Good News: Have issued detailed instructions for deportation of Rohingya Muslims, government says

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,453
Likes
6,391
Country flag
SC is poking its nose too much.
Modi, please bring SC in line, or a Pak style coup awaits you.
 

Kalki_2018

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
720
Likes
1,253
Country flag
SC cannot do jackshit. GoI decides on the illegals and they will and must be kicked out. SC can keep taking suo moto notice and twiddle their thumbs.
 

SanjeevM

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
1,631
Likes
4,503
Country flag
I would suggest that everyone Encounter and every operation of army, a magistrate or judge should be part of the encounter team. Then judges will feel the heat of dealing with terrorists.
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,719
Likes
147,000
Country flag
I would suggest that everyone Encounter and every operation of army, a magistrate or judge should be part of the encounter team. Then judges will feel the heat of dealing with terrorists.
You can try attending a dying declaration recording , which is attended by a judge or a magistrate(especially dowry death cases).

Then come back and give your expert opinion on judges.
 

parijataka

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
4,916
Likes
3,751
Country flag
Why India is legally justified in both denying #RohingyaMuslims refuge & deporting them

India's Rohingya Policy: Is it Legally Sound?

Abhijit Iyer Mitra
Senior Research Fellow, IPCS

When Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh labelled Rohingya refugees in India “illegal immigrants” he was patently wrong. The difference between illegal immigrants and refugees is quite simple – choice. An illegal immigrant chooses to cross borders, while refugees have no choice, migrating because of extreme duress in their normal habitat. The question in the legal sense, from the Indian point of view, is different. First, does it have a legal obligation to abide by the UN Refugee Convention to which it is not a member? Second, at what point are its legal obligations to refugees trumped by the need to maintain domestic law and order?

For India, the refugee problem has two dimensions: one, the question of whether to let them in, and second, the principle of non-refoulement – that is to say not forcibly repatriate them to a situation of danger. Both these questions come under the ambit of customary international law, which implies that even if India has not acceded to the Refugee Convention, the fact that a vast majority of countries have acceded to it accords it with the force of law. Such an interpretation runs against long-standing Indian exceptionalism. Further, the very nature of what is customary in international refugee law is changing. Finally, there is a cast iron national security provision even within the Refugee Convention that allows India to argue both entry denial and deportation very successfully.

The biggest argument against the application of customary law to India is the ability of a state to resist and thereby withstand a forcible implementation of its decisions. This means that 'small' states generally tend to follow such international conventions while 'big' states tend to refuse, and there is no provision under the UN or any international law that can force them to abide. Simple examples of this so far have been the decision of Russia and the US to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), and China and India's refusal to join it. Other countries like Sudan despite refusing to ratify it have limited scope to resist, with the Sudanese President Omar Bashir being indicted. However that indictment triggered the withdrawal of several African states from the ICC.

The rather more insidious implication of accepting such universal definitions of customary international law in one sphere can extend precedent to other spheres. For example, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India is not a signatory to and refuses to accept, can be imposed on India as "customary law" should India accept this interpretation, and this would then on the basis of precedent extend to all treaties that India stays out of. At any rate, when someone says that "India must" abide by the provisions, these are toothless words as there is no enforcement mechanism and no consequences for not abiding, as opposed to the massive national security consequences of abiding.

What if the consequences of allowing "customary international law" to overrun sovereignty are ignored? Here again the very definition of 'customary' is beginning to change. 'Custom' is a simple legal formula where custom is a total of opinio juris plus state practice. The biggest problem here is that the state practices of the biggest supporters of the Refugee Convention are now changing. This concerns the European Union (EU) finalising a deal with Turkey in 2016, not entirely dissimilar to Australia’s 'Pacific solution'. Under this deal, Turkey would be monetarily incentivised to prevent the onward migration of refugees to Europe and for accepting those rejected from Germany.

