Featured Pakistani experts warn of refugee influx from India

[Mace]

Anti-Muslims policies will have serious consequences beyond borders, speakers at seminar say
News Service 09:08 September 05, 2020

File photo
Photograph: AKHTAR SOOMRO

Pakistani experts have said the lives of millions of Indian Muslims are at stake amid rising Islamophobia and urged world powers to take notice to prevent another refugee influx from knocking their doors.

Speaking at a seminar on Thursday in the capital Islamabad, Pakistan's Information Minister Shibli Faraz said Islamophobia has become a tool at the hand of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

"[Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi's policies against the Muslims would have serious consequences as he encourages demonization of the Muslims on the basis of religion, and has empowered right-wing ethno-nationalists," he said.

"This authoritarian attitude not only puts the lives of millions of Indian Muslims at stake but predicts an imminent humanitarian crisis that may extend beyond borders," he added.

Faraz was referring India’s controversial law that grants citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Christians from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, but blocks naturalization for Muslims.

Muslim leaders believe the new law will be linked to a nationwide exercise where every citizen would be asked to prove Indian citizenship.

"Unsurprisingly, the only major religion that has been left out is Islam -- the second largest religion in India with over 200 million followers," Faraz added.

He noted that on the first anniversary of the annexation of Kashmir, Modi laid foundation of the Ram Temple on the site of the 16th century Babri Mosque, which has been at the heart of a decades-long dispute between Indian Muslims and Hindus.

In a 2019 ruling, the Indian Supreme Court handed over the mosque site to a trust to built the temple, giving Muslims a separate piece of land to build a mosque.

Last year, the Indian government scrapped the semi-autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir and divided it into two federally-administered territories.

Political leaders and activists have since been arrested or placed under house arrest. Moreover, a partial communications blackout is still imposed in the Muslim-majority region.

"The IIOJK [Indian Occupied Kashmir] has been under a strict lockdown for more than one year now with communication links to the outer world cut off and demographic engineering carried out in the blood-stained valley via controversial domicile and property laws amid grave human rights violations, mass detentions and extra-judicial killings," Faraz said.

- Another refugee influx

Qibla Ayaz, chairman of the Council of Islamic Ideology of Pakistan, criticized the silence of world powers over the current situation in India.
He warned of another refugee influx if the international community did not act now.

"It is very unfortunate that Modi's racist and fascist ideology has given rise to populism and Islamophobia in India," Ayaz said.

Shabina Ayyaz, an Islamabad-based political analyst, criticized the role of Indian media in spreading propaganda against Muslims.

"The current situation is very alarming as Indian media plays a negative role and promotes Islamophobia in the country," she said.

During the recent outbreak of COVID-19 across the world, every country was busy in dealing with the virus while Indian hospitals displayed banners saying: "Muslims are not allowed", she claimed.

Several other analysts and former diplomats spoke at the event and urged the international community to act against the growing Islamophobia in western countries and India.

Attacks on Muslims have been on the rise across India since Modi came to power in 2014 and went on to win a second term.

When did the world started taking note of “Pakistani experts”? This juvenile propaganda style is straight out of China CP red book. Hilarious

 

[khansaheeb]

All the rich and smart Muslims have been leaving India they know what's going to happen ahead, a Rwanda type genocide on a scale not ever seen in history, and with the Western dominated UN indifferent to the impending human catastrophe. The signs are clear, the alarms are ringing but the western world choses to ignore the warnings and pamper India with huge trade and arms deals. The clock is ticking and the slaughter is about to begin as the RSS and their partners in crime the BJP sharpen the knives for the Hindu sanctimonious shakti butchering of Muslim lambs. Poor Muslims are oblivious to what's about to befall them like sheep in an abattoir.

 

[saiyan0321]

Now that is more like it!

hahaha Well let me clarify three very important things.

First, i dont think such an influx will happen at all unless the situation deteriorates at a massive scale as you see refugee situation arise up during severe civil wars or internal conflict or occupation where the populace in question has no other choice but to pack bags and leave. Often it is seen as an event that is the consequence of a military civil war or brutal occupation which creates displacement.

Secondly, personally if and this is a what if story, there ever is such a refugee crisis then Pakistan will be overwhelmed and any foreign aid that comes will be consumed by the elite so nobody will be happy. I am going to be open and blunt, I am not in favor of taking more refugees. Frankly our citizenship law is such a mess along with the laws that govern refugees that it would just be a mess. However i dont think the situation will come to anything remotely close as mass influx of refugees

Lastly the question in place here is whether Pakistan can refuse a refugee in international law. With the advent of the syrian crisis, there have been two major questions concerning refugee law in international law.

