Migrant or IDPS

B L Saraf
The displaced   Pandits  from   Kashmir   have  a  complaint    that,  instead  of     being      called     as  Internally   Displaced   Persons  (IDPs ) ,   they  have  been   shown  as ‘Migrants  ‘in  the official records,  and made known as such. The terminology,  according  to them, militates against the very raison d’être    of them being in exile. Some  days back  community  delegation  called on MOS  in  the  P M’s office   and, among other things, put forth   a demand  that  they be officially   declared as   IDPs   and the    word’  Migrant ‘prefixed to them   should be deleted. MOS is   reported to have assured them of a   favorable action in this regard.
It is true that the Pandits and some of the other communities were made to flee   Kashmir, leaving behind their home, hearth and the property. They didn’t become homeless by choice.  Nor  did  they  migrate   to the greener pastures.Their unintended flight from the Valley,  consequent upon the  circumstances  prevailing  there,  fits four  square in the definition  of IDPs used by  the United Nations  Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement;
Internally displaced persons  are  persons  or  groups of persons who have been forced or  obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of  habitual  residence,  in particular  as a result of  or in order to avoid the effects  of armed conflict, situations of  generalized violence ,  violations of human rights or natural or human made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State  boarder .
Refugees  And The Law; Second Edition , a book   published by  HRLN New Delhi   has , while determining who are  the IDPs ,   mentioned at page 13  “Kashmiri  Pandits   who were forced to flee the disturbance and the violence in the   State  of   Jammu Kashmir  is an example of  IDPs in India .”
And, when it comes to   the plight of Refugees and the IDPs, in the words of  UNHCR,   there is hardly  anything  to distinguish one from the other.     Antonio Gutter’s  the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said on the eve of World Refugee  Day , marked on June 20th , 2009, that although international law distinguishes between  refugees and the internally displaced, such distinctions are absurd to those who have been forced to leave their homes and lost everything. Uprooted people are equally deserving of help whether they have crossed the international border or not. That is why UNHCR is working with the UN agencies to jointly provide the internally displaced with help   they need, just as it is for the refugees.
How can UN agencies provide help to an  IDP? This is what the KPs, as Indians,   must care to know.  Because, it has serious geopolitical implications   for the nation. Unlike refugees there is no special regime for the IDPs. This flows from the understanding that the States   are responsible for the nationals inside their territory. From the International  law’s point of view the primary responsibility for the protection of, and assistance to IDPs rests with the territorial States.Then there is a question of Sovereignty of a State which will not permit such an international humanitarian effort as to undermine is national integrity. For a country like India which is trying hard  to come to the terms with issues that have an international dimension,   it will not be wise to allow   multiple   international interference   in    these matters. Particularly so, when it is     capable of dealing   with the emerging   situation.
When it comes to Kashmir and the Kashmir related issues, taken up by the UN agencies, India does not have a happy experience. Recall the winter of 1994, when India had to fight it hard, in Geneva , to thwart   the   Pakistan sponsored UNHRC   resolution , aimed at   its  indictment   for the alleged HR violations   in  Kashmir.
As yet, we have not  exonerated   Jawahar Lal  Nehru    of the ‘charge  ‘of  bringing     in    UNO  in the  affairs  of Kashmir   and  internationalizing  the issue. It is a matter to ponder over,  can we   commit the ‘offence’ second time  by providing     a window to let in UN and other international agencies   to deal with an issue ,   who    may raise   some questions  on Centre’s relation with the J&K ?  If we  insist   on   the demand of having  some  ‘benefits ‘  associated with the term  IDP  then the country must be prepared for a multi agency UN intervention  like that  of  UNHCR , UNDP,  ERC, WHO   and others .  Who knows   where    their tentacles will spread to  on the pretext of discharging the duty ?
Though not in great numbers, members of other communities also have become the migrants . Any IDP regime for  the Pandits will cover  them  others  also . Pandits have   sacrificed   everything in upholding  national  Flag   high . They  will , surely ,    be cautious to claim international  relief or rights, lest it may  rake up K issue at the international level; others may not  have   such  inhibitions. The   displacement problem   has become  so  complicated  that  while tackling it   some external   elements may try to factor in.Why should we give them a window to sneak in ? Is the declaration of IDP status, along with its possible international dimensions, worth it? Let those  who  clamor  for such a status spell  out  what    additional gains will accrue  to  the community by such a  declaration ? Answers   must be had   to these questions in larger interests of  the  nation.
While making a demand one must keep in view its desirability in tangible terms,    achievability and the genuine   compulsions of the governments. ‘Migrant’  word has gone into so many legislations   relating to  the displaced  community, from where it will be difficult to  retrench  it. It is no use raising   unachievable   expectations  ,  when the displaced   community  is  confronted with so many real  problems which demand an  undivided  and focused  attention.
Let us be honest, regardless of the terminology,  the desired objectives of assisting the   displaced persons  are largely met by  GOI and the state government . Yes, defining the displaced persons  as migrants   is most inappropriate .  But then what is in the name?   Call them by any   name, words like Migrant , IDP  and    Refugee do not sound honorable . Implicit in them is a sense of  helplessness, destitution , dispossession of means   and  loss of continuity in life. Indeed, they are all cursed terminologies. Let us all strive to reclaim our lost    address.  Government   should be pushed to labor  in this  direction Restitution of our home, alone, will  deliver  us from the  ‘cursed terminology’ .
(The author is former   Principal District & Sessions Judge)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com