Chapter 4 INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS IN INDIAshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/105403... · minority in Jammu and Kashmir, and by shelling between Indian and Pakistani

Chapter 4

INTERNALLY DISPLACEDPERSONS IN INDIA

4.1 Introduction

An internally displaced person (IDP) is someone who is forcedto flee their home but who remains within their country’s bor-ders1. They are often referred to as refugees,although they donot fall within the current legal definition of a refugee. At theend of 2006 there were about 24.5 million IDP in some 52 coun-tries. The region with the largest IDP population is Africa withsome 11.8 million in 21 countries.They are not given as much in-ternational attention as refugees, hence the national recognitionand redress of their grievance becomes important4. Another rea-son for individual states’ responsibility is pretty obvious: unlikerefugees, IDPs remain under the legal protection of their coun-try of habitual residence and hence should enjoy the same rightsas the rest of the people. There are mainly three reasons for dis-placement i.e., conflict-induced,development-induced and naturaldisaster.11 In India displacement is caused mainly through theconstruction of dams and other projects undertaken for economicdevelopment. Another reason behind IDP is internal conflict ofJammu Kashmir,Northeastern state, Naxal problem, and thirdly

11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internallydisplacedperson

86

CHAPTER 4. INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS IN INDIA 87

natural disasters such as flood, earthquake are also a contributor.

The nature and dynamics of events leading to internal displace-ment has been varying from state to state depending upon thecomposition of the population and the related context of conflict.For instance, Gujarat and Kashmir have seen waves of religiousintolerance in the post independence period. The manifestationshave included Hindu-Muslim violence, retaliation attack by Mus-lims, Hindu Nationalist groups’ attack on Christian communitiesand so on.

The context in north east India shows a different aspect. Oncesparsely populated, in recent decades it has swelled with thearrival of millions of ethnic Bengali Hindus and Muslims fromBangladesh and from India’s West Bengal state. Populationgrowth has led to competition for land, jobs; culminating in ten-sions among ethnic minority groups as well as between migrantsand ethnic groups. These tensions gave rise to ethnic and po-litically based insurgencies that have battled the Indian ArmedForces6, have attacked each other and turned on civilian popula-tions belonging to rival ethnic groups.Thousands of people havebeen displaced due to this violence7. The plight of indigenouspeople vis-a-vis displacement in India is basically a matter ofpolicy failure and unaddressed alienation in the name of nationalinterest.

Tribals /Indigenous people in India constitute approximately sevenpercent of the population. The major threat to their livelihood isbecause of large scale alienation of their lands by state machineryfor mega projects such as mining, large dams, industries, high-ways, army firing ranges, military cantonments etc. With theincreasing privatization of resources mining has become a dou-ble edged sword-lucrative for the government but destructive forthe marginalized people of the region. Most minerals like Baux-


ite, Uranium, Chromite and Coal are in tribal areas of Orissa,Madhya Pradesh,Bihar and Maharashtra. Uranium mining inJharkhand and Meghalaya has not only led to the destructionof vegetation, water resource, fish etc. but has caused seriousdamage to the health of Tribals. Narmada Valley project is yetanother case in point which raises many valid questions on socialjustice, common property resource management and conditionalforeign aid.

These and many more un-highlighted cases bring out the issue ofInternal Displacement as a major development concern in India.This concern in turn is related to certain vulnerable communities,whose life and existence are endangered.

4.1.1 Definition of Internally displaced person:

Internally displaced persons are ”persons or groups of per-sons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave theirhomes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a resultof or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situationsof generalised violence, violations of human rights or natural orhuman-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internation-ally recognised State border.” 11In India there is no set definitionof IDP, however National Human Right Commission has tried torecognise IDP’s definition10 but that is not conclusive. But itis clear that there is no fixed definition for the Internally Dis-placed National Rehabitation and Resettlement Bill 2007 definedisplaced person. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2007 un-der section 3(b) provides:

• a family whose primary place of residence or other propertyor source of livelihood is adversely affected by the acquisitionof land for a project or involuntary displacement due to anyother reason;


• any tenure holder, tenant, lessee or owner of other prop-erty, who on account of acquisition of land (including plotin the abadi or other property) in the affected area or oth-erwise, has been involuntarily displaced from such land orother property;

• any agricultural or non-agricultural laborer, landless per-son (not having homestead land, agricultural land, or eitherhomestead or b agricultural land), rural artisan, small traderor self-employed person.

