<p>A recent report, published by The Guardian, stated that as per the UK government's Rwanda-style plans, Lankan refugees seeking shelter from the British-controlled Chagos Islands risk being forcibly deported to a third country.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The report mentioned that the government lawyers have informed asylum seekers that they will be deported to an undisclosed nation, in case they cannot be sent back to Sri Lanka.&nbsp;</p>

<p>According to sources at the Foreign Office, ministers are considering potential agreements with "third nations" willing to take the refugees, with Rwanda being one option. At least 120 Sri Lankans are believed to be housed in Diego Garcia, an island in the Chagos Archipelago.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-politics-former-finance-minister-rishi-sunak-formally-announced-candidacy-to-be-pm-527749">UK politics: Rishi Sunak formally announces candidacy for PM, says ‘want to fix economy’</a>&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>Mauritius and the UK disagree on who has sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The United Nations ruled belonged to Mauritius and ruled it should be handed back to Mauritius.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The UK should permit Sri Lankans to move there, according to those who represent their interests.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Global Tamil Forum, an independent advocacy organisation that adheres to the principles of democracy and non-violence, said that it will not get involved in the ongoing controversy. The organisation works in solidarity with Tamil-speaking people in Sri Lanka and other communities in Sri Lanka.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/salman-rushdie-attack-the-satanic-verses-author-lost-sight-in-one-eye-and-use-of-one-hand-527827">Salman Rushdie attack: 'The Satanic Verses' author has lost sight in an eye, use of one hand</a>&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>Media outlet The Island sought the GTF's response to the British action of refusing asylum in UK. It asked whether the issue at hand would be raised at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).&nbsp;</p>

<p>Responding to this the GTF spokesperson, Suren Surendiran, said, "The GTF, as an organisation that functions internationally and not specifically in a specific country as such, doesn't usually get involved in country-specific matters, outside of Sri Lanka."</p>

<p>"The GTF is predominantly an international advocacy organization. There are various country-specific Tamil organizations. There are also Tamil institutions/organizations, including legal firms, acting and lobbying on immigration policies in the UK and in various other countries," Surendiran added.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


A recent report, published by The Guardian, stated that as per the UK government's Rwanda-style plans, Lankan refugees seeking shelter from the British-controlled Chagos Islands risk being forcibly deported to a third country.

A recent report, published by The Guardian, stated that as per the UK government's Rwanda-style plans, Lankan refugees seeking shelter from the British-controlled Chagos Islands risk being forcibly deported to a third country. The report mentioned that the government lawyers have informed asylum seekers that they will be deported to an undisclosed nation, in case they cannot be sent back to Sri Lanka. According to sources at the Foreign Office, ministers are considering potential agreements with "third nations" willing to take the refugees, with Rwanda being one option. At least 120 Sri Lankans are believed to be housed in Diego Garcia, an island in the Chagos Archipelago. ALSO READ | UK politics: Rishi Sunak formally announces candidacy for PM, says ‘want to fix economy’ Mauritius and the UK disagree on who has sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The United Nations ruled belonged to Mauritius and ruled it should be handed back to Mauritius. The UK should permit Sri Lankans to move there, according to those who represent their interests. The Global Tamil Forum, an independent advocacy organisation that adheres to the principles of democracy and non-violence, said that it will not get involved in the ongoing controversy. The organisation works in solidarity with Tamil-speaking people in Sri Lanka and other communities in Sri Lanka. ALSO READ | Salman Rushdie attack: 'The Satanic Verses' author has lost sight in an eye, use of one hand Media outlet The Island sought the GTF's response to the British action of refusing asylum in UK. It asked whether the issue at hand would be raised at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Responding to this the GTF spokesperson, Suren Surendiran, said, "The GTF, as an organisation that functions internationally and not specifically in a specific country as such, doesn't usually get involved in country-specific matters, outside of Sri Lanka." "The GTF is predominantly an international advocacy organization. There are various country-specific Tamil organizations. There are also Tamil institutions/organizations, including legal firms, acting and lobbying on immigration policies in the UK and in various other countries," Surendiran added. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

