India must no longer shy away from a refugee policy

This article was written with the intention of being published under a think tank. Until that happens, this will be here for everyone’s perusal.

NITI Aayog has gotten praise from politicians, intellectuals, and bureaucrats for its national migrant labour policy draft. The draft came on the backdrop of India’s covid-19 migrant labour crises which saw almost 10 million migrants attempting to return home as a result of the covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns. Migration policies in India have seen their fair share of growth i.e. from the Inter-State Migrant Workers Act 1979, then the Report of the Working Group on Migration, released in January 2017, and now the draft policy. On the other hand, India is still following an age-old policy, The Foreigners Act, 1946 for ‘foreigners’ in India. Of course, India has accepted refugees in the past from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan from events such as the 1971 Bangaladesh genocide, the Sri Lanka civil war of 2009, etc. But India is neither a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention or the 1967 Protocol, nor does India have a refugee policy of its own. This has allowed India to choose whom they brand as refugees, illegal migrants, asylum seekers based on the circumstances, prone to biased and ad-hoc reactions. For example, India terming Rohingya refugees as illegal and pledging to send them back to Myanmar is going against the principle of “non-refoulement”, a pledge wherein host countries will not return refugees to their country where they would be at risk. In March 2021, more than 700 citizens from Myanmar, fleeing the army crackdown following the coup came to India, particularly to Mizoram. The centre reacted to this by manning the borders with Assam riffles, denying any other migrants to find a haven which was heavily criticized. The closest India came to a refugee law is the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) strikingly excludes Muslims from its purview and accept illegal migrants who are Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist, and Christian from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, and who entered India before 2014, following the religious persecutions. The policy was widely termed as discriminatory based on religion and was met with nationwide protests. Moreover, despite acknowledging the labour crisis, the budgetary allocation for Relief and Rehabilitation for migrants and repatriates was just at ₹241 crores in the union budget of 2021; This was a significant dip compared to 2020’s ₹258 crosses and 2019’s ₹730 crores. While Non-Government Organizations have done their fair share in support of local rehabilitation of migrants and refugees, it is only the government that can allocate efficient funds along with political measures to ensure a sustainable living, systematic and safe return to their homeland. That argument isn’t for India to take in additional refugees but a need to have a set policy. Climate crises such as droughts, erosions, landfalls, changes in temperature, etc could easily ruin the local environment to an extent it is no more inhabitable. This would result in a major, unforeseen (but truly foreseen) environmental migration and if India does not have a policy in place, there is no saying as to how the future government will handle that circumstance i.e. in a humanitarian way or not. Additionally, growing dissent among nations, unstable political environments, will also give rise to migrants coming to India bypassing its vulnerable and inadequately regulated coastline. When drafting their refugee policy, the government must bifurcate between refugees, migrants, etc. Post segregation, considering other factors to be constant, the procedure set will help the foreigners to gain temporary citizenship, employment, education, etc. This database will also help the government monitor the refugees and keep them updated on important matters like court dates, migration procedures, etc. Of course, accepting refugees would also mean providing them with the necessities of life i.e. food, clothing, shelter, etc. The central government could partner with prominent NGOs for delivering clothes and food. For shelter, the government has several options; it can continue to place them in refugee camps but have to make sure amenities are provided and the migrants are not alienated. It could also integrate them with society or build up a new affordable housing community with the help of 3D housing manufactures like the real estate firm Palari Group and construction technology company Mighty Buildings’announcement of a $15m development 3D-printed net-zero-energy homes in Rancho Mirage, California. It is natural for one to wonder if India were to draft a refugee policy and implement it, who would bear the cost of all? As it is in the case with other refugee settlement cases, the cost of this transition must be borne by the native country from where the refugees are fleeing, by the host country receiving them, and of course, the United Nations. Depending on case to case, a deal must be struck with the aforementioned parties that ensure a sustainable living environment for the displaced people. Additionally, once the strife is over resettlement efforts must be made available for refugees to return to their own country. However, any issue in parties agreeing on a deal must not affect the lives of migrants seeking a safe living situation. The earlier the centre commits to protect refugees with a policy, the earlier they can avoid uncertainties blocking their way.