Equally, there are indicators that the EU is using a mix of coercion and cajoling to prevent large-scale movement of refugees from North Africa, though this goes unreported. Similarly, Australia’s Pacific solution adamantly and defiantly refuses to let in refugees; instead sending them off to small Pacific islands that are incentivised for accepting them. Importantly, not one EU or Australian leader has been held in violation of the Refugee Convention despite being full member states to the Convention. All of this begs the question – if state practice is turning against the core tenets of the Refugee Convention, can it be considered "customary" law at all?

Lastly, the 1951 Refugee Convention itself accepts exceptions to admission and non-refoulement under the principle of national security. The definition of national security is left entirely to the receiving state – including if its application will be individual (on the basis of a specific crime committed) or collective (based on a generic threat perception of the incoming population). India of course has several credible grounds of national security here. First is the Islamic State's (IS) links to several Rohingya organisations, including the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), and the ARSA’s militarisation of civilians along Myanmar's Maungdaw area. The second is overwhelming evidence (from its own Twitter activity and YouTube videos) that ARSA sought, through its 25 August 2017 attack, to provoke a Myanmarese overreaction, and was counting on a refugee crisis to create fertile grounds both for infiltration and recruitment. Finally, the fact remains that given almost every Northeastern border state in addition to West Bengal is in the grips of an ethnic "us-versus-them” cauldron, the risks of internal destabilisation are undeniable. Prioritising security here therefore is not just a state imperative, but also recognised as such by the Convention.

To sum up, insisting that refugees have any kind of right to come into and reside in India without being deported is, at best, questionable - whether it is seen in light of the applicability of the relevant statutes to India, the current practice of those statutes, or indeed, the national security exceptions enshrined in those statutes.

 

vikasdangi

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
7
Likes
14
Country flag
40000 Rohangiar Muslims didnot migrate in a day but in years.First government come out with details why they are allowed to migrate?Why no action did take to report them earlier. Pandits are forced out Rohangiar allowed in, not conspiracy ?
 

F-14B

#iamPUROHIT
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2016
Messages
2,076
Likes
4,006
Country flag
carefully they have been chosen to settle in Jammu? Why to alter vote banks? Why not kashmir? or any other state?
there you have got it but undenounced to all the same is happening Kerala too with East Bengalis being entertained in huge numbers places like Permbavoor in my home district now being turned in to mini Dhaka the state government too is keeping no stone unturned in "integrating" these good for nothing morons by providing them with malayam training and all in the name of secularism
 

lcafanboy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
5,776
Likes
36,929
Country flag
India Should Not Tolerate Rohingya Muslims, Says Chief Of Premier Social Sciences Body
Thursday, October 12, 2017 By: Huffington Post Source Link: CLICK HERE


Even as thousands of Rohingya Muslims are fleeing Myanmar to escape violence and persecution at the hands of the country's military and police, the chief of India's premier body on social sciences believes they should not be tolerated in India.

The Hindu today reported on the remarks made by Braj Bihari Kumar, who heads the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), at a seminar recently organized by the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR).

Speaking at the public event, Kumar said, "This nation should not tolerate them as part of India."

Earlier this year, Kumar succeeded prominent academic S.K. Thorat as the head of the ICSSR, an autonomous body established by the Indian government in 1969 to promote social studies research.

Kumar, 76, served has the editor of two journals, Dialogue and Chintan Srijan, published by Astha Bharati, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting "India's unity and integrity."

The online news outlet, Scroll, has previously reported on the opinions that Kumar has professed over the course of years, including, "There is none in India, who has suffered more due to intolerance than Narendra Modi."

Kumar's remarks come at a time when the Modi government is making a legal case to deport Rohingya Muslim refugees from India, branding them as national security threat. The central government's position has been condemned by human rights activists and lawyers who argue that even those who are not citizens are guaranteed protection under the Indian Constitution when they are on Indian soil.

Kumar's remarks come at a time when the Modi government is making a legal case to deport Rohingya Muslim refugees from India, branding them as national security threat. The central government's position has been condemned by human rights activists and lawyers who argue that even those who are not citizens are guaranteed protection under the Indian Constitution when they are on Indian soil.
http://www.defencenews.in/article/I...-Chief-Of-Premier-Social-Sciences-Body-404064
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top