UK's Rwanda-style plans to deport Lankan refugees to 'third country': Report

<p>A group of lawyers have accused the UK government of coercing the Sri Lankan-Tamil refugees to leave the British-controlled Diego Garcia territory in the Indian Ocean.</p>

<p>A UK law firm, Leigh Day, which represents 81 refugees, said that the government broke international laws and the UK Children Act by allowing them to leave the Indian Ocean island by not ensuring that their boats, which also carried children, are seaworthy and safe.</p>

<p>A group of 89 Sri Lankans, including 20 children, landed in Diego Garcia after their boat was intercepted by the British military while apparently headed to Canada from India last October.</p>

<p>According to lawyers, they were kept in a tented compound devoid of basic facilities which forced them to leave Diego Garcia—part of the Chagos Islands, which a UN court has ruled were unlawfully detached from Mauritius by the UK when it granted Mauritius independence in 1968.</p>

<p>The UK calls the island British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and continues to claim sovereignty&nbsp;</p>

<p>In the legal letters to the government, they said that due to the appalling conditions, they were forced to leave the island.</p>

<p>While one boat carrying 46 people ended up on the French territory of Réunion&nbsp;after three weeks at sea, another carrying 35 people, including an 18-month-old child, was escorted back to Diego Garcia due to a failed engine.</p>

<p>But it was later allowed to leave again on Sunday without checking adequate life safety equipment, they said in the letter, reports the Guardian.</p>

<p>“If the UK and BIOT authorities facilitated the departure of vessels on to the open sea without tracking systems and adequate life safety equipment, that is an appalling dereliction of duty that risks life and limb of the adults and children aboard,” Tessa Gregory, a Leigh Day partner, was quoted as saying.</p>

<p>“We are extremely concerned that the boat which left last Sunday may again founder, and have asked the UK and BIOT authorities to confirm what measures are in place to ensure that the vessel is monitored so that immediate rescue can be carried out if required, but to date have had no response.”</p>

<p>Responding to the allegation, a government spokesperson told Guardian, “We have been working tirelessly to find a long-term solution for the migrants on Diego Garcia. At all times their welfare and safety have been our top priority.</p>

<p>“The migrants on BIOT are not detained and are free to leave at any time. Those who have departed so far have done so voluntarily and independently. The BIOT administration facilitated sea trials to ensure that vessels were seaworthy.”</p>

<p>(With inputs from agencies)</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE: </strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


A group of lawyers have accused the UK government of coercing the Sri Lankan-Tamil refugees to leave the British-controlled Diego Garcia territory in the Indian Ocean.

A group of lawyers have accused the UK government of coercing the Sri Lankan-Tamil refugees to leave the British-controlled Diego Garcia territory in the Indian Ocean. A UK law firm, Leigh Day, which represents 81 refugees, said that the government broke international laws and the UK Children Act by allowing them to leave the Indian Ocean island by not ensuring that their boats, which also carried children, are seaworthy and safe. A group of 89 Sri Lankans, including 20 children, landed in Diego Garcia after their boat was intercepted by the British military while apparently headed to Canada from India last October. According to lawyers, they were kept in a tented compound devoid of basic facilities which forced them to leave Diego Garcia—part of the Chagos Islands, which a UN court has ruled were unlawfully detached from Mauritius by the UK when it granted Mauritius independence in 1968. The UK calls the island British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and continues to claim sovereignty In the legal letters to the government, they said that due to the appalling conditions, they were forced to leave the island. While one boat carrying 46 people ended up on the French territory of Réunion after three weeks at sea, another carrying 35 people, including an 18-month-old child, was escorted back to Diego Garcia due to a failed engine. But it was later allowed to leave again on Sunday without checking adequate life safety equipment, they said in the letter, reports the Guardian. “If the UK and BIOT authorities facilitated the departure of vessels on to the open sea without tracking systems and adequate life safety equipment, that is an appalling dereliction of duty that risks life and limb of the adults and children aboard,” Tessa Gregory, a Leigh Day partner, was quoted as saying. “We are extremely concerned that the boat which left last Sunday may again founder, and have asked the UK and BIOT authorities to confirm what measures are in place to ensure that the vessel is monitored so that immediate rescue can be carried out if required, but to date have had no response.” Responding to the allegation, a government spokesperson told Guardian, “We have been working tirelessly to find a long-term solution for the migrants on Diego Garcia. At all times their welfare and safety have been our top priority. “The migrants on BIOT are not detained and are free to leave at any time. Those who have departed so far have done so voluntarily and independently. The BIOT administration facilitated sea trials to ensure that vessels were seaworthy.” (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Lawyers accuse UK govt of letting Tamil refugees leave in boats without safety procedure in Indian Ocean