4.1.2 Internal Conflict:

From the late 1980s, ethnic conflict and counter-insurgencyoperations to oppose movements for greater autonomy or se-cession generated hundreds of thousands of IDPs in India. Theaffected areas have primarily been in the country’s north-easternareas of Assam, Tripura, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Mi-zoram, and in the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir. In thepast few years, violence has surged due to Maoist insurgent groupsin the eastern states, especially Chhattisgarh, which has forcedtens of thousands to flee. There are no comprehensive sources offigures across the country; based on the number of IDPs livingin camp-like settings and those believed to have returned but notto have found durable solutions, there are at least 500,000 con-flictinduced IDPs in India12. In addition, an unknown numberare dispersed in urban areas or have fled to other states wherethey are no longer traceable. This figure includes those peopledisplaced since 1990 by separatist violence targeting the Hinduminority in Jammu and Kashmir, and by shelling between Indianand Pakistani forces along Kashmir’s “line of control”; those dis-placed in states of the north-east by conflicts ongoing since 1947between state and ethnic or secessionist groups, and by inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic violence; victims of the conflict betweenNaxalite insurgents and government security forces and armed


vigilantes in Chhattisgarh; State victims of communal violencebetween the majority Hindu populations in Gujarat and OrissaStates and the States’ respective Muslim and Christian minori-ties; and people displaced in West Bengal by violence related toa proposed development project.12

In 2009, people were newly displaced by armed conflict and vi-olence in the north-east (Manipur, Assam, and Mizoram States)and in Orissa State. India’s IDPs share urgent protection con-cerns, particularly relating to access to basic necessities of lifesuch as food, clean water, shelter and health care. Physical se-curity remains a concern for some of the newly displaced groups.Those in protracted situations still struggle to access education,housing and livelihoods. The various groups also face uniquechallenges. Tribal IDPs in camps in Chhattisgarh face the riskof attacks by both government forces and Naxalite insurgents.Muslim IDPs in Gujarat continue to endure very poor living con-ditions and they are increasingly at risk of losing their originalhomes and land, which have been taken over by Hindu extrem-ist groups. Christian IDPs in Orissa risk being forced to convertto Hinduism if they return to their homes. Displaced women inAssam and Manipur have increasingly been forced into prostitu-tion in order to support their families in the absence of husbandswho have left in search of work. Conflictinduced IDPs enjoy norecognition under India’s national laws.12

The responsibility to protect them is generally left to state au-thorities, who are often unaware of their rights or reluctant tooffer support, particularly in cases where they played a role incausing the displacement. Where IDPs have no recognised status,they have had difficulties asserting their civil, political, economic,social and cultural rights;for example, after living in displacement

12India: large numbers of IDPs are unassisted and in need of protection,3 May 2007 byinternally displacement monitoring center


for more than 15 years, displaced Kashmiri Pandit families risklosing their cultural identity, while the government refers to themasmigrants”.

Prospects for durable solutions for the various displaced groupshave been limited by barriers to their return home. In the ab-sence of a national IDP policy, local integration or settlementelsewhere in the country have not been supported, with govern-ments of receiving states generally unwilling to have IDPs settlethere permanently. For example, officials in Andhra Pradesh haveforced IDPs to return to Chhattisgarh State, and the TripuraState government continues to promote the return.12

4.2 India: large numbers of IDPs are unas-

sisted and in need of protection

Civilians have fled fighting and have sometimes been directlytargeted by militant groups in Kashmir, the North-East and inseveral states of eastern and central India. Insurgency and re-taliatory operations by security forces are the major immediatecause of conflict-related displacement in India. A majority ofthe internally displaced people (IDPs) have not been able to re-turn for several years, due to either protracted conflicts or unre-solved disputes over land and property. One example is India’slargest group of internally dis-placed, the Kashmiri Pandits whohave been fleeing the Kashmir Valley since 1989 due to persecu-tion, killings and massacres. Thousands more have languishedin relief camps in Assam since the early 1990s, while more than5,000 families remain displaced after the communal violence thaterupted in Gujarat in 2002. During 2006, displacement has beenon the rise in Chhattisgarh state, where more than 45,000 peopleare currently in relief camps and many thousands are thought tohave fled to neighbouring states. Ongoing conflict between eth-


nic armed groups and anti-insurgent operations by the nationalarmy in the states of Assam and Manipur have also displacedthousands.12

