual style of the film creates a sense of doom, despair and despondency. The movie was trying to respond to situations of upheaval, violence etc. Clippings were shown from Taxi driver and Shree 420, depicting the poor, rustic soul finally becoming an inhabitant of the city.
On 14 December, the participants were shown a movie on the Afghan refugee called “Baran” by Majid Majidi. A humorous and moving love story of a romantic kind – it was about a 17-year-old Iranian boy named Lateef who works at a building site in Teheran, Iran. At the building site, an Afghan worker falls from a building and his son Rahmat enters the scene to become the new provider for the family. But, as Lateef finds himself drawn to Rahmat, it is not until the revelation of Rahmat’s secret, that he is actually a young woman, posing as a man, that both of their lives are forever changed. All the participants agreed that the movie was beautiful – deceptively simple – an irresistible blend of warmth and humor.
14.Inaugural & Valedictory Sessions
Inaugural session
The inaugural session was held on the 1 December 2005 at the Eastern Zonal Cultural Centre, Salt Lake, Kolkata. Subhas Ranjan Chakraborty, President of MCRG chaired the session, which served as the entry point to the 15-day workshop.
Giving the welcome address on the occasion, Paula Bannerjee, Course Coordinator for MCRG spoke about the difficulties that are faced each year in organising a study programme of this nature, which involves among others a distance-learning segment. However, the organisation of the workshop for the third consecutive year spoke for itself the success of MCRG in putting together a study programme that brought together a diverse group of people both in terms of their nationalities as well as interests and work around an intensive training programme on human rights, humanitarianities and tolerance. Introductory address to the session was provided by Dr. Ranabir Samaddar, Director of MCRG who provided an overview of the course content while bringing out some thought provoking questions about the role of the media in forced migration as well as the gender dimensions in migration while linking these issues to the recent riots in Paris in the immigrants quarters and city suburbs. Paul Jentot supplemented to Dr. Samaddar’s discussion on the nature of violence in Paris and the psychosis of the French in view of such violence, later on. Erin Mooney, Deputy Director of the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement was the Guest of Honour for the occasion. Her speech concentrated on the areas that would be featured in the study programme covering its myriad dimensions; from the limitations of the role of UNHCR in providing for those who migrate, to care and rights of those displaced by natural disasters especially of tsunami and the recent earthquakes in Kashmir. Chief Guest for the evening, Carol Batchelor, Chief of Mission A.I., UNHCR India addressing the gathering spoke of the need to ‘go beyond the law’ in providing care and ensuring the rights of refugees and internally displaced. She emphasised on the need to have national laws that safeguarded such persons and their rights. She also spoke of the relevance of a study programme of this nature in the South Asian context and complimented MCRG on its initiative.
The final lecture for the evening was the keynote address delivered by Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director- Centre for Policy Alternatives, Sri Lanka on the theme ‘Conflict Sensitivity and Subsidiarity: transforming the causes and consequences of internal displacement and forced migration’. Using Sri Lanka as a case study, the lecture provided by Dr. Saravanamuttu provided the final laying of the basis that was required for the study program to be a success.
Below we present the text of his inaugural lecture:
I would like to frame my address to you around two ideas which I believe are extremely pertinent to the issues you will in turn address in this 3rd Winter Course on Forced Migration. These are the ideas of conflict sensitivity and subsidiarity, which at first glance may not appear to be relevant to our concerns here today. My argument is that these two ideas are relevant both in terms of the diagnosis of the causes of forced migration and internal displacement whether as a result of human action or acts of Nature, as well as to the effective response to the consequences of forced migration and internal displacement. In short, my thesis developed from a perspective of governance and conflict transformation is that forced migration and internal displacement highlight conflict sensitivity and subsidiarity and reinforce the centrality of these ideas as organizing concepts for governance and conflict transformation in South Asia today.
