South Asia - Articles

It is generally assumed that refugees and IDPs (internally displaced persons) are one and the same and that the only distinctions between them are bureaucratic and legal. But, though both categories are displaced from their traditional homes due to similar reasons and have similar needs, there is a clear distinction. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement submitted by Francis M Deng, Representative of the UN Secretary General, describes IDPs as those "forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of, or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border." On the other hand, refugees are defined as those persons who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." Thus, the key distinction lies between persons who are within or outside the borders of their own countries from where they are displaced. The distinction has to do with 'status' and whether or not such persons eligible for international protection if persecuted by their own governments.

IDPs are the single largest population at risk in the world. An estimated 20 to 25 million persons have been forcibly displaced within the territories of over 50 countries due to violent conflicts and resulting human rights violations (conflict-induced) or by natural disasters or development projects (development-induced); majority of displacement is conflict-induced. With around 13 million, Africa has more IDPs than the rest of the world put together. The major areas of conflicts that induce IDPs include Rwanda, Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea Bissau, Sudan, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal and Chechnya. It is significant that an overwhelming majority of the internally displaced are poor; women and children constitute about 70 to 90 per cent of the IDPs; and civil wars are the main cause for the generation of IDPs in the post-Cold War era. Surprisingly, IDPs outnumber refugees by factors of two.

The difficulties faced by IDPs are numerous but distinct. Since they are not far from conflict areas, their physical security remains in jeopardy. Their quality of life and potential for physical and emotional growth is dormant; family and community life is almost totally destroyed; the opportunity for cultural activity hardly exists and the right of movement is highly restricted. Those living in camps, especially women, have to endure outrageous invasions of their privacy. Basic health care for all and education of children are virtually non-existent. Their right to participate and contest in the political processes is difficult. Above all, they hardly get any assistance from the state, as it is one of the actors responsible for their displacement. In short, they are caught between the state and anti-state forces.

Unlike refugees, IDPs are not covered by any kind of international conventions or protocols. What is available is the "Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement" which identify the "specific needs of internally displaced persons worldwide and their rights and guarantees relevant to the protection of persons from forced displacement and to their protection and assistance during displacement as well as during return or resettlement and reintegration." As the name suggests, these Principles are only for guidance and are not binding. Undeniably, IDPs fall within the ambit of international humanitarian law and the national law of the state concerned. However, these legal provisions cannot be properly enforced due to the lack of any legal instrument for IDPs. The negligence at the international level is mainly due to lack of adequate pressure for addressing this issue. As long as the displaced are not crossing the borders of a state no one is bothered. The principles of 'sovereignty' and 'non-interference' are usually cited as excuses, and it is argued that it is the duty of the state to protect the IDPs. Whatever little (re)action from the international community has focused on providing some kind of material assistance to the affected. The root causes of displacement and the protection of IDPs are not given any emphasis.