According to reports gathered by IDMC, the number of displacedin India is exceeding 600,000, but as there is no nation-wide re-porting on the issue of internal displacement, the number couldbe much higher. The government’s response to people fleeingconflict is often adhoc and largely insufficient, and the displacedare therefore often left in an extremely vulnerable situation. Afirst step to improve assistance to IDPs would be to con-ductsurveys in conflict-affected areas in order to document the mag-nitude of the problem and to develop a policy for a consistentnation-wide approach for assistance and protection of internallydisplaced populations.12

4.3 Many IDPs are uncounted

From the late 1980s, ethnic conflict and counter-insurgencyoperations to oppose movements for greater autonomy or seces-sion generated hundreds of thousands of IDPs in India. The af-fected areas have primarily been in the country’s north-easternareas of Assam, Tripura, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Mi-zoram, and in the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir. Inthe past few years, violence has surged due to Maoist insurgentgroups in the eastern states, especially Chhattisgarh, which hasforced tens of thousands to flee.

The most common figure for the total number of internally dis-placed in India is 600,000. This figure comprises:12

• at least 250,000 people displaced from Kashmir (governmentfig-ure)

• 45,000 people who are still dis-placed along the Indian side of


Figure 4.1: Internal displacement in India


the Line of Control between India and Pakistan and cannotreturn despite the ceasefire

• 230,000 displaced in Assam due to the conflict between San-thals and Bodos during the 1990s

• 31,000 Reang displaced from Mizoram to Tripura

• 45,000 displaced in the state of Chhattisgarh due to insur-gency

These groups reside in camps and are therefore relativelyeasy to identify, but they constitute only part of the picture. Thenumber of 600,000 does not include thousands of displaced inthe KarbiAnglong area of Assam and in Manipur where fightingbetween ethnic groups and counter-insurgency operations havedisplaced whole villages during the past few years. Many aredisplaced temporarily and are able to return after some weeksor months in displacement while an undetermined number arestill dis-placed and receive no assistance. In Tripura, as many as100,000-300,000 people of Bengali origin are estimated to havebeen displaced for the same reasons during the past decade, butno information exists about the return or continued dis-placementof this group (AHRC, January 2007, “Tripura”). In the state ofChhattisgarh, it is assumed that thousands have escaped the con-flict between the authorities and Maoist groups by crossing overto neighbouring states, and they too are not part of the statis-tics. Nor does the figure take in the flight of migrant workers, asfor example in Assam in January 2007 when Biharis were forcedto leave in a matter of days due to threats and kill-ings by lo-cal insurgents. The current es-timate should therefore be seen asrepresenting the camp population only and not those internallydisplaced who largely live unassisted with friends or relatives, orblend with other slum resi-dents on the outskirts of the urbanareas.


It is therefore fair to assume that the total number of displaced isfar higher than the figure of 600,000, although it is not possibleto give a global estimate.12

4.4 Jammu and Kashmir: thousands await re-

turn

India’s largest situation of internal dis-placement stems fromthe conflict in the north-western state of Jammu and Kash-mirbetween militants seeking either in-dependence or accession toPakistan, and Indian security forces and police. The status ofKashmir has been in dispute since the division of British Indiain 1947 into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu-majority India; the twocountries have twice gone to war over Kashmir and the territoryre-mains divided between them. Although security has improvedwith the ceasefire concluded in November 2003, militant Islamistgroups have continued to launch attacks against local authori-ties and civil-ians to sabotage the peace process. Since 1989, theinsurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir has claimed at least67,000 lives while some 10,000 people are missing (Swisspeace,March 2007; COE-DMHA, 30 June 2006).12

More than 90 per cent of the Hindu population in the Kash-mir Valley, the Kash-miri Pandits, remain internally displaced asa result of this armed conflict. Esti-mates of the number of dis-placed vary. The government estimates that 250,000 fled the Val-ley during the 1990s, while Pandit groups believe at least 350,000people were displaced. Today, Human Rights Watch says wellover 300,000 Kashmiri Hindus remain displaced. Around 100,000live in the capital New Delhi and up to 240,000 in the city ofJammu (HRW, 12 September 2006, p. 39; ORF 2003).12

An ambitious return plan including cash assistance, interest-free


loans and the building of apartments in the Anantnag districtwhere some of the displaced Pandits would be able to stay untilthey have repaired their own houses, has still not been imple-mented. Protection of the remaining Pandit population has beenfar from adequate and there was further dis-placement during2003 and 2004 when 160 of the estimated 700 Pandit families re-maining in the Kashmir Valley fled an upsurge of violence andkillings (HRW, 12 September, p. 121). Militants continue to re-ject any discussion of a return and one group stated publicly inJuly 2005: “We impose a ban on the return of Kashmiri Pan-dit migrants to the Valley” (HRW, 12 September 2006, p. 121).De-spite threats from separatist militant groups, the state gov-ernment of Jammu and Kashmir insists that it intends to ensurethe return of the Kashmiri Pandits.