I come from Sri Lanka, a country torn by armed ethnic conflict over the last two decades and most recently ravaged by the tsunami of 26th December 2004. Not surprisingly most of what I have to say to you is culled from my experience as an analyst, advocate and activist of what transpires there. However, I believe it does also have a broader relevance and resonance for the rest of South Asia, where opportunities and challenges have common features although they may well be demonstrated in local contexts with varying degrees of intensity.
The problems we face in Sri Lanka of direct pertinence to your deliberations on this Course, run the full gamut of what have been categorized as human security issues. They range from questions of discrimination between communities along ethnic lines to lacunae and lapses in governance, to disparities between international standards and local practices – the Deng Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and the Pinheiro Principles on Housing and Restitution for Refugees and IDPs being of special significance - to conflicts between human rights and humanitarian concerns on the one hand and perceived raison d’etat considerations by the state on the other, not to mention the pretensions of non-state actors of becoming a state or their self perception of already constituting one. Running through and across all these issues are those of gender inequality, violence and discrimination, psycho-social trauma and stress which have robbed countless numbers of human beings of the right to a life free from fear and of the experience of having enjoyed it.
Sri Lanka: The Challenge of Peace
Currently in Sri Lanka we are at a critical juncture in our history. Difficult and fundamental choices have to be made with regard to our future as an united country, one in which the constitutional architecture and political culture captures the diversity of the peoples who inhabit our land and one therefore in which the social contract is firmly based on democratic rights and freedoms.
We have just concluded a presidential election in which the declared winner polled just 28,000 votes more than the required 50 + percent to win, and an 180,000 votes more than his nearest rival. Outside of the North and East, the areas directly affected by the armed ethnic conflict, the election and the campaign which preceded it was the least marred by incidents of violence. Tragically though in the North and East this was not to the case. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or the LTTE called a boycott of the election and despite pledges to the country enforced it through the propagation of a fear psychosis and by acts of violence, threat and intimidation. It is commonly believed that if the citizens of the North and East were allowed to freely exercise their franchise, the result of the election could have been different and even, more propitious for the prospects for peace.
On Sunday 27th November, the LTTE leader Mr Prabakaran gave his annual address. In it he declared that the new President of Sri Lanka, Mr Mahinda Rajapakse did not understand the fundamentals of the ethnic conflict – Mr Rajapakse holds the view that a settlement of the conflict should be within the existing unitary constitutional framework and categorically rejects any notion of a traditional homeland of the Tamils in the North and East of Sri Lanka. Mr Prabhakaran further stated that the President would have until next year to come up with his proposals for a settlement of the conflict or else he would proceed with his plans to “establish self government in our (sic) homeland”.
In my opinion, we are now at the closest to a return to hostilities since the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE signed a ceasefire in February 2002. Up to that point, the conflict had resulted in some 60,000 deaths. Hundreds of thousands have fled the country; some of them are still refugees in India. Most have swelled the ranks of the Tamil diaspora in the West. In addition, hundreds of thousands languish, now for over a decade, as Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in welfare camps in Sri Lanka. Included in this number are the Muslim population of the North who were forcibly evicted overnight in 1990 by the LTTE in an appalling atrocity that can only be described as an act of attempted ethnic cleansing. Each return to hostilities is more devastating than its predecessor, decimating lives, destroying livelihoods and property in its wake. Whilst the polity may disagree about the shape and substance of a final settlement, there can be no contestation of the position that peace is a sine qua non for everything else in terms of development and prosperity that the peoples of Sri Lanka, desire and deserve.
Compounding the challenges of the ethnic conflict is that of reconstruction and recovery as a consequence of the tsunami. This has implications for the peace process as well.
Sri Lanka: The Challenge of Post-Tsunami Recovery
The tsunami affected Sri Lanka, some 5% or 1 million of its population directly, irrespective of region, ethnicity or religion. It ravaged areas controlled by the Government of Sri Lanka as well as by the LTTE. In a devastatingly grim way it highlighted the interdependence of the peoples of Sri Lanka, affecting Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim, Buddhist and, Hindu alike, mainly along the southern, eastern and northern coasts. Over 30,000 people lost their lives, hundreds of thousands were rendered homeless seeking refuge in welfare camps or with relatives and over 100,000 homes, 200 educational institutions and 100 health facilities were damaged or destroyed.