<p>The Indian government has recently introduced the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016. The Bill proposes that illegal immigrants in India belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan would be entitled to Indian citizenship after six years of residence even if they have no valid papers or passport.</p>

<p>Lawmakers have maintained that this move to grant Indian citizenship to the above categories of persons from neighbouring countries is based on &lsquo;humanitarian grounds&rsquo;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Bill, however, ends up raising more questions than it seeks to address, including raising doubts on the government&rsquo;s actual humanitarian concern and also the impact of such a move.&nbsp;</p>

<p><b><i>First</i></b>, the most notable criticism of the Bill is that in this entire scheme, Muslims are conspicuous by their absence. In short, Muslim migrants would not be entitled to the benefit of such a law if it were to be passed.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Muslim migrants would not be entitled to the benefit of such a law if it were to be passed</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Muslim migrants would not be entitled to the benefit of such a law if it were to be passed" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Bill is seen by many as a consequence of the BJP&rsquo;s election promise in 2014 to grant citizenship to Hindus from Muslim majority countries. During its campaign, BJP had declared India to be a natural home for persecuted Hindus and said that it has a responsibility towards Hindus who are harassed in other countries. However, it was not mentioned at that time that no such responsibility would be taken for Muslims who are faced with similar circumstances.&nbsp;</p>

<p>If the government was moved only by humanitarian concern towards victims of religious persecution and displacement, it could not afford to exclude approximately 36,000 Rohingya Muslims who were forced to flee Myanmar due to the 2015 insurgency and are currently living in different parts of India and praying for asylum ever since.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Bill also conveniently overlooks the plight of Muslim sects like Shias and Ahmediyas who face persecution in Sunni-dominated Pakistan.</p>

<p><b><i>Second</i></b>, even keeping the visible exclusion of Muslims aside, the claims about humanitarian concerns further seem inconsistent due to other reasons. Neighbouring Sri Lanka, where Tamils have faced a history of persecution has been excluded from the ambit, raising a question whether it was thought that such inclusion would be more suited to the interests of regional political parties, such as the AIADMK and the DMK than BJP. Also questionable is the move to exclude migrants from countries like China, prompting the critics to ask whether the government has decided to adopt a safer foreign policy of not wanting to openly label China as an aggressor or burning any further bridges with them.</p>

<p><b><i>Third</i></b>, the Bill has been widely criticised on the ground that it fails to take into confidence or address concerns of indigenous people and their decades-long movement against illegal migrants. The prime case in point is Assam, which is already suffering from a high influx of migrants from Bangladesh. According to the Assam Accord, 1985, anyone entering India after 25<sup>th</sup> March, 1971, is an illegal citizen, irrespective of their religion.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Bill fails to take into confidence or address concerns of indigenous people and their decades long movement against illegal migrants</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Bill fails to take into confidence or address concerns of indigenous people and their decades long movement against illegal migrants" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Bill has neither tried to assuage the apprehensions of all the stakeholders nor has it made adequate provisions to avoid conflict with the Assam Accord. This move of the government also comes at a time when, based on the Assam Accord and upon the intervention of the Supreme Court of India, the Government of Assam is updating the National Register for Citizens to include people permanently residing in the state till 24<sup>th</sup> March, 1971 and to only treat such persons as citizens of the country.</p>