Another long-lasting situation of internal displacement exists alongthe Line of Control separating Indian- and Pakistani-controlledKashmir. Since the end of the 1990s, clashes between Indianand Pakistani forces and attacks by separatist militant groupshave led to several waves of displacement from villages along theLine of Control. The ceasefire has substantially improved thesecurity situation and many have been able to return to theirhomes. However, reports from the Akhnoor and Poonch districtsof Jammu reveal that thousands are still displaced. Among thereturnees, many had felt pressured by the authorities to leavethe relief camps as water, electricity and different relief measureshad been cut without the consent of the camp population andschools had been retransferred to their home villages. Despitethe severe cut in services, many people remain in the camps be-cause they no longer have access to their fields due to the fencingalong the Line of Control or the fact that their fields have stillnot been demined as promised and they therefore have no wayto earn a livelihood in their home villages. Both returnees andcamp residents depend on relief from the government which they


say is largely inadequate, and ad hoc (MCRG, December 2006,pp. 10-12, Shekhawat/ Mahapatra, June 2006, pp.4-5).12

4.5 The North-East: displacement in Assam,

Manipur and Tripura

The eight states in the geographically isolated North-Eastare home to more than 200 of the 430 tribal groups in India.Be-tween 30 and 40 armed groups are currently active in the re-gion. An influx of migrants from the neighbouring countries ofBangladesh, Nepal and Burma (Myanmar) has caused a massivepopulation increase and subsequent competition for resources andjobs (Nath, January 2005). This has also spurred ethnic conflictsover land and fighting for political autonomy or secession.12

Over recent decades, violence has broken out in the states ofAssam, Manipur, Na-galand, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh, in-volving different ethnic groups and communities (Bodos, Nagas,Kukis, Kar-bis, Dimasas, Paites, Hmars, Khasis, Mizos, Reangs,Bengalis, Chakmas and Bihari among others). The largest forceddisplacement movements have occurred in the states of Assam,Manipur and Tripura.12

Although conflicts regularly displace people in the North-East,no official estimate of the numbers exists. Most in-formation isfound in local newspapers, while objective research in terms ofassessing the magnitude of conflict-induced displacement in theregion has yet to be carried out by either government or non-governmental agencies (IPCS, Routray, 17 January 2004).12

In Assam, ethnic clashes over territorial issues, insurgency againstthe Indian government for separate homelands and communal vi-olence among the Assamese against ”foreigners”, mostly immi-


grants from Bangladesh, have led to widespread displacement.The approach of the gov-ernment which has focused on a strongmilitary response to quell the insurgent movements has beenlargely unsuccessful (Barbora, 3 February 2007). At least 10,000people in Assam, most of them civilians, have died over the lastthree decades in fighting between government forces and sepa-ratists.12

The largest displacement situation in the state stems from thefighting between Bodos and Santhals which erupted in the early1990s and displaced an estimated 250,000 persons. As of Au-gust 2004, more than 230,000 people were still staying in reliefcamps in three districts of Western Assam (MCRG, December2006, p.84). Their situation is desperate, as they have to survivewithout any help from local, national or international organisa-tions (MCRG, December 2006, p.10).

The Karbi Anglong and North Cachar Hills districts of Assamhave been the main scenes of ethnic violence in recent years.Thousands of civilians have been displaced, mainly due to fight-ing between Karbi, Kuki, Khasi, Hmar and Dimasa armed groups.In 2003, 75,000 people were displaced by conflicts between armedoutfits from the Hmar and Dimasa, the Karbi and Kuki, and theKarbi and Khasi populations. In October 2005, clashes betweenKarbi and Dimasa armed groups, which continued until the endof the year, displaced 75,000 people according to local NGOs.The displaced took shelter mainly in public buildings in saferareas (COE-DMHA, 28 December 2005; MSF, January 2006).They have since left these buildings, but they have received nocompensation and many have not been able to go back to theirvillages.

The Indian government has come to an agreement with severalmajor rebel groups active in Assam such as the Bodo-land Lib-


eration Tigers and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland.The creation of an Autonomous Territorial Council for the Bodos,for example, led to a major improvement of the security situationin western Assam, although problems start to re-emerge as somenon-Bodo groups request more influence. At the same time, otherlong-lasting conflicts have re-emerged and threaten to destabilizethe state further. The outlawed United Liberation Front of Assam(ULFA) is again in open conflict with the government after theauthorities in September 2006 called off peace talks and a six-week temporary truce, and resumed military offensives againstthe rebels.