Many people were doubly displaced being victims both of the conflict and of the tsunami.
The response of the international community both governmental and non- governmental was tremendous. Most heart warming was the response of average Sri Lankans irrespective of difference and division, who in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami rushed to help their fellow citizens. This extended to the North and East as well and inspired the hope and belief that out of the interdependence underscored by the tragedy of the tsunami and the cooperation it immediately engendered, sufficient trust and confidence could be built to advance a peace process that had been stalled for twenty months.
Sadly this too was not to be. After protracted negotiations, the Government and the LTTE signed an agreement relating to the administration and distribution of resources for relief, rehabilitation and recovery in the North and East called the Post Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS) Agreement. It was to cover an expanse of 2 miles from the coastline, be operational for a period of two years and in its three-tiered structure were to be representatives of the Government, the LTTE and the Muslim community. It also envisaged a Trust Fund which was to have been vested with the World Bank and into which monies were to be deposited through the Treasury.
The PTOMs agreement aroused a storm of controversy from two quarters in particular – the Muslim community who strongly opposed it on the grounds that they were not party to the negotiations leading up to it, even though they were the ethnic community most affected by the tsunami, and the nationalist elements in the majority Sinhala community led by the Government’s main coalition partner the Janata Vimukthi Peramuna – JVP or People’s Liberation Front. The latter’s opposition in the main focused on PTOMs as the precursor of interim institutional arrangements in the North and East, which would privilege the LTTE. For them it was the thin edge of the wedge in this respect. They also adamantly opposed the idea of a trust fund as constituting an infringement of the sovereignty of Sri Lanka and Parliament’s traditional control over finances.
Tacitly hoping that it would revive the peace process, President Kumaratunga championed the cause of the PTOMS agreement to the extent of saying that she was willing to risk the survival of her government on it. The JVP in turn issued her an ultimatum, declaring that they would leave government if she went ahead with it. Went ahead she did. The JVP left government and together with other Sinhala nationalists petitioned the Supreme Court in a fundamental rights application on the constitutionality of the agreement. The Court in an interim order rendered the agreement effectively inoperable. In so doing, it consigned PTOMS to the list of agreements made between the Sinhala political leadership and representatives of the Tamil polity, which though agreed upon could never be implemented. For Tamil nationalism, PTOMS was yet another example of Sinhala nationalism’s inability and/or unwillingness to come to terms with it, even in the midst of the worst natural disaster to have hit the country.
President Rajapakse and his JVP allies have pledged to abrogate PTOMS and replace it with an integrated administrative structure for rehabilitation island wide.
Outside of the North and East too, the tsunami reinforced existing practices and the prevailing culture of governance. The opportunity to reform and indeed to build anew better practices and procedures of governance in the context of rehabilitation, recovery, disaster prevention and management, as well as to propagate a culture of better governance has not been grasped in anywhere near full measure.
Management and the strategic direction, such as there existed, of post tsunami rehabilitation and recovery was centralized within an already centralized system of government. The bodies entrusted with the task were all Presidential Task Forces composed in the main of individuals from the private sector, particularly the main task force entrusted with “Rebuilding the Nation – TAFREN. Whilst this is attributable to the scale of the disaster and the track record of the bureaucracy in terms of the speed of the delivery of services, it nevertheless created resentment within the machinery of government at the outset. As noted earlier, President Rajapakse has pledged to establish an integrated all island administrative structure for rehabilitation and recovery.
In addition, lack of meaningful consultation with the victims of the calamity, recognition of them as stakeholders in the formulation of policy that directly affected their daily lives and relative neglect of local expertise and knowledge has led to tardiness in the recovery effort, frustration and prolonged privation for those affected, confused and confusing government policy. This, in addition to the problems of aid absorption and utilization, inefficiency and corruption. Examples of the latter were highlighted in a report prepared by the Auditor General on the first eight months of the post tsunami recovery effort.