1. Can a neighbor state deny refuge to refugees? especially those states that are signatories to the 1951 and 1967 conventions?

2. Is a refugee a refugee till the first state it enters and can it claim refugee state 2 states away or further still and would it be a migrant or a refugee?


Our concern is the first question so let us dive into it. Now argument is made that states like Pakistan are not signatory to refugee treaties such as the 1951 one or the 1967 one. So can they legally deny any refugee say from India, since it concerns India, I will use India here. International law often places upon itself the chains to avoid being a sovereign law however some treaties and convention take customary nature through precedents and constant legal evolution of which the top example is the law of sea. There is great debate because it is the right of the state to close its borders to anybody and states have protected this right jealously like for example the original Universal declaration of human rights had Article 14(1), that everyone "has the right to seek and be granted in other countries asylum from persecution", was unacceptable. The final version was that everyone was to have "the right to seek and enjoy" such asylum. but refugee is someone that enters the line of human rights.
Supporters of refugee international law, especially UNHCR have stated that the principle of non-refoulment i.e. a person being sent back to the place of conflict that the person escaped from. is now customary law. They state that non-refoulment is a universally acknowledged human right and point to various treaties where such as interpreted like in Article 22(8) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 3 of the convention against torture. Infact foreign courts have interpreted non-refoulment as a fundamental right as was done in the famous case in UK R(on the application of) ABC (a minor)(Afghanistan) V. Sec of state for the Home Dept. Non-refoulment not only prohibits removal of individuals but also mass expulsion of refugees. Ofcourse there are exceptions like the individual is dangerous or is a threat to host community. Pakistan has been pretty open about it in terms of non-refoulment that it will not make any refugee return that would not be dignified and infact our refugee policy is so liberal that agreeing with the Fundamental right of Freedom of Movement of refugees in accordance to International covenant on civil and political rights article 12 and article 26 of the 1951 convention although we are signatories to neither.
Many jurist have highlighted that this obligation of states hosting refugees despite not being signatories to the treaty is in itself a declaration of its customary nature like Pakistan and India who have hosted large populations of refugees despite their own burdening economies and in many cases offered them all the rights allotted to a refugee in 1951 convention.

There are many states that have interpreted cases as such. So we have one aspect of jurist thinking that feel that the law is customary in nature thus a refugee cannot face refoulment no matter what.

Then there is another class of thinkers who think that it is still very murky and let me explain them.
A case can be made that a right of asylum has been established by the practice of states as part of customary international law. It could be argued, for example, that one can hardly "enjoy" asylum without it being granted; that the moral force of the Declaration has in time brought about legal consequences; and that a variety of other instruments such as the OAU Convention governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, the American Convention of Human Rights, and the UN and Europeans Declarations on Territorial Asylum, have reinforced the sense of legal obligation (the opinio juris required in the formation of customary rules). It is not, however, a convincing case. The language employed is for the most part qualified, emphasising the right of the State to decide, rather than of the individual alien to claim to be entitled to admission. The situation is reminiscent of the situation with which the International Court was faced in the Asylum case. There the issue was whether the grant of diplomatic asylum by one State (Columbia) was conclusive as to the nature of the offence, for which the fugitive was sought by the local authorities, and binding therefore on the territorial State (Peru). The right to qualify the offence in this way was, according to Colombia, established under customary international law, or, to be more particular, under so-called "American international law". In denying that any such customary rule existed, the Court used a well-known passage which is equally apposite to the situation with which we are at present
dealing:
"The facts brought to the knowledge of the Court disclose so much
uncertainty and contradiction, so much fluctuation and discrepancy in
the exercise of diplomatic asylum and in the official views expressed on
various occasions, there has been so much inconsistency in the rapid
succession of conventions on asylum ratified by some States and rejected
by others, and the practice has been so much influenced by con-
siderations of political expediency in the various cases that it is not
possible to discern in all this any constant and uniform usage, accepted
as law".
However, even if the so-called right of (territorial) asylum has not attained the status of a right enuring to the benefit of particular individuals, the need to provide protection for refugees has given rise to legal principles of more limited scope. While a refugee has no right to be admitted to (permanent) residence, and many of the entitlements of the 1951 Convention are dependent upon some formal act of admission, he is granted by the Convention certain limited rights to safeguard him against further persecution.