Major waves of displacement have also occurred due to violenceagainst seasonal workers, mainly from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.In January 2007, a large number of Hindi-speaking migrant work-ers fled Assam following murderous attacks by the ULFA. Thegroup ordered all Hindi-speaking migrants in Assam to leave thestate, threatening more killings if they failed to comply (BBC, 9January 2007). Displacement has also been reported among Mus-lims of Bengali origin who are accused of being illegal migrantsfrom Bangladesh (BBC, 9 December 2005).12

The state of Manipur is one of the most violent in India (SAIR,May 2006). Counter-insurgency operations by the Indian armyagainst local militia groups hiding along the border with Burma(Myanmar), as well as fighting between armed outfits belongingto the Meiteis (the United Liberation Front – UNLF) and otherethnic armed groups have dis-placed an unknown number of peo-ple in the state. The latest major episode of displacement wasreported during November and December 2006, when more than2,000 Kukis from 25 villages were re-ported fleeing their homesin the Chandel district of south-east Manipur. The cause of dis-placement was a massive offensive launched by the Indian armyto flush out UNLF militants who had set up camps nearby. The


Kukis are still reported to be living in camp-like conditions andreceiving assistance from local community-based organizations.One problem hinder-ing return is reportedly a massive plant-ingof landmines in their home areas by the UNLF. In a serious inci-dent, more than 400 displaced people were captured and abductedacross the border to Burma by UNLF militants, but they havereportedly been taken back again (SIPHRO, email, April 2007).12

Another major conflict in the North-East has been the Naga peo-ple’s 50-year-long struggle for a homeland. More than 20,000people died in the Naga insurgency until a ceasefire in 1997. Thisconflict has led to massive displacement of the civilian popula-tion, but no estimate exists of how many have been forced to fleeover the years. The National Socialist Council of Nagaland is themost powerful rebel group in the region and has for years beenengaged in negotiations with the Indian government.12

Little progress has been made on the group’s key demands forthe right to self-rule and the creation of a new state containingall Naga-dominated areas, but an-other round began in December2006. The presence of important oil reserves thought to lie under-neath Nagaland is also a factor in the conflict (Reuters Alertnet,April 2007).12

Indian and Burmese security forces have launched several cam-paigns against Naga militant camps on both sides of the border.There have been some reports of small-scale displacement of civil-ians fleeing the security operation, but no figure is available.12

In northern Tripura, it is estimated that more than 100,000 peo-ple are internally displaced due to ethnic fighting and at-tacks byinsurgent groups. The main pat-tern of displacement is attackson villages inhabited by people of Bengali origin. Consideredforeigners by the local tribal population, they have increasingly


be-come the target of local armed groups (Deccan Herald, 22 May2005; 20 March 2004; Rediff.Com, 21 May 2003). Some 35,000Bru (also called Reang) from Mizoram also remain displaced inTripura. They fled Mizoram in 1997 after the Bru National Liber-ation Front (BNLF) began campaigning for Bru autonomy, whichled to ethnic tension with the Mizo population. Despite recom-mendations from the National Human Rights Commission, thestate government of Mizoram has refused to take back the dis-placed because they maintain that only half of them are citizens ofthe state. Although a memorandum of understanding was signedbetween the main Bru rebel group and the Mizoram governmentin April 2005 and the Indian government has endorsed a reha-bilitation package for Bru IDPs, repatriation has yet to begin.The Mizoram government has only agreed to permit the returnof some 270 people, consisting of former militant cad-res and theirfamilies, while no timetable has been given for the repatriationof the large majority of the displaced. In the meantime, the BruIDPs live in grim conditions in the camps where they face severefood shortages as well as a lack of medical and educational facil-ities (ACHR, January 2007, p. 136).

Another situation of displacement in Tripura has developed dueto the building of a fence along the border with Bangladesh. In-dian authorities are constructing a barbed-wire fence along “sen-sitive” stretches of the border to increase control over immigra-tion, movement of militants and infiltration from across the bor-der. As of March 2007, 9,000 families in Tripura are reportedto need rehabilitation which the Indian government has so farrejected, saying it is up to the state government to provide as-sistance to the dis-placed (IndoAsian News Service, 12 March2007). There has been anecdotal information about people flee-ing security operations launched by Indian border forces againstinsurgent groups believed to be hiding on the Bangladeshi sideof the border. This has in some cases also led to skirmishes be-


tween Indian and Bangladeshi border guards (The Telegraph, 27February 2005; Kumar, 8 April 2005).

