30-Jan-2023: Chin-Kuki-Mizo communities have sought help from India to end the "policy of extermination"
The Chin-Kuki-Mizo communities have sought help from India to end the "policy of extermination" of Ethnic Minorities in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh. More than 300 people belonging to the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group have taken shelter in Mizoram's Lawngtlai district since November 2022, following an alleged offensive by the Bangladesh army.
Demands of Chin-Kuki-Mizo Group
- The Kuki-Chin tribes of the CHT have been demanding a separate State due to the large-scale influx of non-tribal people into the hills.
- ZORO asked India to declare a ceasefire with the Kuki-Chin National Army (KNA) and stop abusing the rights of the Kuki-Chin people in the CHT.
- The organisation also appealed India to direct the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Border Security Force not to drive away the Kuki-Chin people who are fleeing Bangladesh.
Issues Faced by Chin-Kuki-Mizo Group in Bangladesh
- Constitutional and human rights of the indigenous Kuki-Chin tribes are being violated in the CHT
- The CHT is a 13,000 sq. km hilly and forested area in south-eastern Bangladesh.
- The British gave special constitutional status to the CHT, but the restrictive laws were repealed by 1903 to let the dwellers of the plains infiltrate the areas of the highlanders.
- The CHT was merged with Pakistan in 1947, and all the indigenous tribes began to face discrimination in all aspects of life.
- The government of Bangladesh encroached upon the ancestral land of the indigenous tribes, particularly the Kuki-Chin people, in the name of promoting tourism.
India's Refugee Policy
- India lacks specific legislation to address the problem of refugees.
- India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
- India has a moral tradition for assimilating foreign people and culture.
- The constitution of India also respects the life, liberty, and dignity of human beings.
- The Supreme Court in the National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) held that "while all rights are available to citizens, persons including foreign citizens are entitled to the right to equality and the right to life, among others."
- Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right of non-refoulement.
Status of Refugees in India
- India has accepted various groups of refugees from neighbouring countries since its independence.
- The refugees include Partition refugees, Tibetan refugees, Chakma and Hajong, Bangladeshi refugees, Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, and Rohingya refugees.
Current Legislative Framework to Handle Refugees
- Foreigners Act of 1946 empowers the Central government to detect, detain and deport illegal foreign nationals.
- Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 allows authorities to remove an illegal foreigner by force under Article 258(1) of the Constitution of India.
- Registration of Foreigners Act of 1939 mandates that all foreign nationals (excluding overseas citizens of India) visiting India on a long-term visa (more than 180 days) register themselves with a Registration Officer within 14 days of arriving in India.
- Foreign registration is regulated by the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 and the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992.
28-Jan-2023: Tensions rebuild at Gaza
Gaza militants fire rockets. Israel carries out airstrikes.
Tensions soar after Israeli raid in West Bank after a raid kills 9 Palestinians, mostly militants. This is the Deadliest single raid in over two decades.
Israel and Hamas have fought four wars and several smaller skirmishes since 2007. Tensions were soaring since Israel stepped up raids in West Bank in 2022. Series of Palestinian attacks lead to Israel's increased raids. Nearly 150 Palestinians killed in West Bank and east Jerusalem in 2022 and, it is the deadliest year in those territories since 2004.
17-Aug-2022: Rohingya Illegal foreigners
With respect to news reports in certain sections of the media regarding Rohingya illegal foreigners, it is clarified that Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has not given any directions to provide EWS flats to Rohingya illegal migrants at Bakkarwala in New Delhi. Government of Delhi proposed to shift the Rohingyas to a new location. MHA has directed the Government of Delhi to ensure that the Rohingya illegal foreigners will continue at the present location at Kanchan Kunj, Madanpur Khadar as MHA has already taken up the matter of deportation of illegal foreigners with the concerned country through the Ministry of External Affairs.
Illegal foreigners are to be kept in the Detention Centre till their deportation as per law. The Government of Delhi has not declared the present location as a Detention Centre. They have been directed to do the same immediately.
