IDP versus Migrant

K.N. Pandita
Mr. B.L. Saraf has raised an important issue of IDP versus Migrant (DE 22 Dec). He has tried to examine it from more than one dimension. This debate is much needed, particularly when the valley of Kashmir has been ethnically cleansed of its 3.5 lakh religious minority living in exile for last two decades and half. He does not find any merit in replacing the nomenclature of “Migrant” with “IDP”.
The term IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) was first coined by UN Human Rights Commission’s (now Council) subsidiary called Working Group on Refugees. Actually, the term surfaced while groping for precise definition of Refugees. Since there are several categories of Refuges on global level, those forced to abandon their homes owing to threat emanating from armed conflict or those who have been directly subjected to threat to life forcing them to leave their homes but did not cross international borders, are called IDPs in the lexicon of the United Nations’ organs. However, in the light of UN definition, the IDPs, who have not crossed the international border, are entitled to same rights as the refugees who have crossed international border. Let me inform our readers that everywhere in the official documents of the UN, Kashmiri Pandits are categorized as IDPs and nowhere as “Migrants”. Even in the official reply of our Ministry of Home Affairs to questions pose by the International Commission of Jurists (a prestigious NGO at the UN) it has said that owing to unleashing of terror in Kashmir in early 1990, nearly 3 lakh people were forced to become internally displaced persons.
Mr. Saraf contention is: “What is there in the name”. There is much in the name. If the Pandits are declared IDPs, then the raging debate about the module of their return and rehabilitation becomes meaningless, invalid and void. The government loses its stand to dictate any module of restitution to them like settling in their original homes and localities, in clusters, in extended locales, in a twin-city, in satellite/smart city or   collectively etc. That decision decisively rests with the displaced persons themselves and not with the government. The government is to facilitate their restitution by providing funding and logistical support. But as “Migrants” they are forced to surrender their free will of choosing their return module to the dikatat of the government, which is tantamount to arbitrary action, and hence, in contravention of democratic norms.
Secondly, as IDPs, they have the right to seek asylum in a foreign country whereas as Migrants they cannot. Why this option should be denied to them when the community members are educated and capable of making good use of their merit to become social asset. Why should not they utilize their hard-earned merit productively rather than subsist on crumbs grudgingly thrown to them by the State. The change of nomenclature transforms them from a baggage of liability to as asset of social utility.
Thirdly, as IDPs, they are entitled to the same scale of monetary and other relief as is admissible to international refugees, say for example, the Afghan refugees in India. Fourthly, as IDPs, they get will get preference in employment/entrepreneurship in international organizations like the UN, UNESCO, WHO, WTO, International Red Cross etc. Lastly, most countries in the world, particularly the US and the European countries, consider Kashmir a disputed territory between India and Pakistan. As IDPs from a disputed territory, Pandits have a claim on the US to grant them asylum because the US law binds the administration to give asylum, and if possible nationality, to the people of any region which the US government declares “disputed”. Seeking asylum in no way diminishes their respect for their mother country.
Lastly, this summer, when PM Modi and CM Mufti declared publicly that the exiled Pandits would be rehabilitated collectively in Kashmir, entire Kashmir shut down in protest. Leaders of all hues made a common cause, not only on streets but also in the legislative assembly, not to allow them collective rehabilitation in Kashmir. That gives a very strong argument to the Pandits to demand change of nomenclature from Migrant to IDP.
I may mention in passing that the definition of IDP as akin to international refugee became catalyst in making the UN Working Group on Minorities add one more definition to minority group as “reversed minority as Kashmiri Pandits in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir.” By reverse minority, the Working Group means a group which is part of majority on national level but minority on local/regional level. It is this verdict of the Working Group that has given rise to a demand of various political thinkers in our country that minority status should be recognized on regional or sub-regional basis and not on national basis. Moreover, it is unfair to make any group a minority group on the basis of religion alone as is the case in India today.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com

Follow our WhatsApp channel