Nepalis living in north-eastern India are also a particularly vul-nerable group in the North-East and have been targeted and dis-placed in Assam, Manipur and Meghalaya. It is unknown howmany remain displaced today. Many have fled to Nepal (Haldar,1 March 2007; Nath, January 2005).12

4.6 “Naxalite” violence causes displacement

in central India

In central India, displacement is on the increase due to clashesbetween Maoist insurgents, commonly referred to as Naxalites,Indian security forces and government-supported militias, alsoknown as Salwa Judum. Such clashes have been occurring formore than 25 years, but they have increased in intensity duringthe past few years, especially in the state of Chhattisgarh. Otherstates where insurgent groups operate include Madhya Pradesh,West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Maharash-tra and Andhra Pradesh. The conflict has brought a wave ofkillings, human rights abuses and widespread violations againstwomen in the affected areas.

Discrimination against the tribal population (the Adivasis), dis-placement by large development projects and government failureto ensure food security have been the main reasons for the rapidspread of the Naxalite movement, according to an independentstudy released in June 2005 (referred to in SAAG, 13 June, 2005).The government’s response to the insurgency has also been widelycriticized as being adhoc and piecemeal (SAAG, 13 June 2005).In addition to federal police and paramilitary troops, some statesare also believed to use private armies in their hunt for insurgent


groups and sympathizers. In Jharkhand state, for example, it isknown that the state government has sponsored village “defense”groups for this purpose (Stratfor, 16 January 2006).12

The Dantewada district in south Chhattisgarh state is the hard-est hit by dis-placement. As of February 2007, more than 45,000civilians – the majority from Salwa Judum-friendly villages andthere-fore attacked or threatened by Maoist groups – were in re-lief camps in this area. There is no estimate of the number ofpeople who have fled to neighboring states like Andhra Pradeshand Orissa or to areas controlled by Maoist movements. Onesource says that 100,000 people have been displaced altogether(MI, 23 January 2007). Thousands more are threatened with dis-placement as they have lost their livelihoods and have little accessto their land, food, essential health care, or emergency medicalservices. While the conflict got international attention in March2007, when more than 50 policemen were killed in a large-scaleMaoist attack on a remote security post in the Dantewada dis-trict, the NGO Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has la-belled thesituation one of the world’s most underreported humanitariancrises. MSF is the only international organization that providesreports from the area as it assists displaced in camps and also pro-vides mobile health services and nutritional support in remoterural areas (AHRC, 10 January 2007, June 2006, p.8, DWB, 9January 2007; COE-DMHA, 15 March 2007; The Economist, 17August 2006).

The security situation in the camps for Salwa Judum support-ers is alarming. In one reported incident, at least 26 people werekilled and 100 kidnapped when Maoists attacked a relief camp inthe Arabore village in the Dantewada district (COE-DMHA, 17July 2006).

Forced recruitment of children has also been reported. One report


states that the temporary relief camps have been turned into cen-tres for military training and anti-Maoist indoctrination educa-tion. Several reports say that both parties recruit minors for par-ticipation in the hostilities and that the children in relief campsare actively participating in Salwa Judum civil defense groups(AHRC, 17 March, p.4; All India Women, September 2006).12

4.7 Internal displacement in Gujarat

More than 2,000 people were killed and as many as 100,000Indian Muslims were forced from their homes in a major out-break of communal violence in Gujarat in February 2002. Thestate’s Muslim population was targeted in retaliation for an at-tack by a Muslim mob on a train carry-ing Hindu militants re-turning from the destruction of a celebrated mosque at Ayodhya.Women and girls were particularly targeted in the reprisal at-tacks; hundreds were raped, maimed and killed during the ri-ots. The state government organised relief camps, where theinternally displaced reportedly lacked the most basic necessitiessuch as food, medical supplies and sanitation (HRW, April 2002).Despite strong international concern, the Indian government re-fused to solicit or accept international assistance. By October2002, virtually all the camps had been closed, forcing many toreturn to their neighborhoods where their security was continu-ally threatened. In rural areas, incidents of killing and lootingcontinued until April 2003. Many were forced to flee to reliefcamps again, where they remained generally unassisted (AI Jan-uary 2005, 7.6.a).13

