The Indian government's denial of political asylum to Edward Snowden brought into focus the lack of an objective procedure for treatment of asylum seekers. And what is even worse is that no detailed reasoning was offered for this decision.

In this high profile case, being followed with great interest across the world, the government's ad hocism in dealing with applications for political asylum stands exposed. Other than the infamous Snowden, who has since received asylum in Russia, there are lakhs of others who have been directly affected by the government's intransigence and ambiguous refugee policy. This would be a good time to go back to the debate on the need for a progressive policy and legislation to deal exclusively with refugees and asylum-seekers.

According to the ministry of home affairs, there are nearly two lakh refugees residing in India currently. Most of these refugees are from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Tibet (China). Out of these, Tibetan refugees, who are generally classified as ‘Stateless persons’ owing to the fact that they are not recognized by China as citizens, seem to fare better than the rest, thanks to government assistance through self-employment and handicrafts schemes. In some states, agricultural land has been provided to the Tibetan refugees by the government on lease to help them earn their livelihoods.

On the other hand, the treatment of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees has been deplorable. Today, there are Sri Lankan Tamils who have lived in India for over twenty five years and have still not been given citizenship, left in limbo and are thus, vulnerable. As if to reaffirm their predicament, they have been ghettoised in 'refugee camps' and ostracised from society. With minimal educational opportunities and restricted movement, many of them are relegated to finding daily work in the informal sector, making them susceptible to unfair labour conditions. It is no wonder that as many as six thousand Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have tried to flee from these refugee camps in the past two years on unsafe boats to Australia.

That the two dominant refugee groups have been treated so differently over the years clearly points to the lack of an objective and equitable policy at the national level.

The supreme court of India in the National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal Pradesh case had ruled that fundamental rights of Chakma refugees were covered by Article 21 of the Constitution which states that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The people involved with drafting the Constitution were careful to use the word ‘person’ instead of ‘citizen’, implying that rights of refugees (and non-citizens) shall be protected by the government.

International Obligations
India is a not a signatory to the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees in 1951 and the subsequent protocol relating to the status of refugees in 1967. The 1951 convention and 1967 protocol expound the basic guidelines for identifying and dealing with refugees and asylum seekers. Ratifying these would require India to extend basic freedoms including— freedom of movement, civil rights such as right to judicial remedies, right to earning wages, right to public education and housing and right against discrimination. One hundred and forty seven countries, i.e. three out of every four countries in the world, have signed or ratified the 1951 convention or 1967 protocol.

Sadly and strangely, India continues to defy the global trend and disregard her international obligations to this vulnerable group of persons.

Successive governments have shown little initiative in finalising a legislative framework for refugees. A draft law brought out in 2009 is yet to be tabled in parliament. As a result, refugees and asylum-seekers in India continue to be covered under the outdated Foreigners Act 1946 which, for instance, fails to distinguish between non-Indians accused of overstaying their work visas and those fleeing persecution. This is an apt time for the government to introduce a dedicated law to deal with refugees.

With the major opposition parties also showing interest in the plight of Hindu refugees fleeing Pakistan in recent times, this Government is well positioned to introduce a comprehensive legislation that will be passed in parliament. However, the law must ensure that universal principles governing refugee law are applied equally to all those who are seeking asylum in India—whether it is Snowden or the two lakh refugees already in the country. India should take the lead in becoming a model state for its south Asian neighbours. A strong, uncompromising and considerate refugee law that is consistent with our international obligations will ensure that.