In a globalising,
liberalising and corporatising economy, we have been ignoring labour
rights laws and standards which guarantee migrants’ rights.
They are vilified as ‘illegals,’ ‘gate-crashers,’ ‘queue-jumpers,’ and
‘invaders’ seeking to breach the defences and decorum of Maharashtra
and Delhi. They are labelled security threats, or suspected or
potential threats, in Gujarat. They are tortured and murdered in
Manipur and Assam. The scapegoating of migrants, the deliberate
fuelling of fear, and the nurturing of discriminatory, casteist and
xenophobic sentiments by some politicians and sections of the media,
have been accompanied by regular incidents that amount to trampling on
some of the most basic rights of migrants, including the right to life,
liberty and security of the person. The current discourses create the
impression not only that migrants have no right to enter, but that they
have no rights at all. The hatred and violence against non-citizens,
non-nationals, particularly migrants, could constitute one of the main
sources of contemporary conservatism in India.
In the context of a globalising, liberalising and corporatising
economy, we have been ignoring the substantial body of labour rights
laws and standards which guarantees the rights of migrants. Our
governments have no will today to turn these guarantees into practical
and meaningful measures to respect, protect and promote migrants’
rights.
The “life-cycle” of migrant labour — the decision to leave the village
or town of origin, the migratory journey, arrival and work in the place
of destination, possibly back and forth to the village of origin — is
the story of exploitation, invisibility, discrimination, and detention.
It is also one of denial of adequate housing, human standards of living
and access to health care; abuses of the right to work and rights at
work; negation of freedom of association and restrictions on freedom of
expression.
Overall, the treatment is degrading. Except for a few trade unions and
labour support groups, there is hardly anybody working and campaigning
to pressure governments, employers and others to make the rights that
are set out in national and international laws into a reality for
individual migrants. This silent human rights crisis should shame our
conscience.
Thousands of people are migrating every day in the country, sometimes
as a result of poverty and unemployment, or as a result of national,
regional and global economic processes. Often this represents
uncontrolled and unregulated movement of poor people.
Our governments’ omissions and commissions in the recent past on issues
relating to migrants are to be seen not only in the sea of humanity
travelling from one place to another without any sign of governance. In
spheres such as employment, housing and security, the limits of state
sovereignty are starkly on display. Instead of the state and its
agencies, companies, contractors, middlemen, power brokers and
politicians exercise exclusive jurisdiction over migrants. They
exercise authority over their living and working. They hire and fire
them at will. Thus, the need is to evoke state sovereignty in support
of migrant people. Maharashtra, Assam and Manipur have the obligation
to respect their voluntarily assumed legal obligations, including in
protecting the rights of all migrants.
However, States today assert their sovereignty vis-À-vis
migrants in paradoxical ways. As seen in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Delhi
at different points in time, when state sovereignty is impacted by
political, religious or other narrow considerations and circumstances,
migration measures, such as identification, and the issue of ration
cards or voter identity cards, are a visible means of asserting state
authority. States claim the sovereign right to exercise power over the
migrants, their citizenship, their habitation and territory. There are
few areas where this claim is made more forcefully by our governments
than in the sphere of migration. In such cases, the need is to say that
state sovereignty is not absolute, it is not without limits.
Sovereignty cannot be used as a defence for acts that are unlawful and
unjust. Advocates for migrant rights should seek to ensure that the
primary starting point of the national migration regime is the rights
of migrants rather than the interests of States. This has become even
more of a necessity as many politicians and policymakers are
increasingly influenced by a perception that a hard line on migrants
would boost their popularity with the electorate. Migrants are made
easy targets; the political currents, it is thought, can be ignited
more by narrow local-regional sentiments and preoccupations about the
perceived threats that they pose to the identity and security of the
state.
Most migration management policies and pronouncements today are getting
to be discriminatory. Governments encourage selected migration in white
collar work while officially discouraging the migration of the poor and
marginal people. The Delhi government that publicly states the absolute
necessity to exclude irregular Bangladeshi migrants from its territory,
is prepared to tolerate the existence and even the growth of informal
labour markets for the purpose of preparing for the Commonwealth Games
or the Delhi Metro project which rely largely on the labour of
unregulated migrants.
If a regime of “migration management” is to be effective, not only must
it be credible to the States, it must be credible to the migrants. We
never hear of the participation of organisations of migrant workers,
individual migrants and their groups in the making of their laws and
policies. To achieve their participation and to respect their presence,
we must halt the rise in forms of physical and mental abuse and
violence at any stage of their living and working.
In the context of Maharashtra and Manipur, it is regrettable that the
debate on migration and migrant workers continues to be framed in the
immediate political contexts, with little or no focus on the rights of
migrants. On the contrary, the ‘horror,’ ‘fear’ and ‘violence,’ coupled
with the statements of political leaders and political parties, have
dominated the discussion of migration issues amongst decision-makers
and the public. There has been a tendency in public debates to treat
migrants either as victims or as criminals. Portraying them as
criminals or terrorists or parasites, or as being parochial, encourages
a climate in which abuses against them are simplified, passed up or
even condoned. Strategies are needed against the attacks and the new
conservatism. The migrants’ capacity to organise, to adapt and to find
ways out of bad situations must be recognised.
Migrants cannot put in place an exit strategy before embarking on their
journey. So we must focus on those migrants who are most at risk. The
voices of some courageous individuals and groups who speak out for
migrants’ rights must not be silenced as we have been witnessing almost
regularly in the slums of different cities.
Non-state actors, including private companies and individuals,
millionaires and billionaires, contractors and builders, have a big
impact on the lives and human dignity of migrants, although the primary
duty to protect the migrants remains with the States. Migrants are part
of the solution, not the problem itself.
(Mukul Sharma is the Director of Amnesty International in India.)
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/03/27/stories/2008032754321100.htm
Copyright © 2008, The Hindu.