Both the state authorities and officials of the formerly governingBharatiya Janata Party have been accused of planning and insti-gating the violence against the Muslim population. Furthermore,

13Internal Displacement in India: Status, Condition Prospects of Return By MonikaMandal


the failure of the police to intervene and stop the violence is be-lieved to have been decreed at the highest level (AI, January 2005,7.5.b). Reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Interna-tional conclude that both the Indian government and the stategovernment of Gujarat have failed to provide sufficient protec-tion, assistance and compensation to the displaced. Since the ri-ots, there have been several clashes between Hindus and Muslims,but rarely lasting more than two days. The state government isstill being accused of complicity in the on-going violence againstthe Muslim community in Gujarat (AI, 8 March 2007; Commu-nalism Combat, June 2005; p.51; AI, January 2005, 7.6.c).13

The latest available information says that more than 5,000 fami-lies remain dis-placed in camps in Ahmedabad and Sabarkanthadistricts of Gujarat. However, the total figure is thought to bemuch higher. Many displaced are not counted because they haveblended into the slums surrounding the major towns. The Na-tional Commission for Minorities recommended after a visit to theGujarat camps that those displaced by the riots should receivecompensation and rehabilitation. The government has now offi-cially agreed to provide a relief package to the victims, which hasbeen acknowledge by several organizations as an important step inthe right direction, but the package regrettably does not includere-lief, rehabilitation and reparation for the internally displaced(The Hindu, 25 March 2007; AVHRS, 24 March 2007; Bisht, 16January 2007)13

4.8 Displacement of ‘Dalits’

Dalits (or so-called ”untouchables”, known in Indian legalterms as scheduled castes) are vulnerable to forced displacementin the aftermath of episodes of caste violence. In a report submit-ted to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimi-


nation (CERD), it is argued that the typical scenario is one whereDalit villages are attacked and looted by neighboring upper-castevillagers, forcing them to settle for months in temporary homeson government property. The perpetrators largely enjoy full im-punity and little is done to help the displaced Dalits return homeor to prosecute those responsible for the attacks (Centre for Hu-man Rights and Global Justice Hu-man Rights Watch, February2007, pp. 45-46; AHRC, January 2007, p.2).13

4.9 Humanitarian conditions

A large number of the displaced from the Kashmir Valleyhave been housed by relatives or in relief camps in Jammu orDelhi. Hindu schools for the displaced children have been con-structed and medical care provided, although the displaced pop-ulation says it is not enough to cover their needs. The remainingdisplaced population from villages along the Line of Control con-tinue to live in miserable conditions in camps that lack basicservices (Shekhawat/Mahapatra, June 2006, pp.4-5).13

The relief camps for internally displaced in the North-East arereportedly in a deplorable condition. Camps for the dis-placedacross the region are said to lack adequate shelter, food, healthcare, edu-cation and protection. This pattern has been confirmedby earlier reports which have documented that displaced through-out the North-East face severe hardship. Many of them live inpublic buildings and makeshift shelters, with little health care andno access to formal education (SAHRDC, March 2001). Both inAssam and in Tripura, acute food shortages and lack of healthcare leave internally dis-placed in acute hardship (MCRG, De-cember 2006; AHRC, January 2007, p.136). The state govern-ments say they have no money to provide relief to the displacedpopulation and that they de-pend on support from the central


government. Furthermore, thousands of those displaced by localinsurgent groups in the state are reported to have received no re-lief at all, and are camping alongside roads in makeshift housesseven years after having been displaced (Deccan Herald, 22 May2005). In Assam, it has been documented that the relief campsin the region are a major recruitment ground for trafficking ofwomen to other places in India (BBC, 10 April 2007; IRIN, 17May 2006).13

The same situation is reported from other relief camps for in-ternally displaced in India. In Chhattisgarh, several reports havedocumented that the relief camps offer neither adequate assis-tance, nor protection to the internally displaced. In Gu-jarat,there are reports of immense trauma among children and womenwho witnessed atrocities or were victims of the 2002 riots (IIJ,December 2003, pp.64, 67; HRW, July 2003). Also, the displacedMuslim population faces acute poverty as their livelihoods werelargely destroyed during the riots. Continued discrimination hasleft most of them unemployed,with female-headed households be-ing particularly vulnerable. The relief camps have inadequate ba-sic amenities such as potable water, sanitary facilities, schools andprimary healthcare centres (AHRC, 10 January 2007, pp. 19-20;Bisht, 16 January 2007; AI, January 2005, 7.6.c; IIJ, December2003).13

