English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

In 10 years, over 10 times rise in number of Indians seeking asylum as they feel threatened

Published

on

In 10 years, over 10 times rise in number of Indians seeking asylum as they feel threatened

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In 10 years from 2008-2018, there was a more than 10 times rise in number of Indian people seeking asylum in other countries as they felt their life and liberty would be in danger if they continue to reside here.

In 2009, 4,722 Indians applied for political asylum in other countries. By 2018, this number rose to 51,769, reveals an IndiaToday.(IT) in analysis of data collected by the office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

In these 10 years, the United States and Canada have remained the most favoured countries for Indians seeking political asylum. In 2009, as many as 1,321 Indians applied for political asylum in the US while 1,039 did it in Canada, the IT report said. But in 2018, a total of 28,489 Indians applied for political asylum in the US in 2018 while 5,522 did it in Canada.

The Narendra Modi government in 2018 told Parliament it believes that those who apply for asylum to a foreign government “denigrate the system in India to obtain personal gains despite the fact that India, being a democratic country, provides avenues for everyone to redress their grievances lawfully”, reported IT.

United Nations data on asylum seekers for 2018 show that after the US and Canada, Indians prefer to seek political asylum in South Africa (4,329), followed by Australia (3,584), the UK (1,667), South Korea (1,657) and Germany (1,313).

Seeking political asylum in these countries isn’t surprising as they are all developed economies and have an image of being peaceful and prosperous.

Also Read: Skeletal remains of 108 children found outside Muzaffarpur Hospital

But what may come as surprising to some is that Indians have also sought political asylum in countries like Yemen, Sudan, Burundi, Bosnia among others – countrieswhich have routinely hogged headlines for war and armed unrest in recent times, said the IT report.

Overall, in 2018 there were 57 countries where Indians applied for political asylum.

UNHCR reports show that despite being the world’s largest democracy, India is not a popular destination among political asylum seekers.

For example, in 2018 there were 35.03 lakh political asylum seekers in the world but only 0.34 per cent of them (11,957) sought political asylum in India.

The US, Germany and Turkey were the most favoured destinations for political asylum seekers with 7.18 lakh, 3.69 lakh and 3.11 lakh people applying to these countries respectively.

But this does not mean that no one is applying to India. When it comes to South Asia, India has the largest number of political asylum applications. In 2018, of the 11,957 political asylum seekers in India, 65 per cent (7,864) were from Afghanistan. This was followed by those from Myanmar (2,064) and Yemen (1,134).

Overall, people from 40 countries sought political asylum in India fearing threat to their lives in their native countries.

Analysing data for political asylum requests related to India, IT said that the number of Indians seeking political asylum abroad is 334 per cent more than the number of people from other countries seeking political asylum in India in 2018.

These political asylum requests aside, by the end of 2018 India was sheltering close to 1.95 lakh refugees, but Pakistan and Bangladesh had more.

Pakistan had the largest population of refugees (14.04 lakh, mostly from Afghanistan), followed by Bangladesh (9.06 lakh, mostly Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar).

India is not a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Conventions on the status of refugees, neither has it signed the 1967 UN protocol on the same. These two detail the rights and protection that refugees can enjoy in host countries.

Also Read: Over 12000 farmer suicides in four years in Maharashtra, says state govt

Besides this, India does not have a clearly defined domestic policy on refugees nor is there any law to guide authorities on how refugees must be treated in India. Their treatment so far has been subjective and varied from case to case.

The legal hurdle aside, global data on refugees and asylum seekers show that a majority of people who are forced to leave their native country prefer to take refuge in some neighbouring country.

UNHCR report titled “Global trends: Forced displacement in 2018” states that there were 25.9 million refugees in 2018. The report says nearly four out of five (i.e. 80 per cent) refugees live in countries neighbouring their country of origin.

When it comes to India’s immediate neighbourhood, Afghanistan, China (Tibet), Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have been sources of refugees because of internal disturbances and civil war there.

India received thousands of refugees from Pakistan (at the time of Partition in 1947), Tibet (in the late 1950s and early 1960s when the Dalia Lama escaped Tibet and took shelter in India), Bangladesh (in 1970s during the Bangladesh Liberation War) and Sri Lanka (in late 1980s during the civil war).

But in recent times barring the protracted war in Afghanistan and the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, there hasn’t been any major trigger that forced large-scale displacement of people.

Also Read: FATF gives Pakistan time till October to act against terror, India says it expects compliance

In the past few years India has seen an aggressive politicisation on the issue of providing shelter to refugees, especially Rohingya Muslims.

The BJP has been vocal in demanding repatriation of Rohingya. It has often claimed that they pose threat to national security. Other political parties, including the Congress, have shied away from being vocal on the issue and taking a clear stand.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Entertainment

Bharti Singh, Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcome second child after she’s rushed to hospital mid-shoot

Comedian Bharti Singh and her husband Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcomed their second child after she was rushed to hospital during a television shoot.

Published

on

Bharti

Popular comedian and television personality Bharti Singh and her husband, writer-host Haarsh Limbachiyaa, have welcomed their second child. The baby was born on Friday after Bharti was taken to the hospital following a sudden medical emergency earlier in the day, according to media reports.

Emergency during television shoot led to hospitalisation

As per available information, Bharti Singh was scheduled to shoot for the television show Laughter Chefs on Friday morning when her water broke unexpectedly. She was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital, where she later delivered her second child. No further details about the baby have been shared publicly so far.

The news of the delivery comes weeks after the couple announced Bharti’s second pregnancy on social media.

Pregnancy announcement and maternity shoot

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa had revealed the pregnancy during a family vacation in Switzerland. A few weeks ago, Bharti also shared pictures from her maternity photoshoot, where she was seen wearing a blue silk gown with white floral patterns.

Sharing the photos online, Bharti wrote, “2nd Baby Limbachiya coming soon,” along with a baby emoji.

Family background

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa became parents for the first time in 2022, when they welcomed their son, Lakshya.

The couple is among the most well-known faces on Indian television. Bharti is widely recognised for her comic timing and distinctive on-screen persona, while Haarsh has made his mark as a writer and host. Apart from their television work, the two also co-host a podcast together.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi attacks G RAM G bill, says move against villages and states

Rahul Gandhi has criticised the G RAM G bill cleared by Parliament, alleging it dilutes the rights-based structure of MGNREGA and centralises control over rural employment.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com