28-Jul-2021: Issues Related to Rohingya Muslims
Illegal migrants (including Rohingyas) pose a threat to national security. There are reports about some Rohingya migrants indulging in illegal activities.
India signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 14 October 1997. However, India has not ratified the Convention. India acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 10.04.1979.
India has not ratified the UNCAT and therefore, the question of refoulement of Rohingya Muslims does not arise. As per provisions of Article 13 of ICCPR and the Declarations made by India at the time of its accession, even a lawful alien may be expelled in accordance with the applicable laws.
Detention and deportation of illegal migrants after nationality verification is a continuous process. The powers of the Central Government under Section 3 of The Foreigners Act, 1946 to deport illegal foreign nationals and powers under Section 5 of The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 to remove an illegal foreigner by force have also been entrusted under Article 258(1) of the Constitution of India to all the State Governments. Further, under Article 239(1) of the Constitution of India, Administrators of all Union Territories have also been directed to discharge the functions of the Central Government relating to the aforesaid powers.
24-Jan-2020: ICJ ruled on Rohingya crisis
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Myanmar must take effective measures to protect its Rohingya Muslims, including protecting evidence relating to allegations of genocide. It is important to note that these directions are “provisional measures” until the ICJ can finally decide if Myanmar has been committing an ongoing genocide against the Rohingya. The final verdict could take several years.
In November last year, the Republic of the Gambia moved the ICJ against Myanmar over alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Gambia urged the ICJ to direct Myanmar to stop the genocide, ensure that persons committing genocide are punished, and allow the “safe and dignified return of forcibly displaced Rohingya”.
The Gambia and Myanmar are parties to the Genocide Convention that allows a party to move the ICJ for violations. According to Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, “Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute”.
The Gambia also sought six provisional measures against Myanmar including its cooperation with United Nations bodies investigating the Rohingya issue.
Myanmar asked the ICJ to remove the case from its list, citing lack of jurisdiction of the court. Myanmar alleged that the proceedings before the court were instituted by the Gambia, not on its own behalf, but rather as a “proxy” and “on behalf of” the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Gambia is a member of the OIC, which includes 53 Muslim-majority nations. Myanmar cited the Gambia’s reliance on OIC documents to allege genocide and said the Gambia did not point to specific violations of the Genocide Convention.
The court refused to accept Myanmar’s argument and said the fact that the Gambia “may have sought and obtained the support of other States or international organizations in its endeavour” does not take away from its right to bring a case against Myanmar.
Although a ruling against Myanmar dents its image internationally, the order of provisional measures does not translate into a finding against Myanmar. While granting provisional measures, the court is not required to ascertain whether Myanmar violated the Genocide Convention. The court found that it is sufficient at this stage “to establish prima facie the existence of a dispute between the Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the Genocide Convention”.
Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s personal appearance before the ICJ to lead the defence of the military, however, shows the great stakes her country had in the case. In her 30-minute speech, she said the military’s action against certain local armed groups was an ‘internal conflict’; she did not use the term Rohingya to define the ethnic minority.
For its part, Myanmar has denied that its military or paramilitary has participated in a genocide of Rohingya and it is unlikely to alter its position.
Provisional measures are essentially a restraining order against a state when a case is pending and can be seen as, at most, a censure. Provisional orders cannot be challenged and are binding upon the state. However, limitations in enforcing decisions of the ICJ are widely acknowledged by law experts.
As per Article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations, all member states are required to comply with decisions of the ICJ. However, any action by a state can be secured only through consent of the state in international law.
When a state fails to comply, the Security Council has the power to impose sanctions against it and ensure compliance when international security and peace are at stake. So far, the Security Council has never taken a coercive measure against any country to get an ICJ ruling implemented.
Even with the stepping in of the Security Council, there are several hurdles in enforcement of ICJ decisions. Any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council with veto powers can block the enforcement of an ICJ decision against itself or its ally. For example, in Nicaragua v United States (1989) where the ICJ ruled against the US holding it responsible for illegal military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, the US refused to abide by the ruling.