A prime example of the centralized and hierarchical process of policy making without any public consultation, especially with those directly affected and its announcement to the public as a fait accompli was the government’s decision to establish a 100 metre buffer zone from the coastline in the south and a 200 metre zone in the North and East. The precise status of this government decision was left in limbo. It was neither a law or a regulation. Yet its consequences are far reaching. Presented as essentially a “ no-build zone” it meant that those who lived within the zone before the tsunami and whose houses were more than 40% destroyed were to be re housed elsewhere. This, not surprisingly included the fishing community. Existing agreements however pertaining to the tourist industry were to be honoured.
Despite arguments against the buffer zone from the international community and civil society, the government did not budge until recently. Once more the status of the policy decision revising the buffer zone is indeterminate. In any event, coming as it has some nine months after the tsunami with arrangements already initiated taking into account the original buffer zone, the question arises as to why it took so long to accept the arguments advanced with regard to land scarcity for re housing, the impracticality of moving fishing communities in particular inland away from the coast and the absurdity of imposing uniformity in respect of a buffer zone when the tsunami did not strike uniformly along the coast in the first place. Questions too with regard to relative discrimination in respect of those who moved before the government decided to revise its policy and those who may be able to return to their pre-tsunami homes.
The question of discrimination between types of victims of man made and natural disasters arises in the Sri Lankan context. IDPs as a consequence of the conflict for example, have been in welfare camps for almost two decades: as a consequence of the tsunami for 11 months. Members of the former category receive a sum of Rs 25,000 per family on return to their land, in the instances where they feel secure in doing so and can return. Conflict related IDP return is seriously affected by a number of factors that have to be considered in the context of the peace process. They range from occupation of the land by armed groups or by members of a different ethnic community as in the case of the Tamils and Muslims in the East, the establishment of large tracts of land in the North as High Security Zones by the security forces and landmines.
Tsunami affected IDPs on the other hand have received temporary shelter and have been assured permanent housing - some having already received it, though not in the numbers promised by the government. Those within the original buffer zone are to receive permanent housing whilst those outside will receive assistance ranging from Sri Lankan Rupees 250,000 to 100,000 depending on the scale of damage to their house.
It should be noted that faced with all of the above, we in Sri Lanka have not passed legislation specifically dealing with the problems of IDPs or sought to seriously integrate the Deng Principles into effective policy making.
I have dwelt at some length on our current travails in Sri Lanka because they illustrate the importance of conflict sensitivity and subsidiarity, every step of the way. The two ideas were posited as the key guiding principles for post-tsunami recovery in Sri Lanka, being identified as such in deliberations involving civil society and the donor community, the government and the LTTE. However, the latter two were less than enthusiastic, the government preferring a different formulation to conflict sensitivity. In both cases, on the basis of demonstrable record, albeit with varying degrees of appreciation and commitment, the two ideas can be reasonably classified as novel.
Let me now attempt the reconciliation of the ideas with the narrative,of some theory with practice.
Conflict Sensitivity and Subsidiarity
I see conflict sensitivity and subsidiarity as mutually reinforcing and not mutually exclusive in the context of our dialogue, here today.
Conflict sensitivity at a basic minimum or in a passive sense is an admonition against doing harm, adversely affecting the balance of relations between groups in a polity or exacerbating already fractured or fracturing relations between them. In a positive and pro active sense it is about doing some good, providing the space, the opportunity and the tools to preempt and prevent conflict between them and to facilitate its transformation.