<p>Several Assamese organisations are protesting against this Bill due to the fear of exodus of religious minorities from Bangladesh amid rising attacks on them by militants as it may further complicate the already vulnerable demographic of Assam.</p>

<p><b><i>Fourth</i></b>, it is suggested by various quarters that even if the government decides to give shelter to victims of religious persecution from neighbouring countries on humanitarian ground, they should be only given &lsquo;Refugee&rsquo; status as per international law and not that of a &lsquo;Migrant&rsquo;.</p>

<p>&nbsp;The Bill seems to confuse &lsquo;Refugees&rsquo; with &lsquo;Migrants&rsquo; and overlooks this important distinction by terming religious minority people as migrants, when they would in fact be refugees.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Bill seems to confuse &lsquo;Refugees&rsquo; with &lsquo;Migrants&rsquo; and overlooks this important distinction by terming religious minority people as migrants, when they would in fact be refugees.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Bill seems to confuse ?Refugees? with ?Migrants? and overlooks this important distinction by terming religious minority people as migrants, when they would in fact be refugees.?" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&lsquo;Migration&rsquo; means voluntary movement of people, usually for seeking better economic prospects. On the other hand, &lsquo;refuge&rsquo; is an involuntary act of forced movement, compelled by preservation of human rights and safety and not to gain any economic advantage. Using the correct terminology in the Bill is important as the laws and policies, especially under international law for migrants and refugees are entirely different.</p>

<p>Shelter to individuals of&nbsp;a select religion, however, by excluding others defeats the intention and rationality of international refugee laws.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Bill also plays foul with our own long-standing refugee policy. Even though India does not have a codified refugee policy, during the Tibetan refugee crisis, one of the main conditions was that refugees would have to return to their homeland once normalcy prevailed. In a direct contradiction, the proposed amendment not only provides citizenship rights to such refugees, but vastly relaxes the procedure to avail of such citizenship.</p>

<p>The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Bill maintains a studied silence on all the above issues. The Bill most importantly fails to explain why the Muslim community is being singled out in an apparent violation of Article 14 &ndash; Right to Equality &ndash; of the constitution. It was only after the Bill came under heavy criticism from opposition parties for being &lsquo;biased&rsquo; against one specific religion that it was sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further examination.</p>

<p>The unfortunate trend that emerges is that be it any party in power, the citizenship laws have always been used by ruling governments to appease and consolidate their own respective vote banks.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Citizenship laws have always been used by ruling Governments to appease and consolidate their own respective vote banks</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Citizenship laws have always been used by ruling Governments to appease and consolidate their own respective vote banks" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Earlier, the Congress government was forced to negotiate the Assam Accord, affecting primarily Muslims who, as a result stood debarred from obtaining Indian citizenship even after many years of residence. This in turn led to the electoral victory of Asom Gana Parishad.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In order to dilute the effect of the Assam Accord, the Congress enacted the Illegal Migrant (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983, which provided for the detection and expulsion of illegal immigrants from Assam &ndash; all of them Bangladeshi Muslims. However, in an exercise in appeasement, it was ensured that the procedure provided in the Act and the implementation thereof was such that the expulsions were virtually negligible.&nbsp;</p>

<p>While favouring one community for electoral gains is bad enough, excluding the community altogether is even worse and severely undermines the otherwise secular socio-legal framework of our nation. It is a move that violates the policy of pluralism and co-existence on which the Indian polity is based.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court of India has stated on more than one occasion that secularism forms the basic structure of our constitution and cannot be done away with. The Bill may tend to do just the opposite.</p>

