Congress for talks, critics warn against blanket blacklist

A man burns garbage behind the camp for Rohingya Muslims in Kalindi Kunj, New Delhi on Monday evening. Express photo by Oinam Anand

Hours after the Centre told the apex court that Rohingyas are “illegal” immigrants in the country and their continuous stay had “serious national security ramifications”, the Congress said a “blanket approach” is never helpful and suggested that the government consult Opposition parties on the issue. It expressed surprise that the government has said India is not bound by any international treaty.

Explaining the party’s official stand, AICC spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said: “This is a sensitive matter and all of us have to be restrained and responsible about this. Although there is much to say, we are deliberately restraining ourselves. I think it is incumbent, obligatory, on the part of the government to take every part of the political spectrum and segments — opposition, regional and national parties — into confidence in a collective sense on this very important and sensitive matter.”

He said “such collective consultation or interaction with us will only help the government” as it will help “decipher and delineate and put boundaries on where the genuine national security problem is and where there are none.” A blanket approach, the main opposition party said, is “never helpful”.

Former Law Minister Ashwani Kumar, who has sought to intervene in the case “on behalf of three lawyers” told The Indian Express: “India is in breach of all its international obligations when it says it will not accept the refugees.”

He added that if “India is seen to be diluting its stand on humanitarian assistance, it will be denying its own history.”

“A land of Buddha and Gandhi is turning away people who are seeking shelter. And what about our age old ancient philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam which says the whole world is a family? This is India’s philosophy. India has always adhered to this principle. And now we are going back on everything that was dear to us,” he said.

On the legalities of the issue, Singhvi referred to the Centre’s contention that the provisions of Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1967, will not apply since India was not a signatory of either and said “such a stand was surprising”.

“We would beseech the government to not use blanket approaches as we are given to understand that, for example, the affidavit suggests that the government of India is not bound by any international treaty… whether it is a technical point, or it is a blanket approach you should be very guarded…because ultimately governments change, parties change, times change but the state of India and the affidavit in the Supreme Court are permanent,” he said.

Kumar said India was a signatory to many treaties and conventions which include The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1978; The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN convention against Torture. Though India has not signed The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, “there is an international legal opinion which says even if countries have not signed it…they should respect the spirit and principle of the convention.” he said.

He said there are other global instruments where India has acknowledged that “every individual has a right to life with dignity”. All of these conventions incorporate the principle of non-refoulement which means “if somebody seeks refuge in your country from violent persecution…then that country must not turn away the refugees.”

“We followed these principles in the case of Tibet, Bangladesh, Sri Lankan, Afghanistan, Malabar Jews, Christians and the Parsis. What difference it is going to make if 40,000 refugees are allowed shelter on humanitarian grounds? We are not saying give them citizenship, permanent residency in India…We are only saying give them refuge in accordance with minimum humanitarian moralities to which we subscribe by way of being the signatory to various international conventions. We are saying the whole world knows these people are going to get killed if they go back.”

“Under Article 253 of the Constitution of India, the Government of India is bound to comply with its international obligations in India. And Article 21 of the Constitution which protects every human being the right to dignity. It is a constitutional mandate of the Government of India not to turn away refugees,” he said.

He said the ground given is security threat. “How can 40,000 Rohingyas which include children and women become a security threat to India. I can understand if they say we have evidence of 10 people, 100 or 500 people…who can be a security threat..I can understand that…you exclude those people. Don’t give them refuge. But how can you deny to women, pregnant women, children, sick, old people refuge against killing in their own country. How can India do this?”

He said “Article 21 of the Constitution says every individual, it doesn’t have to be the citizen of India, hasd a right to life…and (it) mandates the government to protect the right to life of all individuals.”

Senior Counsel Colin Gonsalves who has also approached the court “on behalf of about 7000 Rohingyas settled in Jammu” said the government could not wish away the principle of non-refoulement saying it was not a party to international conventions as it had become a customary law and “jus cogens”.

“All judgments of all courts around the world says the principle of non-return had become a customary law. Academics around the world also said it had been raised to the standard of Jus Cogens, which is a principle of law that cannot be resiled from.”

Gonsalves, whose petition is yet to be admitted, said that though the government had said that the right under Article 19(1) to reside in any part of the country will not be available to non-citizens, they had ignored the fact that the right under Article 21 was available to non-citizens too.

“They are now saying that the problem has persisted from 2012-13 but I can say that there is not a single terrorism-related case against any Rohingya in Jammu so far. I doubt if they have any such charge till date against any Rohingya anywhere in the country”, he added.