regimes that are case specific and often lacks legal accountability. K.M. Parivelan moderated this session. 
One of the basic emphases of the roundtable was that there is no international organization for internally displaced persons, no legally binding framework on internally displaced persons other than UN Guiding Principles. If internally displaced persons want to cross borders they should not be discouraged. “Protection” is a legal responsibility. UNHCR believes in “protection” mechanisms. While international protection mechanisms should be strengthened; at the same time community participation should be encouraged. Political commitment to resolve IDP problem is a must. Lack of political will leaves a chasm instead of resolving the IDP problem especially in cases of conflict-induced displacement. In cases of conflict induced displacement the role of the state is crucial in devising effective legislation, policy planning and capacity building. The state should try to resolve the conflict through negotiation with non-state entities.
The role of National Human Rights Commission in India to protect the rights of the people has been significant especially in the case of the Chakma refugees in Arunachal Pradesh. In 1995, the National Human Rights Commission of India took up the case of some 65,000 Chakma refugees in Arunachal Pradesh with the Supreme Court. In this case Supreme Court had upheld that the state is bound to protect the life of every human being. The safeguard of human dignity, his life and livelihood was upheld in this case by a postcolonial state which has not signed any international legal instruments on refugee protection.  This gesture only talks of the Indian state as having ad hoc policies and steps as far as refugee protection is concerned.  While the definition of a “refugee” is based on “fear” of persecution; state practice varies widely on the application of the terms “persecution”. One of the main problematics that underlie this kind of understanding is whether 

the fear of persecution is limited only to state actors or non-state actors. As an example it was argued whether the teenage girls in Africa where genital mutiliation is widespread would be considered as a particular social group worthy of refugee protection. 
All the three panelists argued that the society plays a very important role in monitoring how the national and international protection regimes are implemented.  Protection regimes have argued for “right to return” as one possible solution. In this context, voluntary repatriation and resettlement in third countries are suggested. The main question that continues the international community is whether the refugees have benefited from this kind of arrangement. The discussion ended with a note on possible ways of local integration, burden sharing and respecting right to life as some of the emerging themes that the protection regimes should focus on.

Discussion On The Method and Findings of The CRG Report, “Voices of The IDPs in South Asia” (7 December 2007) 

In this discussion, Ranabir Samaddar presented a brief outline of the IDP voices report, background and methodology of the study. Manas Ray and Manabi Majumdar discussed the report findings in detail. Pradip Kumar Bose moderated this session. 
Ranabir Samaddar presented a brief background of the IDP Voices Report. Walter Kalin, a noted Swiss legal scholar and Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the internally displaced persons in his several enquiries identified the need to document the lives of internally displaced persons in Central Asia, South and various other areas. CRG took up the project in collaboration with other institutions and noted researchers to document the voices of IDPs in South Asia. Special attention was given so that qualitative and quantitative