However they also agree that non-refoulment is a customary law and has taken as such but point to the legal aspects that the OAU, by adding 'Rejection at frontier' redefined Refoulment and they speak of the status of what happens when the refugee status is in its infancy since states provide such status with UNHCR so what is the asylum seeker. Is he also protected from non-refoulment. The OAU had to add rejection at frontier because they saw the limitations of non-refoulment as a state that stops an asulym seeker at the border and tells him to halt is not refoulment since he is not being returned but halted but lets apply this scenario to a person on a boat. If he is asked to halt, he drowns. This was another limitation and some jurists highlighted that its addition means that non-refoulment is basically non-return so they could be held there which is ofcourse a fate no different than the one they escaped.

In the end the dilemma of refugee law is that it has the advantage of an appeal to humanitarian principles (which, as we have seen, are occasionally employed by the International Court to support legal developments), and the dis-advantage that it conflicts with the sovereignty of States and their primary position in the international legal system.

In the end this is a discussion that is very long however i would say that it is highly unlikely that Pakistan would close its eastern borders to a refugee crisis.

 

[Ghessan]

I agree. My experience with Indian Muslims has not been pleasant. In my eyes they are not any better than other North-Indians (Except Punjabis), however South-Indians are very different, they are really nice and friendly.

i would care to share, during Gen Musharaf rule, the cricket diplomacy.
we welcome Indians through Wagah for cricket matches in Pakistan and host them twice as we have trade and business relations with them. they were with their families and from different businesses/sectors like cement, textile, electronics, steel & iron, banking being friends of those who were related to our field. So we had to manage a very large group of people visiting from India.

they belong to Northern Indian states besides Punjabis, we used to have discussions for long sessions. they still remember those days and remember our hospitality, friendliness, generosity, when we talk over phone and they wish to visit again.

next year we went to India to watch cricket matches through Wagah and the welcome we received was a great experience they were hospitable, friendly and loving.

the matter is who can forget those times of good relationships developing with gestures by both govts and people benefiting.

it is only when people are steered towards love or hatred on governmental level and by the leadership, when they work on such agenda no matter what benefits they try to gain, it is people who react and experience the outcome of it.

I agree South Indians are very different they are nice and very friendly this may be because they are more connected to the World having seaports, beaches and efficient trade.

 

[khansaheeb]

The root cause of all evil in India is the Gujratis and their mouthpiece Modi. Give them a good drumming and peace will befall the subcontinent.

 

[Mace]

The root cause of all evil in India is the Gujratis and their mouthpiece Modi. Give them a good drumming and peace will befall the subcontinent.

Pak never came in terms with the loss of Kashmir to India. Pakistanis since 1947 are heavily invested emotionally with Kashmir despite loss of East Pakistan. Pak is willing to cutting off the nose to spite the face on Kashmir

There will be no peace till Pak finds a way to live with the loss of IOK.

 

[Naofumi]

Today's Tamilian or Telugite muslim will not be able to adjust to jingoistic Pakistani narrative. Their culture is more or less unique to South and have assimilated well here. To think they would uproot themselves for BJP came to power is idiotic. Many of them work for me, they don't like Modi but they are happy that their ration and benefits are coming to them without hassle these days.

Also, Punjabi Muslims would be racist to these south Muslims if they ever go to Pakistan.

You didn't get the point - the key is numbers i.e. How many refugees?
A group of one hundred refugees is much more likely (or say forced) to adjust/assimilate than a group of 10 million. Numbers are the key in many potential scenarios/conflicts and this is the one where it will be.

 

[CriticalThinker02]

No they don't! I've dozen of close relatives in India and I'm notunaware of the their identity evolution since decades..

There have been phases in the Indian Muslim identity.. from the early years after the Partition through the 80s where there was a strong pro Pakistan sentiment to the newer generations trying to feel like proud successful Indians when Pakistan was on a steep downhill path to now even the younger generation feeling threatened in India...

Having said that..as I said before in this forum.. it's best for the Indian Muslim to be a patriotic Indian.. but if the tide of the extreme form of Hindutva is more than a passing phase then the Indian Muslim should think about internal migration to consolidate their numbers in some areas..

This is not a phase, RSS has been alive even before the partition, they should migrate to their numbers advantage regardless of what happens in the future, their genocide is more likely.