4.10 National and international response

The Indian government has repeatedly expressed reserva-tions in international fora about the UN Guiding Principles onInternal Displacement, which it sees as infringing its nationalsovereignty. India has no national IDP policy targeting conflictinduced IDPs, and the responsibility for IDP assistance and pro-tection is frequently delegated to the state governments. Further-


more, although it is well documented that Indian military, para-military and police forces have engaged in serious human rightsabuses in conflict zones, there have been no attempts at trans-parent investigations or prosecutions of those responsible (HRW,12 September, 2006).13

Although the Indian government provides support to conflict-affected populations, such assistance is mostly ad hoc and doesnot correspond to the needs of the displaced. State governmentsare assigned the main responsibility to assist and rehabilitatethe displaced, but practices vary significantly from state to state(Nath, January 2005, p.68). The Indian government has beenaccused of discriminatory treatment of internally displaced be-cause the displaced Kashmiri Pandit population overall receivesmuch more support than displaced communities elsewhere in thecountry (NNHR, 19 February 2007).13

While access to affected populations in conflict zones has fre-quently been denied, international NGOs have assisted IDPs inAssam and, occasionally, in Kashmir. Medecins Sans Frontieresworks with Santhal displaced in Assam and started programmesin the Karbi Anglong area when violence erupted there in Octo-ber 2005. The organisation also works in Chhattisgarh state incamps for internally displaced.

The Indian government has been accused of failing to adhere tothe UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and otherinternational human rights stan-dards in its response to displace-ment in Kashmir and Gujarat (AI, January 2005; HRW July 2003,p.38; ORF, September 2003). One survey conducted among dif-ferent displaced communities in India reveals that over 55 percent of the internally displaced do not receive any sup-port atall and only 13 per cent receive any assistance from the author-ities. The report also reveals that more than 70 per-cent of the


surveyed population believe that return will be impossible, a factthat underlines the need for the government to work out sus-tainable solutions (MCRG, December 2006, p. 16). In Gujarat,human rights organizations blame local authorities as well as thestate government for failing to address the needs of the dis-placedaltogether, despite promises made by the government with regardto rehabilitation (IIJ, December 2003; HRW, July 2003).13

The international community has largely failed to address issuesof internal displacement in India. In the case of Gujarat,AmnestyInternational accused UN and other international aid agencies offailing to put sufficient pressure on the State authorities to pro-vide relief to thousands of internally displaced victims, many ofthem women and children. Governments around the world byand large ignored the humanitarian crisis in Gujarat, providingno relief to the thousands of dis-placed persons in the state (AI,January 2005, 7.6.a).13

The lack of credible information on numbers and subsistenceneeds of the dis-placed leaves large numbers of people unassistedand unaccounted for. There is thus an urgent need for nationalauthorities to conduct surveys in conflict-affected areas to docu-ment the number of internally displaced and their specific needs.A more coherent response to situations where people flee conflictswould also include the creation of a national institutional focalpoint on internal dis-placement and a national legal frameworkupholding the rights of internally dis-placed. A draft nationaldisplacement policy has been formulated that addresses the re-habilitation of people displaced by development projects, but hasbeen severely criticised for failing to acknowledge the rights ofthe displaced (AHRC, 18 April 2007).12


4.11 Displacement due to development projects

and natural disasters

Available reports indicate that more than 21 million peopleare internally displaced due to development projects in India. Al-though the tribal population only make up eight percent of thetotal population, more than 50 per cent of the development in-duced displaced are tribal peoples – in India also known as Sched-uled Tribes or Adivasis (HRW, January 2006). Ongoing researchindicate that between 1945-2000 the number of displaced who didnot receive rehabilitation could be as high as 50-60 million people.While the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre focuses onconflict-induced displacement, a brief background note and linksto further information on development induced displacement isincluded in the background section of the profile (link includedin list of sources).12

Floods and other natural disasters also displace millions everyyear. The Indian Ocean tsunami, which hit southern India in De-cember 2004, devastated the Andaman and Nicobar Islands anda 2,260-km stretch of the mainland coastline in Andhra Pradesh,Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. An estimated 2.7 millionpeople were affected by the disaster and hundreds of thousandswere displaced (ADB, 29 December 2006). Indian-controlled Kash-mir was also badly affected by the South Asian earthquake inOctober 2005, which made thousands of people homeless.12

Documents

Chapter 4 INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS IN INDIAshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/105403... · minority in Jammu and Kashmir, and by shelling between Indian and Pakistani