Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
India’s 40 million strong migrant population has been undergoing a tremendous crisis during the COVID – 19 pandemic, where they are not able to return to their home states as they are stuck in the cities they work in during lockdown.
A lack of government initiatives to provide these people with adequate food and resources, they are not able to sustain themselves in the city, where they live hand to mouth, and cannot return due to the inter state movement restrictions and also the lack of transport.
In a scenario such as this, when all democratic safeguards and government provisions have failed, there is a need to elevate the seriousness of this issue so as to elicit stronger action. One way to do this is to characterize these workers as Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) as per the Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement developed by the United Nations.
IDPs are persons who have been forced to flee or leave their homes and cannot return due to certain circumstances and are thus displaced, but have not crossed any international boundary. The Kashmiri Pandits would be a good example of Internally Displaced people. The conventional understanding of an Internally Displaced Person is someone who is driven out of his/her home due to persecution or deprivation.
But the Migrant crisis during this pandemic has also led to a similar situation, albeit due to natural reasons, but also due to a lack of effective action on part of the government, where they cannot return to their native places of residence despite being free citizens in a democracy.
What strengthens the case for this categorization is the fact that they are living in deprived conditions, they have no way to be economically productive, and have no Right of Self Determination whatsoever.
Indian courts however, have been reluctant to accept this notion into the national laws of India and the Supreme Court has regularly regarded the Principles on IDPs as non binding and not applicable to the Indian scenario. However, there are some judgements which affirm the principles and regard them as applicable in the Indian context.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Vijay Mam acknowledged the role of GPID as the gap-filler within the realm of national as well as international law.Similarly, Justice Gita Mittal, in her judgment in PK Koul v. Estate Officer, found GPID to be part of India’s domestic law. However, the invocation and the application of the GPID before the Indian courts has remained ad-hoc and inconsistent.
Apart from this, the treaties and conventions that the Indian Government is part of precludes it to take preventive steps to manage disaster risk and provide affected people basic resources and an acceptable standard of living during a crisis or disaster.
The migrant workers which form the backbone of our economic structures, have been disillusioned by the apathetic attitude of the establishment towards their condition, and their plight must be the centre of mainstream discourse and their humanity must be paramount in these trying times.
86540
103860
630
114
59824