NHRC and the Rohingyas Protecting rights or the regime? | C.R. Abrar

Dr. C.R. Abrar
The Daily Star
December 1, 2012

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.