Abstract
Citizenship as a concept has transcended to include from individual to group rights, which has been articulated as claims. Similarly, membership, has expanded to include various dimensions such as culture, legal and group, that stretched the ‘limits of democratic practices’ (Offe C, J Polit Philos 6(2):113–141, 1998) and institutions (Turner 2001). But, the issue of alienage has remained unresolved especially in the context to the idea of universal citizenship. It questions, the manner in which such boundaries are constructed on the basis of presumed ‘bounded citizenship’. The issue of alienage challenges citizenship on two levels: one, boundary or threshold citizenship and, two, internal question related to the universal idea of citizenship. Interestingly, the concept of citizenship has been stretched to accommodate some of the basic developments yet, it has remained individual focused, and the rights of aliens and migrants have remained in the periphery. Sassen S (Br J Sociol 51(1):143–159, 2000) and Soysal Y N (Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994) discuss the issue of postnational citizenship from different perspectives. Sassen argues that postnational citizenship is more broad-based than the concept of denationalised citizenship, as state remains the point of interest, and citizenry rights evolve outside the state, while in denationalised citizenship rights remain within the domains of the state. The task of the chapter is twofold: first, to argue that camp for refugees is no longer exceptional, rather, it is an active political space for refugees to engage with ideas of belonging, and second, it is a place to assert claims of citizenship. Drawing from citizenship discourse, the paper assert that the right-based analysis has attempted to engage with noncitizens, and India is no exception to the rule.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
‘Belonging’ is normally determined on the basis of citizenship rights within a territorially demarcated state. The literature on ‘belonging’ tends to view rights attached to a particular territory and identity (cultural) derived as a result of this. I will draw from the literature on citizenship to understand claims of belonging.
- 2.
Debate around this conflict has two dominant approaches: ‘radical universalist’ which talks for open border and civic republican perspective of ‘thick conception of citizenship’.
- 3.
The Biharis in Bangladesh were part of the West Pakistan’s legacy which was never incorporated within the folds of new created democratic state of Bangladesh. Most of the non-Bengalis were part of nonindependence movement in East Pakistan, and upon creation of the new state of Bangladesh, they were termed as traitors, hence denied any official status or recognition. Since they were sympathisers of Pakistani nationalism and opposed Bengali nationalism, they were de facto stateless in Bangladesh. They continued to live in camps waiting to be repatriated. They are still stranded in camps in the outskirts of Dhaka, at Mirpur and Mohammadpur and more than 20,000 refugees live at densities of ten people or more to a tent. The camp contains a large number of widows and infants. Short-term problems in the camps are not only food and health issues, but they also include some basic amenities like water, sanitation, security, etc. In the event of being repatriated to the state of origin, there seems little possibility that receiving polity would reinstate full citizenship rights.
- 4.
The Estate Tamils were brought to the central part of the island of Sri Lanka by the British starting in 1834 to work on coffee and, later, tea plantations (Valentine 1996, 75). As labourers on the tea estate, they occupied the lowest socio-economic stratum of Sri Lanka’s society, earning lower wages than those in the other sectors of the economy of the island and suffering poorer literacy rates and poorer health and housing compared to the rest of the population (Sahadevan 1995). They are different from the other Tamil population from India who inhabit the north and east of the island. Under the constitutional reforms of 1928, the Estate Tamils were given the right to vote (Weiner 1993, 1153), but since independence in 1948, both the Sinhalese and the Sri Lankan Tamils view the Estate Tamils as an opportunist group of ‘unwanted migrants who should return home’ (Weiner 1993, 1159). After independence, the Estate Tamils claimed citizenship under the new Ceylon Citizenship Act of 1948. This proved to be a difficult task as most of the Estate Tamil families, who had returned to India to marry and consequently had children, did not have the requisite documents. Furthermore, no official registration of birth existed until 1897 (Peiris 1974, 153). The Ceylon Citizenship Act was soon followed by the Indian and Pakistani Residents Acts of 1949, which seem less draconian than the 1948 legislation in that they provided for a 7- or 10-year period of ‘uninterrupted residence’ in Sri Lanka as a qualification for citizenship. This further disenfranchised the Estate Tamil workers who periodically returned to Tamil Nadu and had no documents to prove 7 or 10 years of ‘uninterrupted residence’. In addition to the residential qualification, applicants needed an assured income that was beyond the reach of the majority of Estate Tamils (Sahadevan 1995, 128). This led to both the disenfranchisement and the denial of citizenship for over 95% of the Estate workers, that is, for over 1 million people Weiner (1993, 1154).
- 5.
The existence of multiple nationalities in one country has tempered the citizen-alien dichotomy, making it easier for refugees to find shelter in India. That inclusivity was exemplified by the former Foreign Secretary and National Security Adviser the late J.N. Dixit’s response to Lhotshampa refugees staying in India instead of returning to Nepal: ‘Mother India will take care of them’. (M. P. Lama, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Address at the UNHCR Seminar on Refugee Protection: New Challenges) (June 19, 2006).