This entails an acknowledgement and appreciation of subsidiarity, of allowing decision making and governance in respect of issues at the levels of the polity at which they are manifested. This empowers, provides space for diversity and pluralism, the enjoyment of multiple identities and the celebration of the core values of democracy in every day governance. The two ideas facilitate this, focusing on rights and the meaningful sharing of power within the polity without prejudice to any identity that can be celebrated without prejudice to another. Federalism which combines the ideas of shared rule and self rule is a logical extension of this and more frequently resorted to as the framework within which to employ constitutional reform to achieve conflict transformation and peace settlements of internal armed conflicts. It balances the role of the Centre with that of the Regions or Provinces - recognizing and reconciling the need and desire to apart from and yet at the same time, the need and desire to be a part of a larger political unit and collectivity.
I have written and spoken on a number of occasions on the culture and practice of governance in South Asia, of the predominant paradigm of nation and state building in political entities, which are more state-nations than nation states. This thesis has described how the obsession with the Westphalian model of the nation -state and the Eurocentric paradigm has trapped us in the developing world in a process of nation building in which the state has preceded the nation and taken on the primary responsibility for creating it. This has led to groups hijacking the state in order to define nation nearer if not nearest to their heart’s desire. Through strategies of assimilation, coercive and non-coercive, perceptions of discrimination have been fostered and have festered into armed challenges to the state with the objective, ironically, of replicating it, such being the power of the dominant paradigm of collective political organization.
This has been accompanied by the performance of the state lagging far behind its promise and pretension as the protector and provider of welfare and well being for all. And as the gap between promise and performance has grown, the crisis of legitimacy of the state has deepened, leading it to become a predator preying on its people, armed with post colonial elaborations of colonial public security ordinances, emergency powers and latter day anti terrorist legislation. Raison d’etre is confused with raison d’etat. The state defends itself against its citizens, in its obsessive protection of power and authority within itself.
Such is the fertile breeding ground for conflict, which in turn breeds forced migration and internal displacement; such is the political culture, which in turn will deal with these challenges in ways more likely to compound rather than surmount them. In Sri Lanka, the tsunami did not wash away the political differences that had created and continue to sustain the ethnic conflict. Nor has it served as yet as the catalyst for the institution of better practices of governance and the observance of international standards for the protection of refugees and displaced persons.
There was a high point of hope in all the pain and hopelessness of the devastation wrought by the tsunami, that we could move forward, jettison the old, the obsolete, the damaging and dysfunctional and embrace the new, the enabling and facilitating. Now it seems we have come full circle. We may have more refugees and more displaced. And we will always run that risk as will the rest of South Asia, unless we understand and act on the understanding that it is time to revise, refresh and reform to the point of re - imagining and instituting a new social contract between ourselves the citizens and the governments we choose, desire and deserve.
I submit to you that conflict sensitivity and subsidiarity are simple guides in this not inconsiderable and urgent enterprise.
Valedictory Session
The valedictory session was held on the 15 December 2005 at the Eastern Zonal Cultural Centre, Salt Lake, Kolkata. The session started with the presentation of a set of CRG publications to the Guests of Honour by Shreyashi Chaudhuri. Addressing the gathering, Ranabir Samaddar, the Director of MCRG gave a detailed explanation of the turn of events in the study programme covering the public lectures and sessions, field visit as well as the creative assignments that were undertaken by the participants. Speaking further, Dr. Samaddar emphasised that the traditional discussion on border and boundaries was not enough to control the amount population movement that takes place today and therefore that a need exists for all those who work in the field of forced migration to be creative in their engagements. Spotlight was on a number of participants on a country specific basis who gave their comments on the course. All those who spoke thanked MCRG for its initiative and wished it success in carrying outs its activities in the coming years. The awarding of the certificates followed and the Guest of Honour, Professor Mushirul Hasan, Vice Chancellor of the Jamia Milia Islamia University did the honours in this regard.Addressing the gathering, Anna-Kaisa Heikkinen from the Embassy of Finland in India spoke of why the government of Finland and the embassy supported MCRG. She said that amongst the many NGOs in India, MCRG was noted for its expertise and pledged that the support of government of Finland would continue for it. She appreciated the CRG for developing into a centre of excellence in short time.