 

[GHALIB]

I am frankly sick of hearing about a few dozen Indian Muslims making into Bollywood or even becoming Indian 'President'. These token 'successful' Muslims are nothing but a tiny sliver of the around 200 MILLION Indian Muslims most of them should be shivering in fear or shame because of the blatantly Black Laws like the new Indian Citizenship Laws.
If BJP was into some secular 'nationalism' instead of religiosity then the Citizenship Laws would not have been possible!! As I see it, the Indian Muslim is rightfully afraid for his future.
The Indian Muslim is so disillusioned and afraid that an ace like Kashmir's Shah Faesal--once a pride of the Indian Muslim achievement--is thoroughly disillusioned in India.
You must be a REALLY REALLY Well-Adjusted Indian Muslim! And--having lived in America long enough to know, there are similar ones in the African American community who take the token success in 'entertainment' and 'sports' to proclaim a good 'equal' status in America while the facts belie their claim. Some Uncle Toms of this world!!

fact is pakistan constitution does not allow important post for non muslims .

now tell

what is the condition of hindus in pakistan , how many got to the top post of president PM army chief , chief minister , chief secretary . how many are are slave labourers of waderas , how many are cleaning gutter .

 

[GHALIB]

Bangladesh' GDP per capita is already close to exceeding Indian GDP per capita.

Why would any Bangladeshi go to toilet-less India, forget about Pakistan? What the hell for??

Yesterday news broke that Bangladesh is sending back some three lakh illegal Indians with corporate jobs working in Dhaka....this doesn't make any news in India, doesn't jive with "Mera Bharat Mahaan" fantasies I guess. Which exist in Bollywood deshpremi specials only. Delusional bunch.

Solve your own BASIC problems first before proclaiming India to be some land of milk and honey...

we are nothing infront of bangladesh , but all indian cities are facing illegal bangladeshi immigrants living in jhuggi jhopri . more than two crore illegal bangladeshi are living in india , gdp is not stopping them getting bread and butter in india .

 

[-=virus=-]

Nothing of the sort will happen. There will be no genocide of Muslims in India, no refugees in their millions to Pakistan.

You might get some refugee movement from among the Kashmiri sunni muslims into Pakistan, but that's about it. The chances of that too are very low, maybe a small handful if at all.

 

[GHALIB]

Nothing of the sort will happen. There will be no genocide of Muslims in India, no refugees in their millions to Pakistan.

You might get some refugee movement from among the Kashmiri sunni muslims into Pakistan, but that's about it. The chances of that too are very low, maybe a small handful if at all.

if they allow even kashmiris from pakistan will migrate to india .

 

[-=virus=-]

if they allow even kashmiris from pakistan will migrate to india .

Well if there's a limited border skirmish, some highly ideologically opposed ones to the Indian state (militant minded ones) might make a beeline for Pakistan from the extreme border areas.. I suppose that is a real possibility.

 

[Meengla]

fact is pakistan constitution does not allow important post for non muslims .

now tell

what is the condition of hindus in pakistan , how many got to the top post of president PM army chief , chief minister , chief secretary . how many are are slave labourers of waderas , how many are cleaning gutter .

Pakistan is officially a theocracy. But even then, except for the very topmost positions, non-Muslims make to high positions. BTW, in Pakistan there is discrimination against everyone at some point and even the Blasphemy Laws are applied mostly to the dominant Sunni people! However, the idea that Hindus and Christians are living in abject fear in Pakistan is mostly non-sense. Maybe because their numbers are too low to be a 'threat' to the majority.

India, on the other hand, has seen horrific organized pogroms against Sikhs and Muslims. People only remember the anti-Sikh massacre of 1984 or the Gujarat massacre of 2002 but the Indian history is rich with massacres on the scale of the Rwanda like massacres!! I remember when I was in India around the Bhivendi (I think near Mumbai) massacre. Scary, nasty. Pakistan has never seen anything like that in Pakistan's history!!!

As to those who are brushing aside the new Indian Citizenship Laws and claiming that 25% of Pakistanis would run away to India---GROW UP!! Come to Pakistan and see for yourself! Why would we?!! The internet is full of Western tourists who would tell you that Pakistan is cleaner, safer, less-cluttered. You just don't and shouldn't cross some cultural/religious lines and be respectful otherwise you are fine in Pakistan.

Also, once again: I have a large number of relatives in India and I can tell they are FEARFUL in the modern India. They are very very careful in their messages to us in Pakistan and abroad. But even a well adjusted one, in his middle years, is now thinking of running the hell out of India. I wish I was wrong on this; as I keep saying, the Indian Muslim is better off a patriotic Indian. However, if this phase of extremism is going to become permanent in India then they are better off consolidating their numbers in geographically contiguous areas. Run, Forrest, Run!

 

[crankthatskunk]

I can say the same. You are brainwashed by Indian media too(lol). Muslims are doing fine in India. I dare your experts try bringing a law similar to CAA (accepting only muslims) and see if anyone from India actually go for it. They'll hide of shame.

Let me break it to you, I have plenty of my family in India. My first cousin lives north east of Dehli. I am in touch with him. So don't you dare talk BS.