- 6.
Mixed migration flows include refugees, asylum seekers, economic and environmental migrants, victims of trafficking and others. Their reasons for migrating may range from a single or many ‘push’ or ‘pull’ factors or a combination of them. Push factors include targeted persecution, generalised or disparate incidents of violence, real or perceived threats and environmental degradation. Pull factors include economic opportunities, political freedoms and educational opportunities. Migrants in a mixed flow may travel by air, land, sea or a combination of them. Refugees and migrants often utilise the same means of transportation, which are often illegal, and travel together (See generally UNHCR, Mixed Migration, available at http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/mixed-migration.html).
- 7.
Although the word ‘aliens’ is nowhere defined, it appears in the Constitution of India (Art. 22 part 3 and Entry 17, List I, Schedule 7) in Section 83 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code and in section ‘Making Citizens: A View from Within’ (2) (b) of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1955, as well as some other statutes. Several acts are of relevance to the regulation of aliens in India including the Foreigners’ Act of 1946; the Registration Act, 1939; Passport (Entry into India) Acts, 1967; etc.
- 8.
Khudiram Chakma had approached the Supreme Court when his life was threatened within the state of Arunachal Pradesh. The Supreme Court observed that ‘the fundamental right of the foreigner is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and settle in this country as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e) which is applicable only to citizens of this country.
- 9.
See Art. 1(A) (2) of the 1951 Convention on Refugees.
- 10.
Article 33 paragraph (1) of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.
- 11.
Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department, Policy Note: Demand No 42, Miscellaneous 1996 –97 (Madras 1996).
- 12.
It is imperative to note that most of these Sri Lankan refugees entering India were much poorer compared to those who sought refuge in the West. Some of these refugees who had relatives in India avoided being registered and never lived in camps. The Tamils who lived in camps were mostly registered refugees.
- 13.
Department of Rehabilitation, Government of Tamil Nadu.
- 14.
I am grateful to Linda Bosniak for proposing the problem of alienage.
Bibliography
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life (D. Heller-Roazen, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Agier, M. (2011). Managing the undesirables: Refugee camps and humanitarian government. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Arendt, H. (2003). The portable hannah arendt. Penguin Classics.
Austin, G. (1999). Working a democratic constitution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Balibar, E. (1998). Propositions on citizenship. Ethics, 98(4), 723–730.
Bauman, Z. (2004). Wasted lives: Modernity and its outcasts. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bhabha, H. (2008). Notes on globalization and Ambivalence. In C. P. Innovation, & H. L. David Held (Ed.). Oxford: Oneworld.
Black, R. (1998, August 2). Putting refugees in camps. Forceed Migration Review, 4–7.
Bosak, T. (2003). Human rights and citizenship: The case of Mexican migrants in Canada (Working Papers 72). San Diego: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California.
Bosniak, L. (2000). Citizenship denationalized (The state of citizenship symposium). Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 7(2), 447–508.
Bosniak, L. (2006). The citizen and the alien dilemmas of contemporary membership. Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Bosniak, L. (2017). Status non-citizens. In A. Shachar, R. Bauboeck, I. Bloemraad, & M. Vink (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of citizenship. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bowles, E. (1998, August 2). From village to camp: Refugee camp life in transition on the Thailand-Burma border. Forced Migration Review.
Brubaker, R. (1998). Ethnic and nationalist violence. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 423–452.
Carens, J. (1992). Refugees and the limits of obligation. Public Affairs Quarterly, 6(1), 31–44.
Chakrabarty, D. (2012). Postcolonial studies and the challenges of climate change. New Literal History, 43 (1), 1–18.
Chimni, B. (1993). Meaning of words and role of UNHCR in voluntary repatriation. International Journal of Refugee Law, 5(3), 442–461.
Chimni, B. S. (1994). The legal conditions of refugees in India. Journal of Refugee Studies, 7(4), 394–398.
Chowdhory, N. (2007). Belonging in exile and ‘home:’ the politics of repatriation in South Asia. PhD dissertation (Unpublished), McGill University.
Chowdhory, N. (2016a). Displacement – a ‘state of exception’ and beyond: introductory remarks. International Journal of Migration and Border Studies, 2(2), 95–98.
Chowdhory, N. (2016b). Marginality and state of exception in camps in South Asia. International Journal of Migration and Border Studies, 2(2), 132–148.
Chowdhory, N. (2018). Refugees, citizenship and belonging in South Asia: Contested terrains. Singapore: Springer.
Connolly, W. (1991). Identity/Difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox (Expanded Edition). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Das, V., & Poole, D. (Eds.). (2004). Anthropology in the margins of the state. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Davis, N. Y. (1999). The multi-layered citizens: Citizens in ‘glocalization. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1(1), 119–136.