The valedictory address for the evening was delivered by David Newman, Professor of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben Gurion University, Israel. His address was titled ‘Open Borders-Closed Borders- The impact of 9/11 on the Migration Process’. Emphasising on the fact that borders create order, Dr Newman spoke of the role of borders in preventing and enabling people from one country to another, globalisation discourse; borderless world and its impact on migration as well as the roles of the border & discourse of 9/11; whether the closing of borders will create further problems.
Below we present a summary of his valedictory lecture.
During the past decade there has been a renaissance in the study of borders and their contemporary significance in a changing geopolitical environment. The globalization discourse of the late 1980's and early 1990's posited a deterritorialized and borderless world, assuming that the structural impacts of globalization, such as the cyber movement of information and global capital, had made borders insignificant for the ordering of political affairs. Much of the renaissant border discourse focused on the fact that borders had not disappeared, although the functional nature of borders had undergone change, in many cases becoming more permeable and porous than in the past. Moreover, while State borders were less powerful barriers than in the past, the focus shifted to an understanding of borders at other territorial scales – the local and the micro spaces within we live and function on a daily basis -, as well as the many other types of borders that order our lives, even when these borders are not necessarily geographical, nor are they always visible.
If State borders did become more permeable and easier to cross in the 1980's and 1990's, then the events of 9/11 and the USA declared war against global terror have resulted in the re-closing and, in some cases, even re-sealing, of many inter-State boundaries. Many North American scholars note that during the 1990's, funding for border research came from organizations associated with NAFTA and interested in finding ways of opening borders and making them easier to cross. In the post-9/11 period, funding has switched to organizations and agencies associated with the Department of Homeland Security, who are interested in making borders more rigid and even more difficult to cross. Thus there is a clash of discourse between the globalization and economic discourses that desire to open borders to movement, and the securitization discourse, which desires to make it even more difficult to cross borders.
It almost doesn’t need to be stated that the changing functional status of borders has a major impact on the flow of migration, both free and forced. Not that the opening of borders to economic and information flows, and to labour migration, made it much easier for forced migrants to cross the borders. These groups have always experienced the greatest difficulties at the border, assuming that the majority of them do not have any form of legal documentation or visas which allows them to cross freely from one side to the other. Only in cases of proven persecution have some countries, such as the UK which continues to exercise a fairly rigid immigration policy as contrasted with the rest of the EU, agreed to enable the borders to be crossed and for these groups to take up residence in their new destination. There are however far more documented cases where people fleeing political discrimination, or seeking to improve their economic status – as such forced out of their places of origin by virtue of the fact that they are unable to provide a basic subsistence for their families – where countries of destination refuse entry to these groups.
In the post-9/11 era it is all too easy for countries to associate migration from the third World as somehow being linked to global terror and therefore making it far more difficult for them to move to new places. This ties in with the social and economic policies of far right groups in western countries who are opposed to migration from the Third World in principle, based on their opposition to ethnic mix and also arguing that the migrants are taking away jobs from the domestic population. As such, many western governments now find themselves promoting policies, which, until recently, were advocated by far right groups. Migration and border gatekeepers are ale to justify tough policies if these are implemented in "the name of security".
Borders are therefore an important agent through which migration – of any sort – can be controlled and managed by governments and their public agencies. This does not only happen at the border itself located at the edge of the country, but also at any border crossing point, most notably the international airports where potential migrants are offered refused access to their planes if they do not have the necessary visa and border-crossing documentation. In the case of forced migration, this can create a social and spatial vacuum, where migrants wish to flee the political and economic circumstances of their place of origin, but are unable to reach their desired place of destination. They are unable to go forward and in many cases they are also unable to go back.
In the case of political refugees, it is the border, which may often prevent the migrant group from returning to their place of origin, since they are no longer considered as "desirable" by the political or ethnic elites. This is the case with the Palestinians who are unable to return to Israel, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots who are unable to return to their respective north or south of the Island ever since the Turkish invasion in 1974, or the ethnic refugees throughout the Balkans (Bosnians, Serbs, Kosovans to name but a few) who, once expelled from their homes as part of a domino process of ethnic cleansing, are unable to return to their former homes.
