Importance of Observing Refugee Day
Today is the World Refugee Day. It is
expected that the world should take positive steps to ensure civil rights@
human rights of the refugees who have taken shelter in different countries in
view of the fact that their life has become miserable in their own country.
Incidentally, most of the refuges
worldwide, are from the Islamic countries. They have fled from their motherlands,
to take shelter in other countries. The main reason behind their abandoning their
motherlands is thrust of the radical Muslims striving for Sharia law. Ironically,
once these refugees manage to take shelter in other democratic countries, they
group together to identify themselves as radical Muslims and seek for Sharia
law. They are responsible to disturb the social fabric of the country where
they have taken shelter.
If we consider the history of refugees,
the first notable instance where there was mass migration is of Jews. All the
Jews residing in Arabian countries were harassed to the extent that their lives
were threatened and many of the Jew families were eliminated by radical
Muslims. This compulsory mass migration imposed on Jews has led to Israel Palestine
dispute, which is the longest refugee-native confrontation ever existed.
It is pertinent to note that the first
attempt to protect refugees and confer them the right to establish their colony
finds place in the Holy Quran which recognizes the state of Israel of migrant
Jews and confirms their right to live and establish their colony with unbridled
right to profess their faith and religion. The Holy Quran acknowledges and
mandates the exclusive right of Jews over the State of Israel.
Indian continent has suffered the issue
of migration and refugees, more particularly at the time of partition of India thereby
bifurcating India and Pakistan and further giving birth to Bangladesh. Though
initially Pakistan was also promised as a secular country, by virtue of its
majority population being Muslims, the country could not remain secular and is
converted into an Islamic country wherein the population from other religion
and faith is treated as secondary citizens. Basic
fundamental rights are also denied to them.
Considering the plight of Hindus and
other minority religions like Sikh, Jain, Buddha, etc. migrating from Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Afghanistan, i.e. the countries adjacent to India, in 2019, the
widely criticized Citizenship Amendment Act is enacted and is now operationalized
by virtue of the new rules notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 11th
March 2024.
The CAA removes
barriers for acquiring Indian citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains,
Parsis and Christians from the neighboring countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh
and Pakistan who arrived in India on or before 31st December 2014.
While the 1955 Citizenship Act prohibited all undocumented migrants from
acquiring Indian citizenship. The 2019 amendment expedites acquisition of citizenship
for those minorities from the Islamic neighboring countries. It provides them
legislative protection from deportation and imprisonment with the exception of
those living in the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura and
the areas under the ‘Inner line’ special permit zones.
Though the CAA is enacted with a
positive approach towards the minorities who have suffered in the neighboring
Islamic countries, the opposition parties in India have criticized the CAA
under the apprehension that if such migrants are conferred valid citizenship,
it would change the demography of voters and would affect the minority vote
base, which is traditionally considered as the vote bank of Indian National
Congress and leftist/ communist parties. The protest is for selfish political
reasons rather than humanitarian approach.
The problem of migration and refugees
is not restricted to the Indian continent but has now emerged as the major
problem all over the world, more particularly, European countries. In the last
two to three decades, under their alleged humanitarian approach, these countries
had welcomed migrant refugees from various parts of the globe, more
particularly, from Islamic countries.
In fact, the generosity shown by the
European countries was out of compulsion as these countries have competed
amongst themselves to capture the natural resources like mines, minerals and
oil available in the Islamic countries. They arranged for internal conflicts by
virtually sponsoring those conflicts and providing arms and ammunitions to various
groups in those countries. They are basically responsible for the unrest in
those countries. They tried to give religious colour to the said conflicts and
while giving such religious colour to those conflicts, the best available
canvas for them was the Islamic culture. They managed the Imams, Mullahs, Maulavis
and leaders of the Islamic countries to encourage the conflict and then under
the pretext of saving those countries, managed their entry in those countries
and then attempted to and practically captured the natural resources available
in those countries. After they looted those natural resources available in
those Islamic countries and when the conflict became unmanageable, they
withdrew from those countries, leaving those countries to be managed by Islamic
radicals, rendering virtually jungle raj in those countries.
Part of the
population which helped these European countries to extract the natural
resources available in those Islamic countries was accommodated by these
countries under the so-called humanitarian approach to avoid blame as to
exploiting those countries. However, the population so accommodated has stepped
in those sheltering countries with their radical approach and extreme fait
h.
They are striving to maintain their religious identity in the country where
they have taken shelter.
When a group lands
in a new country and thinks it necessary to protect its identity, the first
thing which comes is that they are united and assertive. The assertiveness of
their identity encroaches over the native culture of the country where they
have taken shelter. This naturally leads to a conflict out of aggressive
assertion of identity and attempt to capture authority and power in the country
where these migrants have taken shelter. Now the consequential unrest generated
by the aggressive, assertive approach of identity is visible when we see the
refugee capturing roads or public places for their prayers without being
sensitive to the discipline and culture in the said country.
Observing a Refugee
Day would make sense only if the migrants in a country act sensitively and with
accommodative approach with the culture and society of the country which has
attempted to accommodate them with humanitarian approach. Only such
accommodative approach would ensure proper future for those refugees as well as
their next generations. They need to consider and acknowledge the fact that
they are required to abandon their native country only because the radical
approach of the rulers therein had made their lives miserable. If these migrant
refugees, are insisting for the said radical approach at the cost of law and
order and peace in the country which has given them shelter, then they are
creating circumstances similar to the circumstances which made them abandon
their own country.
It is required to
be considered that the Refugee Day is not only for the refugees, but also is
for the country sheltering those refugees. Unilateral expectations and unreasonable
assertiveness would make it difficult for both the refugees as well as the
country accommodating them.