De Genova, N. (2002). Migrant Illegality and Deportability in Everyday Life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419–447.
Ganguly, S., & Miliate, B. (2015, September). When refugees were welcome:India in 1971 Vs. Europe today. Retrieved from www.foreignaffairs.com: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/india/2015-09-22/when-refugees-were-welcome
Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department, Policy Note: Demand No 42, Miscellaneous 1996-97 (Madras 1996).
Harrell-Bond, B. (1998, August 2). Camps: Literature review. Forced Migration Review, 22–23.
Hassmann, R. E., & Walton-Roberts, M. (2015). Slippery citizenship. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Press.
Holzer, E. (2013). What happens to Lae in a refugee camp? Law and Society Review, 47(4), 837–872.
Honig, B. (2009). Emergency politics: Paradox, law, democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104(2), 352–381.
Loescher, G. (2001). The UNHCR and the world politics: A perilous path. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marshall, T. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge: University Press.
Minogue, K. (1995). Two concepts of citizenship. In A. L. Dragovic (Ed.), Citizenship East and West. London: Routledge.
Myard, D. (2010). Sadruddin Aga Khan and the 1971 East Pakistani Crisis 27. Retrieved from (Global Migration Centre of the Graduate Institute of Geneva, Global Migration Research Paper No. 1): http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/sites/globalmigration/shared/Publications/GMC%20-%20Global%20Migration%20Research%20Paper%20Series%201.pdf
Nyers, P. (2006). Rethinking refugees: Beyond states of emergency. New York: Routledge.
Offe, C. (1998). “Homogeneity” and constitutional democracy: Coping with identity conflicts through group rights. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(2), 113–141.
Peiris, T. (1974). Citizenship law and the republic of Sri Lanka (Ceylon): A study of the citizenship act. Colombo: Own Publications.
Reed-Danahay, D., & Brettell, C. (Eds.). (2008). Citizenship, political engagement, and belonging: Immigrants in Europe and the United States. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Sahadevan, P. (1995). India and the overseas Indians: The case of Sri Lanka. New Delhi: Kalinga Publications.
Shachnove (1993). From asylum to containment, International Journal of Refugee Law, 5, 4, 1 January 1993, 516–533. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/5.4.516
Samaddar, R. (1999). The marginal nation: Transborder migration from Bangladesh to West Bengal. New Delhi: Sage.
Sampat Kumar, R. (1989). Returnees in Sri Lanka: Life starts again. Refugees, 63, 19–21.
Sassen, S. (1994). Cities in a world economy. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in the an age globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sassen, S. (1999). Globalization and its discontents: Essays on the new mobility of people and money. New York: New Press.
Sassen, S. (2000). New frontiers facing urban sociology at the Millennium. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 143–159.
Saxena, J. (1986). Legal status of refugees: The Indian position. Indian Journal of International Law, 26, 501–515.
Sigano, N. (2014). Campzenship: reimagining the camp as a social and political space. Citizenship Studies, 19(1), 1–15.
Silverman, M. (1992). Deconstructing the nation: Immigration, racism and citizenship in modern France. London: Routledge.
Soguk, N. (1999). States and strangers: Refugees and displacements of statecraft. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and posnationalist membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Soysal, Y. N. (2000). Citizenship and identity in post war Europe. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(1), 1–15.
Suhrke, A. (1998). Burden-sharing during refugee emergencies: The logic of collective versus national action. Journal of Refugee Studies, 11(4), 395–415.
Turner, B. (1990). Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology, 24, 89–217.
Turner, B. (2001). Outline of a cultural theory of citizenship. In N. Stevenson (Ed.), Culture and Citizenship (pp. 11–33). London: Sage.
Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–22.
UNHCR. (2011). UNHCR global appeal 2011 update: India. Retrieved May 28, 2018, from www.unhcr.org: http://www.unhcr.org/4cd96e919.pdf
Vajpeyi, A. (2007). Prolegomena to the study of people and places in modern India. New Delhi: WISCOMP.
Valentine, D. (1996). Chapters in the anthropology of violence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Varikas, E. (2007). The outcasts of the world: Images of the pariah. Paris: Stock.
Wacquant, L. (2007). Urban outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Wagner, S. M. (1993). Political asylum, immigration and citizenship in federal republic of Germany. New Political Science, 24–25, 59–73.
Walzer, M. (2008). On promoting democracy. Ethics & International Affairs, 22(4), 351–355.
Weiner, M. (1993, August 21). Rejected Peoples and Unwanted Migrants in South Asia. Economic & Political Weekly, 28(34), 1737–1746.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197–214.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chowdhory, N. (2019). Citizenship and Membership: Placing Refugees in India. In: Uddin, N., Chowdhory, N. (eds) Deterritorialised Identity and Transborder Movement in South Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2778-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2778-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2777-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2778-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)