In order to facilitate the movement of migrants, it is important to return to a discourse of open boundaries, enabling easier and more flexible border crossings on the part of groups who are unable to remain in their places of origin. For this to happen, the post-9/11 securitization discourse, which has become so prominent in the past five years, must not be allowed to collectively earmark all potential migrant groups as sources of threat. While we would be naïve to completely discard the acts of violence which have taken place during the past few years and which, in part, are enabled through easier movement of dangerous elements, this must not be allowed to constitute an excuse for refusing exit or entry to groups of migrants who have no alternative but to seek new places of residence, either because they are physically threatened in their places of origin, or because they are seeking to create better social and economic conditions for their families and loved ones.
The Course had an inbuilt evaluation system. Participants submitted their filled in evaluation forms relating to various aspects of the course. Similarly, faculty members gave their views in writing. The final evaluation was held on 14 December and was chaired by Ranabir Samaddar. Paula Banerjee explained the perspective of evaluation, namely providing a platform for study, training, capacity building, and pooling of resources in displacement studies etc. On the basis of evaluation notes of the participants and the members of the faculty, following salient points have emerged.
Course Structure
The idea of such a course has been exciting to all participants and faculty – Both felt that the course had been intensive as well as comprehensive.
Reading Material
Almost all participants appreciated that they received the reading material in time. It was felt that the reading material would be further useful for research, training, and reporting for media. There was a suggestion that further reading material from the resource persons should be made available on the web. According to one view point those who opted for country specific assignment there was not much material on Sri Lanka.
Assignments
All the participants pointed out that they faced no difficulty whatsoever in getting the material in time. It was proposed that more case studies should be included on the topics that would be covered. There was a suggestion that participants should be requested to do assignments on all modules.
The overall response of the participants to the creative assignment can be summed up in one word i.e. excellent. There were suggestions that the creative assignment can also be done in-group. Creative assignment should be assigned at the beginning of the distance education segment and the products of creative assignment should be utilized.
Field trip
The field trip was organised for the participants of the winter course to give them a practical experience of meeting the refugees and interacting with them, which will give a better understanding of the situation on the life of refugees. The overall impression of the participants about the field trip was very positive. The participants felt that the field trip was informative and a good break from the heavy study programme. However a majority of them felt that information given was not enough and they did not receive any prior information with regard to the place they were supposed to visit. Few of the participants’ felt that the field trip would have been more beneficial if one had a chance to interview some of the Tibetan refugees with some questionnaire, which would help to take a glimpse of various aspects of life. It was also felt in addition to going for a long distance field visit (which helps to develop a strong cohesion) it would have also been interesting to divide the group into sub groups and make a visit to the migrants, IDPs and refugees in Kolkata in the evenings & request the groups to present the condition of the forced migrants to class. The field report could also be considered for publication. According to one viewpoint field visit of such short duration is not enough to understand the problem of refugees.
Participatory Sessions
Participatory sessions have been well received by and large, with a majority of participants finding them extremely well organised, thought provoking, informative and interesting. It was also felt that organising the participatory sessions away from the normal manner of seminar room was a good idea. Most of the participants felt that the participatory sessions were relevant to their respective modules and generated good discussion. It allowed the participants to visit the other prominent institutions in Kolkata. However it was pointed out by some participants that it would have been much better had they been given information about the sessions at the time of the commencement of the distance education programme. The participants also pointed out that mixing up the experts with the participants in the panel discussions did not work well since the participants rather wanted to listen to the discussion. Besides it was also felt that the IDP issues have been over emphasised. Other aspects of international & national protection offered for example to refugees have been neglected. It was also pointed out that a map of South Asia would have been useful in the classroom.
Film Sessions
The participants’ felt that the film session broke the monotony of listening to the daily lectures and made the programme more interesting. It was more so since the resource person was both knowledgeable & thorough in his area. According to one viewpoint the film session helped to understand the linkage between media and displacement. But it was also pointed out that the film sessions would have been better if it was followed by a discussion and more recent films should have been shown.