<p>Also, such a selective law based purely on religious identities sends out the wrong message of hostile, unreceptive nationalism, which considers itself to be under siege from other communities.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Such a selective law based purely on religious identities sends out the wrong message of hostile, unreceptive nationalism, which considers itself to be under siege from other communities.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Such a selective law based purely on religious identities sends out the wrong message of hostile, unreceptive nationalism, which considers itself to be under siege from other communities.?" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Therefore, the Bill may have a polarising effect and would further increase the trust deficit between the ruling government and the muslim community, something which a mature, participative and inclusive democracy can ill afford.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It is therefore hoped that the government would, rather than hastening with the Bill and taking a myopic view of things, agree to take into account the views of all those who are affected by the passage of the Bill and sufficiently answer their apprehensions.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill raises doubts on the government?s actual humanitarian concern

The Indian government has recently introduced the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016. The Bill proposes that illegal immigrants in India belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan would be entitled to Indian citizenship after six years of residence even if they have no valid papers or passport. Lawmakers have maintained that this move to grant Indian citizenship to the above categories of persons from neighbouring countries is based on ‘humanitarian grounds’. The Bill, however, ends up raising more questions than it seeks to address, including raising doubts on the government’s actual humanitarian concern and also the impact of such a move. First, the most notable criticism of the Bill is that in this entire scheme, Muslims are conspicuous by their absence. In short, Muslim migrants would not be entitled to the benefit of such a law if it were to be passed. Muslim migrants would not be entitled to the benefit of such a law if it were to be passed × The Bill is seen by many as a consequence of the BJP’s election promise in 2014 to grant citizenship to Hindus from Muslim majority countries. During its campaign, BJP had declared India to be a natural home for persecuted Hindus and said that it has a responsibility towards Hindus who are harassed in other countries. However, it was not mentioned at that time that no such responsibility would be taken for Muslims who are faced with similar circumstances. If the government was moved only by humanitarian concern towards victims of religious persecution and displacement, it could not afford to exclude approximately 36,000 Rohingya Muslims who were forced to flee Myanmar due to the 2015 insurgency and are currently living in different parts of India and praying for asylum ever since. The Bill also conveniently overlooks the plight of Muslim sects like Shias and Ahmediyas who face persecution in Sunni-dominated Pakistan. Second, even keeping the visible exclusion of Muslims aside, the claims about humanitarian concerns further seem inconsistent due to other reasons. Neighbouring Sri Lanka, where Tamils have faced a history of persecution has been excluded from the ambit, raising a question whether it was thought that such inclusion would be more suited to the interests of regional political parties, such as the AIADMK and the DMK than BJP. Also questionable is the move to exclude migrants from countries like China, prompting the critics to ask whether the government has decided to adopt a safer foreign policy of not wanting to openly label China as an aggressor or burning any further bridges with them. Third, the Bill has been widely criticised on the ground that it fails to take into confidence or address concerns of indigenous people and their decades-long movement against illegal migrants. The prime case in point is Assam, which is already suffering from a high influx of migrants from Bangladesh. According to the Assam Accord, 1985, anyone entering India after 25th March, 1971, is an illegal citizen, irrespective of their religion. The Bill fails to take into confidence or address concerns of indigenous people and their decades long movement against illegal migrants × The Bill has neither tried to assuage the apprehensions of all the stakeholders nor has it made adequate provisions to avoid conflict with the Assam Accord. This move of the government also comes at a time when, based on the Assam Accord and upon the intervention of the Supreme Court of India, the Government of Assam is updating the National Register for Citizens to include people permanently residing in the state till 24th March, 1971 and to only treat such persons as citizens of the country. Several Assamese organisations are protesting against this Bill due to the fear of exodus of religious minorities from Bangladesh