 |
| Dr. C.R. Abrar |
After years of indifference the Rohingya issue has drawn interest
nationally as well as internationally. While the recent plight of the
members of the community has attracted huge international attention and
compassion, it generated a negative reaction among the government
circles and also in a section of the influential media in Bangladesh.
The
policy of denying entry and shelter to the Rohingyas has so far been
justified on legal and practical grounds. While these may appear to be
logical, a close scrutiny lays bare the gaps in such line of reasoning,
an issue that has been treated by this author previously (The Daily Star, June 26).
While
an individual or an institution is at liberty to subscribe to certain
opinions, one would expect those to be grounded in reason. This
anticipation would be more so from those who hold high position in
statutory bodies, particularly those mandated to uphold human rights.
One further wishes that when intolerance and prejudice become
pronounced, against a vulnerable community without protection,
institutions such as the National Human Rights Commission would plead
for compassion and empathy, and extend support to those who stand up for
their rights and dignity.
The NHRC Chair's statement at the
recent RMMRU dialogue on the Rohingyas was disappointing for several
reasons. They were contradictory, not based on proper interpretation of
refugee law, and overtly partisan. At the outset, he questioned the
intent of "the drawing room-centric intellectuals for putting the
government and the state named Bangladesh in the dock."
Referring
to 1971, several participants noted that Bangladesh had a moral
compulsion to provide asylum to the Rohingyas. The Commission Chair
strongly disagreed with such position on grounds that "the context of
1971 is very different from the one Rohingyas are facing today." He went
on to explain that after the war ended in 1971; the millions of
Bangladeshis who went to India returned home. As against that scenario
the Rohingyas have remained in Bangladesh since 1990s. He claimed
Bangladesh had set a unique example of allowing integration after
illegal infiltration and there was no such example anywhere else in the
world.
There is a major flaw in this line of reasoning.
Bangladeshis came back because the successful end of the war ensured
that not only the brutal Pakistani army regime and their cohorts were
defeated and deposed but also that a new state was born with the
professed aim to protect its citizens. A pertinent question is, what
would have happened if the war had dragged on for years, our neighbour
did not have any geopolitical and strategic interests to pursue and its
patience in hosting Bangladeshi refugees wore thin? As against 1971
scenario, the sources of oppression of the Rohingyas are still
controlling the state apparatus in Myanmar, their citizenship issue has
remained unaddressed, and not only has the state shunned their claims to
protection, Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has refused to take
any responsibility. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that the
Rohingyas continue to flee Arakan and those in the squalid camps and
outside in Bangladesh refuse to go back.
The Commission Chair
observed that, "today the Rohingya children are taking benefits in our
schools, colleges and in workplaces." In frustration, he posed the
question, "but do we want that these things increase?"
One wonders
whether the Chair is aware that under the Convention of the Rights of
the Child, Bangladesh is obliged to ensure access to education to any
child on its territory. Needless to say, acquiring education and skills
would allow the community members to stand on their feet and help them
anchor in their country of origin once they return.
Nothing can
be further than the truth to claim that Bangladesh has set an example by
"providing integration even after illegal infiltration." In the face of
beefed-up security in the recent months, the Rohingyas outside camps
are living in constant fear of deportation. By government diktat three
international NGOs were barred from providing basic services to the
unregistered Rohingyas in the makeshift camp. It is not difficult to
find examples where, in protracted refugee situations, host countries
allowed integration of refugees, in varying degrees -- Palestinians in
the Gulf states, Tibetans and Tamils in India and Afghans in Pakistan.
The
NHRC Chair cautioned the audience, that "the groups that you are
favouring and supporting and for whom the international community is
exerting pressure (on the government) had close connection with the
recent Ramu incident." However, almost in the same breath, he observed
that the Rohingyas "have been used … by some of our leaders or political
parties. But ultimately the consequence is that our nation has to bear
this burden. We have to repay for their ill deeds."
In his
reaction to a comment by the law advisor of the last caretaker
government, who argued that common people of Bangladesh favoured
allowing entry to the Rohingyas instead of floating in the high seas,
the Rights Commissioner said that he had contra evidence that "if asked,
the whole of Bangladesh will opine in unison that not a single Rohingya
should be allowed to infiltrate into Bangladesh."
The Chair
rightly acknowledged that the Rohingyas "are in danger and they need our
assistance. …This is our ethical, moral and legal compulsion. …As a
student of International Law I should say that we have to ensure asylum
to anyone who seeks it. The next step is to recognise him as an asylee
(sic) and ensure him the services and benefits that we can afford."
Despite such clear understanding of the efficacy of claims to asylum of
the incoming Rohingyas and the responsibility of the host government,
instead of shaping public opinion for a just cause the Chair
rationalised that one "can never expect that a democratically elected
government to forcibly carry out tasks contrary to expectations of
common people." "That is the harsh reality…Considering the political
atmosphere in which we live, it would be logical and consistent with the
greater interests of the state," he reasoned.
The Commission
chief vented his frustration that some people were "trying to put the
country on the dock especially at a time when the whole nation is going
through a critical phase. There is no scope to dismiss the fact that
trial of war crimes is not a separate matter at all. Everything is now
linked to this." His final salvo was reserved for the organisers. He
said: "At this very moment, this is a newly acquired agenda of our
intellectuals to denigrate and put the government on dock. We have to be
careful of this."
One wonders if it falls within the mandate of
the NHRC Chair to protect the government from the alleged ill designs of
motivated quarters. My own understanding is: human rights stands above
group, party or country's interest. It is universal and inalienable. One
wishes the Chair reflects on his own posting of NHRC website homepage, “shobar upore manush shotto." He is very right; human beings are truly above everything.
The
writer teaches at Dhaka University and coordinates Refugee and
Migratory Movements Research Unit. He is the President of Odhikar.
Source: The Daily Star
No comments:
Post a Comment