Follow up
A few interesting suggestions have been made by participants in this regard. It has been proposed that an advanced course on forced migration could be organised in future. The participants would like to be informed about future lectures, workshops & research projects organised by the CRG, so that the interested alumni could participate and contribute.
Core Strength Areas
1. Course Structure
2. Comprehensive syllabus covering all aspects of Forced Migration
3. Strong emphasis on South Asia
4. Diverse background of the participants
5. Excellent resource persons
Problems
1. Email correspondence quality not satisfactory
2. More time needed in distance education
3. Inadequate attention on the linkages between displacement, racism, discrimination
4. More emphasis on gender required
5. There has been excessive emphasis on internal displacement
6. More access to Computer and Library needed
7. Library hours should be extended
8. Discussion on methodology needed
Participants’ Evaluation
Reading Material
|
Delivery on time |
Yes |
No |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
18 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
|
General relevance and usefulness |
All useful |
Part useful |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
17 |
1 |
0 |
18 |
|
Relevance vis-à-vis assignments |
Yes |
No |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
15 |
3 |
0 |
18 |
|
Its usefulness / relevance in future work |
Yes |
No |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
18 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
Assignments
|
Instructions for completion |
Difficult |
Not difficult |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
3 |
15 |
0 |
18 |
|
Tutors Comments |
Received on all assignments |
Not received on all assignments |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
17 |
1 |
0 |
18 |
|
Tutors Comments |
Helpful |
Not helpful |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
17 |
1 |
0 |
18 |
Field Visit
|
Proper information |
Yes |
No |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
3 |
15 |
0 |
18 |
|
Relevance vis-à-vis course |
Yes |
No |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
18 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
Participatory Sessions
|
Quality |
Good |
Average |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
15 |
2 |
1 |
18 |
|
Adequately prepared |
Yes |
Not for all |
No |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
9 |
3 |
6 |
18 |
Film Sessions
|
Quality |
Good |
Bad |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
13 |
0 |
5 |
18 |
General
|
Regularity with Website |
Regular |
Not regular |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
10 |
8 |
0 |
18 |
Arrangements
|
Accommodation Arrangement |
Good |
Bad |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
18 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
|
Food Arrangement |
Good |
Bad |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
18 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
|
Classroom Arrangement |
Good |
Bad |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
18 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
|
Would Like to receive CRG publications |
Yes |
No |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Participants |
18 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
External Faculty Member’s Evaluation
Module & Course Design
|
Module & course design |
Good |
Bad |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Faculty Members |
7 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
Participants
|
Nature of the participants’ & discussions with them during study sessions & workshops |
Lively & Active |
Passive |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Faculty Members |
7 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
Arrangements
|
Food Arrangement |
Good |
Average |
Bad |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Faculty Members |
6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
|
Classroom Arrangement |
Good |
Average |
Bad |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. Of Faculty Members |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
|
Any Other suggestions |
Everything fine |
Some problems |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. Of Faculty Members |
3 |
0 |
4 |
7 |
|
Would like to receive CRG publications |
Yes |
No |
No Comments |
Total |
|
No. of Faculty Members |
7 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
1. Itty Abraham
2. Carol Batchelor
3. Sanjay Chaturvedi
4. B.S. Chimni
5. Roberta Cohen
6. Asha Hans
7. Anna-Kaisa Heikkinen
8. Monirul Hussain
17. CRG Team on Forced Migration
1. Paula Banerjee
2. Krishna Banerjee
3. Pradip Bose
4. Subhas Chakraborty
5. Ratan Chakraborty
6. M. Chatterjee
7. Shreyashi Chaudhuri
8. Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury
9. Samir Kumar Das
10. Ashok Kumar Giri
11. Madhuresh Kumar
12. Raj Kumar Mahato
13. Ayan Mukherjee
14. Ranabir Samaddar