amid rising attacks on them by militants as it may further complicate the already vulnerable demographic of Assam. Fourth, it is suggested by various quarters that even if the government decides to give shelter to victims of religious persecution from neighbouring countries on humanitarian ground, they should be only given ‘Refugee’ status as per international law and not that of a ‘Migrant’. The Bill seems to confuse ‘Refugees’ with ‘Migrants’ and overlooks this important distinction by terming religious minority people as migrants, when they would in fact be refugees. The Bill seems to confuse ‘Refugees’ with ‘Migrants’ and overlooks this important distinction by terming religious minority people as migrants, when they would in fact be refugees. × ‘Migration’ means voluntary movement of people, usually for seeking better economic prospects. On the other hand, ‘refuge’ is an involuntary act of forced movement, compelled by preservation of human rights and safety and not to gain any economic advantage. Using the correct terminology in the Bill is important as the laws and policies, especially under international law for migrants and refugees are entirely different. Shelter to individuals of a select religion, however, by excluding others defeats the intention and rationality of international refugee laws. The Bill also plays foul with our own long-standing refugee policy. Even though India does not have a codified refugee policy, during the Tibetan refugee crisis, one of the main conditions was that refugees would have to return to their homeland once normalcy prevailed. In a direct contradiction, the proposed amendment not only provides citizenship rights to such refugees, but vastly relaxes the procedure to avail of such citizenship. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Bill maintains a studied silence on all the above issues. The Bill most importantly fails to explain why the Muslim community is being singled out in an apparent violation of Article 14 – Right to Equality – of the constitution. It was only after the Bill came under heavy criticism from opposition parties for being ‘biased’ against one specific religion that it was sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further examination. The unfortunate trend that emerges is that be it any party in power, the citizenship laws have always been used by ruling governments to appease and consolidate their own respective vote banks. The Citizenship laws have always been used by ruling Governments to appease and consolidate their own respective vote banks × Earlier, the Congress government was forced to negotiate the Assam Accord, affecting primarily Muslims who, as a result stood debarred from obtaining Indian citizenship even after many years of residence. This in turn led to the electoral victory of Asom Gana Parishad. In order to dilute the effect of the Assam Accord, the Congress enacted the Illegal Migrant (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983, which provided for the detection and expulsion of illegal immigrants from Assam – all of them Bangladeshi Muslims. However, in an exercise in appeasement, it was ensured that the procedure provided in the Act and the implementation thereof was such that the expulsions were virtually negligible. While favouring one community for electoral gains is bad enough, excluding the community altogether is even worse and severely undermines the otherwise secular socio-legal framework of our nation. It is a move that violates the policy of pluralism and co-existence on which the Indian polity is based. The Supreme Court of India has stated on more than one occasion that secularism forms the basic structure of our constitution and cannot be done away with. The Bill may tend to do just the opposite. Also, such a selective law based purely on religious identities sends out the wrong message of hostile, unreceptive nationalism, which considers itself to be under siege from other communities. Such a selective law based purely on religious identities sends out the wrong message of hostile, unreceptive nationalism, which considers itself to be under siege from other communities. × Therefore, the Bill may have a polarising effect and would further increase the trust deficit between the ruling government and the muslim community, something which a mature, participative and inclusive democracy can ill afford. It is therefore hoped that the government would, rather than hastening with the Bill and taking a myopic view of things, agree to take into account the views of all those who are affected by the passage of the Bill and sufficiently answer their apprehensions.

Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: The politics of humanity

tamil-refugees

Tamil Refugees, News on Tamil Refugees, stories on Tamil Refugees, articles on Tamil Refugees, Tamil Refugees stories at Wion, Tamil Refugees news, Tamil Refugees latest news

tamil refugees

UK's Rwanda-style plans to deport Lankan refugees to 'third country': Report

Lawyers accuse UK govt of letting Tamil refugees leave in boats without safety procedure in Indian Ocean

Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: The politics of humanity